Evolution of religious bigotry

[fossten]

but then, this was 250,000,000 years ago, before modern man and noah. nice try at a biblical correlation though. would of been more believable if man wasn't present. you stick with your superstition then.

Your logic is unbelievable. At least men were around 6,000 years ago to record history. There's no chance whatsoever that anyone witnessed the things that you claim happened, yet you stick with your superstition.

 

[shagdrum]

i see you read the whole article from the link? then you would have some understanding. genetics is used for the diversity of differences. the fact of the worm traces in an older period than the cambrian. the trails, although scarce, are proof of earlier existence than cambrian. the diversity was there before. you are only spinning and confusing yourself shag. a large fossil record is not proof that everything happened at once. it only proves a large diversity at a given time.

What? It seems you may not fully understand what you are posting. Everything I said was consistent with what was posted and wasn't spin, as you try to imply, and you know it.

The argument is that evidence suggest that there was more diversity then previously thought before the Cambrian Explosion, and that can explain the huge explosion of diversity in the Cambrian period because it really wasn't such a huge thing.

The problem is, the evidence still says nothing about evolution. All the evidence shows is adaptation, which it implies is evolution.

It is also based on questionable evidence. New, unproven techiques with questionable accuracy (new techniques based on "estimates"). The study also bases the info on fossilized dung where much of the genetic material is highly degraded, and a lot of admitted "trace evidence". All this (mixed with the fact that it is only one study) suggests that these findings aren't near as conclusive as you are trying to imply by posting it here.

It also makes some pretty big intellectual leaps and assumptions. Because we can find evidence of a more diverse population of worms in the pre-cambrian period then we originally thought, that shows that there was much more diversity across the board and that lessens the possibility that there was an "explosion" of diversity in the Cambrian period.

It also never shows anything that can be viewed as evidence of evolution, which is the whole point of this debate. Only adaptation is every shown (and questionably, at that).

Your whole point in posting that (that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't an "explosion" as there was already much more diversity they originally thought in the pre cambrian) is hardly conclusively proven. At best, a little doubt is cast on the Pre-Cabrian explosion by this study, but one study, no matter how accurate, cannot disprove something like the Cambrian Explosion (which this study really doesn't try to do, by its own admission). More studies and much more evidence is needed to logically disprove the Cambrian Explosion. The study really only suggests a reasonable diverse population of worms, likely in the pre-cambrian. The rest is mere speculation and inference based on assumptions and leaps in reasoning.

using new tools to probe old mysteries is what science is about. you seem to be rather stuck in age old answers that don't answer anything. just pose the mystery and leave it at that.

So new methods must not be questioned?! That's hardly logical. A new method of study (techniques, ect) has to be proven reliable before it can be view as having any credibility. It must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. It's not like unproven and/or unreliable techniques haven't distorted findings before, leading to faulty or false conclusions, or been used before to intentionally spin the evidence and distort the issue (Computer models and global warming).

instead i prefer the new answers that narrow down the evidence rather than staying with ancient thought.(kind of like religion) keep hiding from new answers and you'll keep in your clouded ancient ways. and as long as you quote short, you can spin it how you like. take the whole section together, and it comes to a different understanding.

You prefer? So you are dictated by your own bias? You should not "prefer" any technique or answers over others. Otherwise you compromise your intellectual honesty in any search for the truth. You go where the info leads, not where you want it to lead; a uninterested search for the truth.

When it comes to old techniques vs new; old techniques are proven and consistent; giving a known degree of reliability that has been proven. New techniques don't have that, so logically must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. If they are proven to be consistently more reliable then old techniques, then they eventually replace the old technique. When it comes to new vs old (in almost anything), the burden of proof always logically lies with the new, not the other way around, as you are trying to spin it. It's called the precautionary principle.

You are trying to spin logical, disinterested, critical thinking as "non-progressive" which is an ad homenem, underhanded rhetorical tactic.

Again, You need to make the argument easy to read to your audience. Break it down, summarize it in your own words, etc. If your audience can't understand the argument, then it is irrelevant, and suggests that you may not understand it and thus cannot break it down (which is becoming more and more likely in my mind).

 

[shagdrum]

science is hardly superstition. there is nothing supernatural about it

Superstition is not, by definition, supernatural.

Here is one of your favorite sources :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

• Superstition is a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge.

Superstition can be spiritually based, but doesn't have to be. "Science" can be superstitious. Prime example; Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.

 

[fossten]

science is hardly superstition. there is nothing supernatural about it. evidence exists, and dating this evidence is not questionable to the degree you would to fit the bible. of course the errancy is greater at more distant dating. but even if you allow %10, it hardly comes out at a 6000yr old earth. life has existed in some form since about 3.8 billion years. higher life couldn't start to exist until less than 1 billion years ago when oxygen became high enough to sustain it. as long as you keep finding things that strengthen your faith, hey, all the power to ya. find all the reverse logic and babble you can. i hope it's enough to carry these beliefs beyond the next century, but i doubt it.

Science is observation and experimentation, not evolution. Until science actually OBSERVES and/or EXPERIMENTS one species changing into another, evolution is nothing but a wild guess. Until "evolutionary science" actually finds a missing link between species that supposedly evolved into one another, evolution is unproven and unlikely. Believing that a bird evolved into a reptile is not backed up by science, fossil evidence or otherwise.

The burden is on you to make your case. Still waiting for the proof that your "superstition" is true.

 

[shagdrum]

Science is observation and experimentation, not evolution. Until science actually OBSERVES and/or EXPERIMENTS one species changing into another, evolution is nothing but a wild guess. Until "evolutionary science" actually finds a missing link between species that supposedly evolved into one another, evolution is unproven and unlikely. Believing that a bird evolved into a reptile is not backed up by science, fossil evidence or otherwise.

The burden is on you to make your case. Still waiting for the proof that your "superstition" is true.

That pretty well sums it up...

 

[fossten]

Florida schools must teach evolution, despite public opinion

The Florida State Board of Education now requires the explicit teaching of evolution in public science classes, with a last minute addition of the phrase "the scientific theory of" in an apparent but failed effort to pacify its opponents. The 4 to 3 vote allows for the first time the word "evolution" in the school standards, though the concept of descent with modification over millions of years was already being taught under different wording.

The Orlando Sentinel reported on February 20, 2008 that, after months of controversy over the new standards, opponents of the decision plan to petition the state Legislature to pass protections for teachers who offer alternative origins explanations in the classroom.

The Associated Press reported that evolution supporters believe the academic freedom proposal is a "wedge designed to open the door for injecting religious arguments into science studies," suggesting the irony that "academic freedom" is only available within a limited sphere of minority opinion.

According to a recent poll by the St. Petersburg Times, almost two thirds of 702 registered voters surveyed in Florida were unconvinced of evolution.

Of those two thirds, "|29| percent said evolution is one of several valid theories. Another 16 percent said evolution is not backed up by enough evidence. And 19 percent said evolution is not valid because it is at odds with the Bible," the report stated.

It is this body of constituents that proponents of evolutionary theory apparently fear most and have tried to discredit by casting the debate as "science versus faith" and "scientists versus everyone else."

"People are going to have to be carried kicking and screaming over the threshold |to accept evolution|," Florida State University professor Michael Ruse told the Times. [BINGO!] He likened the fight over evolution to the civil rights movement.

The Florida decision will most likely have rippling effects in school districts around the country.

***

What more evidence do you need that evolution is being forced on people!

 

[TheDude]

From the Los Angeles Times

Evolution of religious bigotry

The cowardice and intolerance of slapping a Darwin fish on your car bumper.

Jonah Goldberg

April 1, 2008

Ijust watched "Fitna," a 17-minute film by Geert Wilders, head of the Dutch Freedom Party, which takes a hard-line stance against Muslim immigration.

Released on the Internet on Thursday, "Fitna" juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images and speeches from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as "apes and pigs," imams calling for global domination, protesters holding up signs reading "God Bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to Hell" -- these are just some of the powerful images from "Fitna," an Arabic word that means "ordeal."

Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt's grand imam threatened "severe" consequences if the Dutch government didn't ban the film.

Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual motions of theatrical hand-wringing, heaping all of their anger on Wilders for sowing "hatred."

Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.

During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant drinking, dancing and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke nearly no English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.

At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liquor, one of the men came up to me and gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he'd scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.

It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).

Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXOYE, which not only means fish but serves as an acronym, in Greek, for "Jesus Christ the Son of God [Is] Savior." Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt with a stick or a finger as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren't alone.

In America, the easiest place to find this ancient symbol is on the back of cars. Recently, however, it seems as if Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you've seen these too. The fish symbol is "updated" with little feet coming off the bottom, and "IXOYE" or "Jesus" is replaced with either "Darwin" or "Evolve."

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing random motorists that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. "Namely: It's acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with 'Shalom' written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with 'Usury' written inside the same symbol would be an outrage."

But the most annoying aspect of the Darwin fish is the false bravado it represents. It's a courageous pose without consequence. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap.

Whatever the faults of "Fitna," it ain't no Darwin fish.

Geert Wilders' film could very, very easily get him killed. (He's already guarded around the clock.) It essentially picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.

"Fitna" is certainly provocative, yet it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.

It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger.

It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, but they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor inclined to use violence.

The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

1) Why does the auther think that Turkish Christian is a different Christian?

2) This guy needs to pull the stick out. Angry over a silly little picture, what is he, a Muslim?

 

[fossten]

1) Why does the auther think that Turkish Christian is a different Christian?

He doesn't say. All he says is "or so he thought." He may have been implying that many people think they are Christians who are not, or he may have been implying that a subsequent conversation with the guy identified him as not really a Christian. Who knows?

2) This guy needs to pull the stick out. Angry over a silly little picture, what is he, a Muslim?

Uh, no. Muslims threaten to lop your head off if you put up a pic of Mohammed. Christians don't do that. He's merely expressing his displeasure through, you know, WORDS.

 

[Kbob]

He doesn't say. All he says is "or so he thought." He may have been implying that many people think they are Christians who are not, or he may have been implying that a subsequent conversation with the guy identified him as not really a Christian. Who knows?

I took it to mean that the Turk was a Christian. And the Turk assumed the author was a Christian because he was American, even though as we all know, not all Americans are Christian. But the Turkish man obviously didn't know that. And I think that is very interesting.

 

[TheDude]

He doesn't say. All he says is "or so he thought." He may have been implying that many people think they are Christians who are not, or he may have been implying that a subsequent conversation with the guy identified him as not really a Christian. Who knows?


Uh, no. Muslims threaten to lop your head off if you put up a pic of Mohammed. Christians don't do that. He's merely expressing his displeasure through, you know, WORDS.

I'll have to place that in my "unsolved" chest.

And I'm expressing how foolish I think he is for being angered by such a thing, "through, you know, WORDS."

 

[Kbob]

And I'm expressing how foolish I think he is for being angered by such a thing, "through, you know, WORDS."

I don't think there's anything foolish about being angered by a double standard.

 

[Mick Jagger]

The whole idea of the wall of separation has nothing to do with our Constitution but comes from a private letter to the Danbury Baptists. They had written to Jefferson to get assurance that the government would not establish a state religion such as the Church of England, which dominated all the people of England.

Whats wrong with those statements?

 

[TheDude]

I don't think there's anything foolish about being angered by a double standard.

The Darwin-Fish is a joke, a fun jab.

 

[Kbob]

The Darwin-Fish is a joke, a fun jab.

I'm not saying I'm offended by it, because I'm not. But again the purpose of the article was to show the double standard in our society.

From the article: "similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims."

Also from the article: "It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger."

People aren't worried about their safety by displaying a Darwin fish. But where's the satire against Islam? Why is it not as prevelant? Again, because of the double standard, as illustrated in the article. Either people don't want to "offend" Muslims, or they're scared to face the "well-deserved anger" of Muslims.

 

[fossten]

Deville, stop trying to establish a moral equivalence between Christians and Muslims. There isn't any. Nobody's scared of Christians getting offended over an art exhibit of a crucifix in a jar of urine, but Muslims can and will lop off your head if you mock Mohammed.

 

[KD00LS]

Back in the day, wasn't Islam one of the more tolerant religions? What happened there?

 

[fossten]

stop putting up lies of ideals until you have carefully read and understand what you are talking about. trying to denigrate me without a proper understanding of the facts only makes you look less to those who would bother to read.

new species still arose from something. if you take religious ideals, all species would have arrived at once. yet the path is gradual. why? evolution. not biblical type creation.

and old techniques in science or anythng were new techniques at some time. you have proof that would discredit genetic divergence?

It is incumbent upon you to prove that new species "arose" at any time in history. There is simply no evidence of this. When we discover a species of deep sea fish in the ocean, why do we assume this is a "new" species simply because we didn't discover it before? That's absurd.

There is no evidence of a gradual evolution of species, simply because you have ZERO intermediates! If a reptile evolved into a bird, surely there must have been dozens if not hundreds of intermediates, yet there are NONE!

Here's an excerpt from an article written by a PhD in physics regarding the mathematical probability of there being no intermediate fossils:

Assume a particular amphibian "A" that is allegedly ancestral to a particular reptile "R", both represented in the fossil record. Presume that the gap could be bridged by a mere 9 intermediates, none of which left fossils to be discovered. A uniform probability distribution would lead you to expect that one of the other 9 intermediates is just as likely to leave a fossil. If a mere 10 fossils of "A" have been found, consider that the odds against each find are 1 in 10, and that this collection of 10 fossils has an improbability of one in 10 billion (10 raised to the 10th power) -- if the evolutionary lineage is true!

Furthermore, each additional discovery of "A" or "R" is affirmative evidence -- a factor of 10 each time -- that there are NO intermediates. Fossils represented by scores or hundreds or thousands of fossils make the odds "as impossible" as the odds against functional protein formation via random amino acid chemistry.

Who's using science to prove his point now?

 

[ground_zero298]

It seems like this is a pretty one sided discusion. Their is way more information on religion then on fossils and evolution.

 

[shagdrum]

i reiterate. read the article. it is you who does not understand. there is nothing about genetic testing of dung. it is merely the evidence of a higher form of worm, as opposed to something else that left trails.

stop putting up lies of ideals until you have carefully read and understand what you are talking about. trying to denigrate me without a proper understanding of the facts only makes you look less to those who would bother to read.

I never said genetic testing, only that they were looking at genetic material.

From your post (#29):

...recent genetic evidence reveals a different pattern, sometimes known as the ‘slow burn’ or ‘early arrival’ hypothesis. Age estimates derived from calibrated gene divergence studies...​

...There can be little doubt, on the basis of trace evidence alone...​

There are no "lies of ideals" going on here, that is an intentional mischaracterization on your part. They are looking at trace DNA in the dung to come to the conclusion that there were a wide variety of worms. The dung alone would never indicate that, they have to look at the genetics, there is no other way. Apply a little critical thinking here.

It is more and more obvious that you are cutting and pasting stuff to prove your point that you don't fully understand, and don't take the time to fully read and figure out. I assume that is why you cannot break the articles down that you post, or accurately summarize them.

and old techniques in science or anythng were new techniques at some time. you have proof that would discredit genetic divergence?

This is totally irrelevant and tangental (at best) to my point, which still stands, as you are avoiding it. You are saying that things that are at point "B" were once at point "A", so things that are at point "A" are valid. My whole argument was on the difference between the two and how one became the other, which you aren't even addressing. My point still stands.

The burden of proof is not on me to discredit calibrated gene divergence, it is logically on you (or whoever cites info gained through that technique, or advocates it's use) to prove it's credibility. You are simply trying to shift the burden of proof (again), which is an underhanded arguing tactic, and lessens your credibility.

Again...
When it comes to old techniques vs new; old techniques are proven and consistent; giving a known degree of reliability that has been proven. New techniques don't have that, so logically must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. If they are proven to be consistently more reliable then old techniques, then they eventually replace the old technique. When it comes to new vs old (in almost anything), the burden of proof always logically lies with the new, not the other way around. It's called the precautionary principle.

 

[fossten]

and fossten, you would have to re-write genesis to account for the fossil record. but the bible is truth now, isn't it?

Your replies are getting shorter and shorter, and full of fewer and fewer actual arguments, but more and more sarcasm and hostility.

Genesis is consistent with the fossil record. There are many articles that explain this. I am sure you will take the time to read all of them. In the meantime, rather than making baseless claims, why don't you show me where Genesis is wrong based on the fossil record?

 

[fossten]

the amount of time for one. all existance should be all at once. yet it isn't. from your link.this ones a hoot.

http://answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

dinosaurs on the ark? why aren't they here now? that was only about 4000 years ago. sorry fossten. most of the claims there are more incredible than scientologists views.

Still haven't heard you scientifically refute anything. All you do is mock. You have failed to live up to your own standard of science and are nothing but a demagogue. FAIL.

the age of the earth
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

would you believe this one fossten?

Don't tell me you understand even half of what you just read, assuming you read it all. I did.

If you are interested, here's an article that rebuts it completely:

http://www.trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp

In the future, instead of cluttering up the thread with scattered numerous posts, when you get a new thought, why don't you consider editing your previous post?

 

[fossten]

.

 

[fossten]

Just because you can post a link of someone's opinion doesn't mean you've proven anything. I can do the same, and I have reputable scientists on my side as well, who by the way don't need to rely on errors in order to discredit their opponents' work.

Nice try though. I can see that appealing to your reason will always be trumped by your stubbornness and pride. If you want to make this a pee-ing contest, so be it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radioisotopes-earth

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/dating.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Link.asp?http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/kids.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/creation-research

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/creation-research

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/dating.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp

http://trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp

http://trueorigin.org/ca_bs_02.asp

http://trueorigin.org/walkergeo01.asp

 

[shagdrum]

traces of featureless , winding trails sounds like dna to me. riiight! there is no genetic testing, no genetic material. the pellets found prove a higher order of worm, with full intestinal tract. but you would know that if you read the article, and not quoted my c/p. it is trace fossil evidence. meaning, there isn't a lot found.

How else can they determine that there are a large number of worms, using fossilized dung alone, if not through genetics, of which traces are in the dung. Looking at the dung alone would only suggest there were worms of different sizes. That could mean a few different breeds of worms, or simply older and younger worms. If they are not using DNA from the fossils, that makes their argument less beliveable.

and from much farther up in the page, not having anything to do with DUNG

Ahh, now I see. you posted different parts of the article right next to each other...

If you are cutting and pasting an article for proof of of a claim, then it is your job to clearly break up the quotes to separate various thoughts, set the context for the quote, summarize it and point out how it is relavant, not my job. That is imposing a lot on the reader. I am not going to go read all those articles or watch every long video linked. It isn't my job to be convinced, it is your job to convince me. If you are just gonna post links, or cut and paste sections of long articles without summing the article(s) into a coherent argument then there is no debate, and it is a waste of my time.

When I read a book, report, whatever, I don't go read every footnote the author cites. They use quotes to strenghthen their argument, not to make their argument. Your argument shouldn't be dependant on the reader following links to other info.


The way post #29 is structured, it seems like one long, connected idea. I doubt it was intentional, but that effectively mischaracterizes the article, and that mischaracterizied representation of the article is what I was reacting to.

Sorry.

 

[fossten]

What, back already? I know you couldn't possibly have read all of those articles.

This is a worthless peeing contest.

Oh, and Russell Humphreys answers his critics here:

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp

I'll listen to you on dating methods if you can answer one question to my satisfaction:

Why do we still find carbon 14 in coal?