iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 May 2008, 6:17 pm
Sedaka wrote:
and im FINE with relgious people believing that god started evolution.... that's the distinction where there's no use to arguing further cause YES there's the possibility that's true... but thre's also the possiblity that it's not necessary (ID). that's where ppl will believe what they will believe.... THAT can't be proven either way.
all i care is that ppl can see that there is a was for things to evolve. and that it can be tested... cause it has been.
all i care is that ppl can see that there is a was for things to evolve. and that it can be tested... cause it has been.
10 May 2008, 6:18 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 May 2008, 6:20 pm
10 May 2008, 6:20 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 May 2008, 6:20 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 May 2008, 6:21 pm
10 May 2008, 6:22 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Which puts god out of the equation...
He wants to put god in a scientific paper, yet by his own admission god can not fit into the criteria of scientific.
He wants to put god in a scientific paper, yet by his own admission god can not fit into the criteria of scientific.
Not really. It puts Creationism out of the equation to be exact, not God.
O RLY?
So are Creationist theories, models, hypotheses able to be falsified?
Not to you, since you will continue to believe them regardless of the evidence presented.
Which is why he is the constant value function.
I reject the canopy theory, fixity of species, almost anything that Kent Hovind says. You people must claim either telepathy or omniscience for your claims to be plausible. I was referencing your cartoon that you keep posting, not your stolidity to atheism regardless of opposing data.
Either you were referring to that, or my inability to see mystical fluff. Im referencing your inability to see the evidence
10 May 2008, 6:23 pm
10 May 2008, 6:23 pm
10 May 2008, 6:29 pm
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
10 May 2008, 6:30 pm
10 May 2008, 6:30 pm
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sicut si. Stolidus es.
That's rather pointless on a board where most people don't understand Latin. If you want to interject well-known Latin phrases, something common enough that it can be Googled and a translation found for those not already familiar with the phrase, fine. But trying to communicate in Latin with people who don't study it just makes you out to be an a**hole.
It is pretentious. But actually, you can find a Latin translator and translate it.
I got this, its very rough:
As if you wish. Slow of mind are.
It sounds like yoda
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
10 May 2008, 6:31 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
and im FINE with relgious people believing that god started evolution.... that's the distinction where there's no use to arguing further cause YES there's the possibility that's true... but thre's also the possiblity that it's not necessary (ID). that's where ppl will believe what they will believe.... THAT can't be proven either way.
all i care is that ppl can see that there is a was for things to evolve. and that it can be tested... cause it has been.
all i care is that ppl can see that there is a was for things to evolve. and that it can be tested... cause it has been.
what r u rolling your eyes at?
someone's gettin touchy
10 May 2008, 9:08 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Re: homologies
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=c7lnLCatp64[/youtube]
1. Figures like 98%, 95% similarity may refer to different things, and aren't always commensurable (a problem with news stories presenting these). E.g. some pay attention only to introns, some leave out insertion/deletions, etc.
2. The statement "Of course, this is not error, but 20 500 page books worth of new information," is basically question-begging. It doesn't examine what proportion of the differences are in transcribed proteins or more importantly make any functional difference at all. It simply asserts that they're all "new information". Then again, that's pretty much beside the point of homologies.
3. "A common designer is a much better explanation for similarities in human and ape DNA." This is the usual response I hear to bringing up phylogenies, but it is entirely beside the point. A common designer might predict that there'd be a uniform baseline similarity among species, but it would not clearly predict that one could find the same nested hierarchical patterns by comparing the sequences of different proteins between species. Why should this pattern exist?
10 May 2008, 9:11 pm
Escuerd wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Re: homologies
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=c7lnLCatp64[/youtube]
1. Figures like 98%, 95% similarity may refer to different things, and aren't always commensurable (a problem with news stories presenting these). E.g. some pay attention only to introns, some leave out insertion/deletions, etc.
2. The statement "Of course, this is not error, but 20 500 page books worth of new information," is basically question-begging. It doesn't examine what proportion of the differences are in transcribed proteins or more importantly make any functional difference at all. It simply asserts that they're all "new information". Then again, that's pretty much beside the point of homologies.
3. "A common designer is a much better explanation for similarities in human and ape DNA." This is the usual response I hear to bringing up phylogenies, but it is entirely beside the point. A common designer might predict that there'd be a uniform baseline similarity among species, but it would not clearly predict that one could find the same nested hierarchical patterns by comparing the sequences of different proteins between species. Why should this pattern exist?
:jaw drops for the third time:
That was the most ret*d video ever.
10 May 2008, 9:20 pm
