Objections to Evolution

@thewindupbirdchronicles I mean - what is that? A smart ass remark? Who's conclusion did you want me to draw out?

@BibleData I'm too tired to try a smart ass response, I'm really suggesting questioning everything, brings upon a lot of questions with little answers.

@thewindupbirdchronicles Okay. Misunderstanding. Get some sleep.

@newjaninev2 Haven't they?

@BibleData No, they haven’t.

I just now said that

@newjaninev2 Are you suggesting that in a thread with the specific subject title and explanation that it is about [b]objection[/b] that has 114 replies as of this posting, not one objection has been lodged?

Why do you think that is?

The alternate thread with the exact same title and explanation - evolution crossed out and creationism written in it's place - there are, as of this posting, 6 replies and some objection. So, in a forum on creationism in a section devoted to religion and spirituality the thread on evolution is without objections but 114 replies and the creationism objection thread in the evolution forum has 6.

Can your scientific mind come up with an explanation?

My favorite part is when one of the evolutionists complained about evolution being in the religion and spirituality forums! Even lodged a complaint to management. In either this or another thread. It's like the priest calling the church black.

Either y'all are more religious than the religious or you don't follow directions well.

@BibleData How do you get from my comment that Darwin objected to evolution? He elucidated the mechanism, FFS.

If you go to France, you will see statues of Lamarcke, the "father of evolution." Except Lamarcke was wrong as he assumed acquired characteristics could be inherited. Darwin proposed a model of evolution that with some tweaks (like phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium) still applies today.

One thing I took away from reading Darwin was how he knew characteristics were inherited, he just didn't know how this worked. One puzzling thing for him was how a trait could skip a generation. Gregor Mendel's work in genetics was still in the future. One strength of Darwin's theory was how it fit perfectly into a completely new system once that system was discovered.

Also, mythology isn't science. Your Jesus theory is unfalsifiable, therefore it's not a scientific theory. It's mythology, which refers to legends of origins.

@BibleData [quote]I don't believe you[/quote]

You’re not required to believe me (and I’d be distressed if you did)

You’re required to account for the evidence.

@newjaninev2 I am not required to account for any evidence but that which I myself accept, and that only to myself and God. Same as you or anyone else. The rest of it is just talk. The only thing I can say is that nothing starts with n and ends with g.

@BibleData Yes, I can breathe. So can my surgeon. But your attempt to dismiss masks based on a few simplistic numbers surely didn't work.

I admit masks aren't perfect. But rather than a theoretical argument where we're forced to make guesses about various mechanisms of virus capture vs escape, how about we look at some large scale statistics of masks in action? These make no assumptions about mechanism; instead they compare rates of virus spread.

Duke University studied one million school children in thousands of classrooms including mostly masked, partially masked, mostly unmasked. They found masks to be reasonably effective:
[b]https://today.duke.edu/2021/06/research-finds-masks-can-prevent-covid-19-transmission-schools[/b]

"A large randomized trial led by researchers at Stanford Medicine and Yale University has found that wearing a surgical face mask over the mouth and nose is an effective way to reduce the occurence of COVID-19 in community settings.
... The researchers enrolled near350,000 people from 600 villages in rural Bangladesh. ..."
[b]https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html[/b]

@ElwoodBlues [quote]Yes, I can breathe. So can my surgeon. But your attempt to dismiss masks based on a few simplistic numbers surely didn't work.[/quote]

Okay. This is my last response to this subject in this thread. If you want, I can start a new one in the Covid forum or science.

Surgeons wear the mask because of tradition. It comes from the miasmatic school of medicine.

I dismiss masks because they don't work. It doesn't fit. Literally and figuratively. I didn't mask or get the gene therapy they call "vaccine." I did a cursory examination of medicine, inoculation going back 1000 years to China, Edward Jenner and I listen to scientists highly respected in their field. It isn't a big concern for me because it has been blown way out of proportion like climate change.

I didn't mask or vaccinate but I got Covid from my dad who "religiously like a fanatic" did both. I have most of the comorbidities and it was, for me, a nuisance. I felt like I was coming down with but never fully got a bad cold. Slight fever, aches and congestion. That isn't to say it doesn't kill. It does. So does the seasonal flu. So, I don't believe or care about your study. Every aspect of the healthcare industry has been captured by the criminal pharmaceutical industry.

If you want to continue the discussion let me know, but I'm really not that interested. For fun I'll give it a shot.

@BibleData As it happens, I have blurbs I can cut and paste for many of these arguments. Because I've seen them all before. Because I engage with both sides of the debate. More importantly I engage with the data. My PhD work involved using and abusing various statistical tools to do various pattern recognition tasks. I'm by no means a statistician, much less a specialist biostatistician, but I engage with the data, and I've called a biostatistician from time to time with questions about vaccine studies. I recognize not everyone has the background to do engage with that data. I don't expect everyone to do so. But I find it odd that people can so easily dismiss all that data.

I can't help noticing that your dismissal of all the mask data and all the vaccine data amounts to almost a conspiracy theory based on - I can't call it a theory - a fear that "the healthcare industry has been captured by the criminal pharmaceutical industry."

We have about a million licensed working professional physicians - "doctors" - in the US. They probably have over two million more in the rest of the developed world. They tend to be hard working people who take their Hippocratic Oaths very seriously. Do you think they're unable to question what they proscribe? Do you think they're all dupes but Tucker Carlson can see what they can't see?

I worked side by side with research MDs for a stretch after I finished my degree. It was actually a phase 3 FDA drug trial. And actually the drug failed. Actually, at the time, about 70% of drugs in phase 3 trials failed. BTW, ever since thalidomide, any new drug in the US needs to pass rigorous phase 3 trials before it's approved for use.

Does a 70% failure rate sound like "capture" to you? It doesn't to me. BTW, since then, folks have gotten smarter about animal trials and phase 2, and those phases now have higher failure rates while super costly phase 3 failure is down to about 30%. Still, something like 90% of the drugs that come before the FDA for testing fail.

@newjaninev2 [quote]Their self-embarrassment lasted from 2005 until 2007. I’m sure the future became much brighter for their children after that.[/quote]

How so? Weren't they simply given a new ideology? If I were a betting man willing to ask any of them of that time about the Bible or evolution I would bet they didn't know shit about either.

@BibleData [quote]a new ideology[/quote]

Again, I don’t know why you see some sort of equivalence between creationism and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection... a bifurcation fallacy that causes you to couple them.

Science doesn’t care about creationism (well, perhaps some cognitive psychologists might be interested)

@BibleData

@DocSavage Yes, true about Adam, but who cares? Who cares if someone thinks that? Is it about the schools. Is it a battle to indoctrinate?

@BibleData [quote] who cares? Who cares if someone thinks that?[/quote]
Many people care. I have no problem or objections about evolution. It makes sense to me, the evidence supports it, and I consider the probability of it being correct is very high, despite what I don’t know about it.
My objection to religion has always been the all or nothing aspect of it.
If you can cherry pick what part of god is true, and /or ignore others in favor of facts, then you’re just telling yourself what you want to hear.
People will commit to their belief system, and defend it rigorously. So while it might not matter to you, it matters to them. And if they can find some detail or flaw to support their view they will cling to it , no matter what the evidence.

@BibleData
I am thinking of eugenics based on racism.

@Pfuzylogic Yeah, it can certainly be that. I think of it in broader terms in this context because really, it's just power. For whatever reason, whether it be race, religion, science, politics, ideology etc. One just wants to get rid of another.

@BibleData
But from the beginning this imposes differences of makind were forged in racism in the early 19th century. When it tears it’s ugly head it echoes the prejudices of old.

@canusernamebemyusername So, you don't object to evolution because it . . . well, keeps evolving?

@BibleData
It grows, so yes it builds

@DocSavage So, by building you really mean grows. Life grows. You fucked up, didn't you? Building implies design, even if rudimentary, not random accident.

A car crashes into a building, resulting in death. That's an evolution from life. A building is designed and constructed. It doesn't just happen for any reason other than that and it doesn't happen without design and construction by something other than nature.

That's how easy it is to see words building a statement. As easy as the truth or a lie. Right or wrong.

@newjaninev2 You don't get it. I don't trust Carl Sagan. I don't trust Dr. Robert Malone. I don't trust Isaac Newton or Darwin. I don't trust Dawkins. I don't trust you. I don't trust me. [b]I don't trust people.[/b]

The only thing I can do to appease you is repeat what you say. Follow your evidence. Which you got from someone else like I did mine. There's nothing you can say to appease me.

Can you understand that? It's very simple.

@BibleData You forgot Judy Mikovits

I obtain my own evidence, or obtain evidence previously used by others, but only to check the veracity of that evidence.

The motto of the Royal Society is: [i]nullius in verba[/i] ... 'take nobody's word for it'.

Yet flakes with websites command unquestioning acceptance... a willing suspension of disbelief... so that the mark can feel important, and privy to ‘information’ available to nobody else.

The site owner’s bank balance grows proportionally to the ego of the mark.

’twas always so

@newjaninev2 [quote]You forgot Judy Mikovits[/quote]

I trust Judy. I don't always agree with Judy and I don't think she is infallible, but when it comes to integrity she is right up there at the top of the list of anyone else I can think of. An extremely rare gem.

[sep]

'twas always so. Indeed. Jesus said the world [kosmos] was founded on the blood of Abel.

@BibleData If the estimate changes by 5% does that mean we didn't really know it? I'd say that if we're within 5% of the actual age of the planet than we really do know it, and it's sophestry to pretend a 5% change makes a big difference to our knowledge.