Boxing Ring Commentary - Dark Phoenix Vs. Call of the Wild- Round 2
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-11-2015, 04:45 PM
RE: Boxing Ring Commentary - Dark Phoenix Vs. Call of the Wild- Round 2
(09-11-2015 03:19 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  It's rare when anyone is convinced one way or another by these debates, when these committed theists get on these forums to sling their woo, it's a matter of us pointing out the flaws in their argument over and over again. They think their little book has magic words and that they are obligated to push their religion in our faces, if anything, it just raises my level of disgust every time they get on this forum to bloviate.

They won't show just basic human decency and leave people alone. I will say it has been a pleasure to read your responses Dark Phoenix, I learned a lot in the exchange.

I will piggyback on TI's comments:
I too am convinced, the more I hear theistic arguments, that many truly do not understand critical thinking and reasoning lest they be willing to shine the light of skepticism on their positions with an amenable attitude.

DP - your posts were very well written and your positions well-argued. Great job!

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 06:44 PM
RE: Boxing Ring Commentary - Dark Phoenix Vs. Call of the Wild- Round 2
I can't believe it's so hard for people to grasp what evolution is, and that they think the "kinds" and the "looks like" arguments are valid rebuttals. Not even close!

For all your patience at trying to explain it, Dark Phoenix, I still can't get over their ability to just "wave away" clear and unequivocal proofs of common ancestry.

It's a really simple question: We can see the exact places in the non-coding DNA, the parts that are passed down each generation with no modifications by Natural Selection (since they don't code for something NS can act upon), with only a few random point mutations altering what is otherwise a clear "marker" of common inheritance. Some ancestor had that section of DNA, and thus all their offspring have it. It's as simple as that. When we find that identical marker in two species, the evolutionary explanation is simple: they come from a common ancestral population who had that particular sequence of DNA, and passed it down to every descendant, until after thousands of generations we see the same sequence in two different species. It's a simple and obvious explanation, for which I have heard no other valid explanation from the theists other than some variation on "well it's a mystery" or "it was put there to test our faith", etc.

It can also be tracked in active DNA which codes for some system that has many variants, many of which work just fine when you swap them for another version of the same gene for that protein, like Cytochrome C (necessary for all metabolism, from bacteria onward), and yet you can see the common sequence in closely-related species, indicating that they both inherited their genes for that version of the protein from a common ancestor. If we were individually created, there would be zero reason for seemingly-related (physically) species to share the same basic version of the protein, when so many options are available. Scientists swapped the genes, removing the yeast gene and putting in the human version, for the protein variant of Cytochrome-C, and it worked just fine. The only possible reasons we'd find the matchup between creatures which seem evolutionarily related are 1) they inherited the sequence from a common ancestor, and it slowly continues to mutate divergence from that common form now that their species lineages have separated, with divergence exactly matching the evolutionary distance-in-time since that common ancestry, or 2) God/Satan/Xenu put that matching set of sequences in every animal specifically to fool us into thinking we weren't really created separately.

There are, of course, thousands of other examples of this sort of issue, where the obvious explanation is common ancestry, easily explaining why we find what we find in our DNA, and where it is difficult to explain why it would be there, otherwise.

I read and re-read what COTW wrote in that exchange, and I can certainly see why you'd have walked away from it. There is no possible way I could maintain such cognitive dissonance as it requires for him to hold his "created kinds" position while hand-waving-away the mountain of evidence for common ancestry. That he continues to do so, and refuses to acknowledge that there's not another truly viable explanation for things like the above, tells me that there was no way to have a legitimate debate with him. A debate must contain two sides fully willing to concede a good point when it is made, or else to address that point with a valid counterpoint.

"Nuh-uh!" is not a debate. Offering up unsupported rhetoric that involves magic and/or scientific conspiracies (equally unsupported) is not a debate. It's just an argument with a willfully ignorant person, destined to be pointless and a waste of your time. I would no more continue to argue with someone who said the kinds of things he said than I would argue with a person who contended that there was a tooth fairy who collects the teeth of children.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
10-11-2015, 06:50 PM
RE: Boxing Ring Commentary - Dark Phoenix Vs. Call of the Wild- Round 2
(09-11-2015 06:44 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I can't believe it's so hard for people to grasp what evolution is, and that they think the "kinds" and the "looks like" arguments are valid rebuttals. Not even close!

For all your patience at trying to explain it, Dark Phoenix, I still can't get over their ability to just "wave away" clear and unequivocal proofs of common ancestry.

It's a really simple question: We can see the exact places in the non-coding DNA, the parts that are passed down each generation with no modifications by Natural Selection (since they don't code for something NS can act upon), with only a few random point mutations altering what is otherwise a clear "marker" of common inheritance. Some ancestor had that section of DNA, and thus all their offspring have it. It's as simple as that. When we find that identical marker in two species, the evolutionary explanation is simple: they come from a common ancestral population who had that particular sequence of DNA, and passed it down to every descendant, until after thousands of generations we see the same sequence in two different species. It's a simple and obvious explanation, for which I have heard no other valid explanation from the theists other than some variation on "well it's a mystery" or "it was put there to test our faith", etc.

It can also be tracked in active DNA which codes for some system that has many variants, many of which work just fine when you swap them for another version of the same gene for that protein, like Cytochrome C (necessary for all metabolism, from bacteria onward), and yet you can see the common sequence in closely-related species, indicating that they both inherited their genes for that version of the protein from a common ancestor. If we were individually created, there would be zero reason for seemingly-related (physically) species to share the same basic version of the protein, when so many options are available. Scientists swapped the genes, removing the yeast gene and putting in the human version, for the protein variant of Cytochrome-C, and it worked just fine. The only possible reasons we'd find the matchup between creatures which seem evolutionarily related are 1) they inherited the sequence from a common ancestor, and it slowly continues to mutate divergence from that common form now that their species lineages have separated, with divergence exactly matching the evolutionary distance-in-time since that common ancestry, or 2) God/Satan/Xenu put that matching set of sequences in every animal specifically to fool us into thinking we weren't really created separately.

There are, of course, thousands of other examples of this sort of issue, where the obvious explanation is common ancestry, easily explaining why we find what we find in our DNA, and where it is difficult to explain why it would be there, otherwise.

I read and re-read what COTW wrote in that exchange, and I can certainly see why you'd have walked away from it. There is no possible way I could maintain such cognitive dissonance as it requires for him to hold his "created kinds" position while hand-waving-away the mountain of evidence for common ancestry. That he continues to do so, and refuses to acknowledge that there's not another truly viable explanation for things like the above, tells me that there was no way to have a legitimate debate with him. A debate must contain two sides fully willing to concede a good point when it is made, or else to address that point with a valid counterpoint.

"Nuh-uh!" is not a debate. Offering up unsupported rhetoric that involves magic and/or scientific conspiracies (equally unsupported) is not a debate. It's just an argument with a willfully ignorant person, destined to be pointless and a waste of your time. I would no more continue to argue with someone who said the kinds of things he said than I would argue with a person who contended that there was a tooth fairy who collects the teeth of children.

Well, yea. COTW is a dishonest fuck stick. Did anybody expect Dark Phoenix to make headway with a dishonest fuck stick?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 05:39 PM
RE: Boxing Ring Commentary - Dark Phoenix Vs. Call of the Wild- Round 2
(10-11-2015 06:50 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 06:44 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I can't believe it's so hard for people to grasp what evolution is, and that they think the "kinds" and the "looks like" arguments are valid rebuttals. Not even close!

For all your patience at trying to explain it, Dark Phoenix, I still can't get over their ability to just "wave away" clear and unequivocal proofs of common ancestry.

It's a really simple question: We can see the exact places in the non-coding DNA, the parts that are passed down each generation with no modifications by Natural Selection (since they don't code for something NS can act upon), with only a few random point mutations altering what is otherwise a clear "marker" of common inheritance. Some ancestor had that section of DNA, and thus all their offspring have it. It's as simple as that. When we find that identical marker in two species, the evolutionary explanation is simple: they come from a common ancestral population who had that particular sequence of DNA, and passed it down to every descendant, until after thousands of generations we see the same sequence in two different species. It's a simple and obvious explanation, for which I have heard no other valid explanation from the theists other than some variation on "well it's a mystery" or "it was put there to test our faith", etc.

It can also be tracked in active DNA which codes for some system that has many variants, many of which work just fine when you swap them for another version of the same gene for that protein, like Cytochrome C (necessary for all metabolism, from bacteria onward), and yet you can see the common sequence in closely-related species, indicating that they both inherited their genes for that version of the protein from a common ancestor. If we were individually created, there would be zero reason for seemingly-related (physically) species to share the same basic version of the protein, when so many options are available. Scientists swapped the genes, removing the yeast gene and putting in the human version, for the protein variant of Cytochrome-C, and it worked just fine. The only possible reasons we'd find the matchup between creatures which seem evolutionarily related are 1) they inherited the sequence from a common ancestor, and it slowly continues to mutate divergence from that common form now that their species lineages have separated, with divergence exactly matching the evolutionary distance-in-time since that common ancestry, or 2) God/Satan/Xenu put that matching set of sequences in every animal specifically to fool us into thinking we weren't really created separately.

There are, of course, thousands of other examples of this sort of issue, where the obvious explanation is common ancestry, easily explaining why we find what we find in our DNA, and where it is difficult to explain why it would be there, otherwise.

I read and re-read what COTW wrote in that exchange, and I can certainly see why you'd have walked away from it. There is no possible way I could maintain such cognitive dissonance as it requires for him to hold his "created kinds" position while hand-waving-away the mountain of evidence for common ancestry. That he continues to do so, and refuses to acknowledge that there's not another truly viable explanation for things like the above, tells me that there was no way to have a legitimate debate with him. A debate must contain two sides fully willing to concede a good point when it is made, or else to address that point with a valid counterpoint.

"Nuh-uh!" is not a debate. Offering up unsupported rhetoric that involves magic and/or scientific conspiracies (equally unsupported) is not a debate. It's just an argument with a willfully ignorant person, destined to be pointless and a waste of your time. I would no more continue to argue with someone who said the kinds of things he said than I would argue with a person who contended that there was a tooth fairy who collects the teeth of children.

Well, yea. COTW is a dishonest fuck stick. Did anybody expect Dark Phoenix to make headway with a dishonest fuck stick?

I will have to respectfully disagree, as I have done before. I don't think CotW is dishonest. I think he's got a real mental block regarding evolution, and cannot get past his personal incredulity. He can't see how evolution could have happened, therefore it couldn't have happened, and "therefore God". I think he's wrong, and extremely stubborn, but not dishonest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 05:55 PM
RE: Boxing Ring Commentary - Dark Phoenix Vs. Call of the Wild- Round 2
(12-11-2015 05:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(10-11-2015 06:50 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Well, yea. COTW is a dishonest fuck stick. Did anybody expect Dark Phoenix to make headway with a dishonest fuck stick?

I will have to respectfully disagree, as I have done before. I don't think CotW is dishonest. I think he's got a real mental block regarding evolution, and cannot get past his personal incredulity. He can't see how evolution could have happened, therefore it couldn't have happened, and "therefore God". I think he's wrong, and extremely stubborn, but not dishonest.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you. Big Grin

His dishonesty is that he won't even read anything that disagrees with his desperately held beliefs.
He won't allow any chink in that armor of delusion he wraps himself in.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: