Disturbing Statistic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-12-2012, 08:47 AM
RE: Disturbing Statistic
Tim Minchin has a similar stat...




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
19-12-2012, 08:50 AM
RE: Disturbing Statistic
I fucking love Tim Minchin. That song is epic. I listen to it at least once a week.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 09:00 AM
RE: Disturbing Statistic
What's disturbing about it? The fuck you doing, believing in evolution anyway? Angel

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: Disturbing Statistic
(19-12-2012 08:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-12-2012 07:56 AM)Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day Wrote:  Yep. Only religion can cause people to favor the belief that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and that a loving God got pissed at two naked people for eating an apple.


No wonder you don't understand; it was a fig. Drinking Beverage

It depends on which version you read. Some say it's an apple, and others claim that the forbidden fruit is a pomegranate.

Cool story, bro. Drinking Beverage
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 05:22 PM
RE: Disturbing Statistic
(19-12-2012 04:48 PM)Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day Wrote:  
(19-12-2012 08:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  No wonder you don't understand; it was a fig. Drinking Beverage

It depends on which version you read. Some say it's an apple, and others claim that the forbidden fruit is a pomegranate.
Definitely a prickly pear.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 06:55 PM
RE: Disturbing Statistic
I wonder if there would be a similar number of "disbelievers" if the question were asked:

Do you believe that the frequency of a certain gene's expression changes over time?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 09:43 PM
RE: Disturbing Statistic
(19-12-2012 06:55 PM)ScienceGeek2587 Wrote:  I wonder if there would be a similar number of "disbelievers" if the question were asked:

Do you believe that the frequency of a certain gene's expression changes over time?
That is assuming that they would be able to understand the question. [Image: smileys-whistling-823718.gif]

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
22-12-2012, 12:42 AM
RE: Disturbing Statistic
(21-12-2012 09:43 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(19-12-2012 06:55 PM)ScienceGeek2587 Wrote:  I wonder if there would be a similar number of "disbelievers" if the question were asked:

Do you believe that the frequency of a certain gene's expression changes over time?
That is assuming that they would be able to understand the question. [Image: smileys-whistling-823718.gif]

Oh, I thought I made it easier by leaving out alleles, etc. Apparently, I've grossly overestimated the education of the "average" American. Now I'm outright terrified.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ScienceGeek2587's post
22-12-2012, 08:10 AM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2012 08:29 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Disturbing Statistic
"Apple" was a generic term in English up until as late as the 17th century, equivalent to the modern word "fruit".
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=apple

As for evolution I like to quote back to believers the model that Answers In Genesis use as a way of helping them realise how much of the theory of evolution is accepted even by serious creationists. It's that:
* Some undefined set of "kinds" - original species - were created at some point in time and/or were preserved during the flood
* Since that time each species has been producing after its kind, the next generation always being the same kind/species as its parent generation
* Many speciation events have occurred during this period leading to the many diverse species that we have today
* Species have diverged under natural selection pressures
The key differences between AiG and a standard evolutionary model include:
* The quantity of time - but that needn't dominate conversation
* The set of original species (one or many?)
* Whether or not the genetic information was present in the original species and has been degrading or has been added to over time

Once we have this basic level of consensus in place I like to address the question of which species: What is your list of kinds, because so far no one has been able to answer that question for me. Each time they try it is possible to find a species living or dead that seems to fit two "kinds" and seems to be basel to both, all the way back up the tree to a single starting point.
It isn't necessary they accept this, but "which kinds were they?" seems like an important research topic if they are proposing a scientific take on creationism or that their model be taught in schools.

On the topic of mutation it's easy enough to point to the evolution of nylonase and similar examples to show that information is being added to the genome and to point to the basic classes of known, observed mutations DNA exhibits. To demonstrate that random input can produce signal in an information stream rather than simply noise I like to use the example of a screen printer adding information to an image by taking away random extraneous information from the raw random input paint. Natural selection is a similar filtering process that "adds information" and thus the combination of random mutation and non-random filter is consistent with the requirements of information theory / signal processing to produce information / signal. Then there really is just the question of time, and that has always been a loose concept in Christian thinking.

I don't expect to convince anyone of anything in these exchanges, but I have certainly been able to persuade people that there is a gap in their understanding that could do with some filling and that the questions I've posed and the position I take are reasonable at some level.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2012, 08:15 AM
RE: Disturbing Statistic
(16-12-2012 06:54 PM)Farlian Wrote:  Today I read a disturbing statistic. This being that only 45% of Americans believe in evolution. What do you think?
Is it wrong that I saw 45% and thought, wow, we've made progress? Weeping

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  A facinatingly disturbing thought ddrew 5 545 04-11-2012 01:50 PM
Last Post: Grassy Knoll
Forum Jump: