tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6796560404383208636..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Genes Code For Many Layers of InformationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32074677034999873652013-01-28T18:13:06.104-08:002013-01-28T18:13:06.104-08:00My argument is that it is misleading to say that w...My argument is that it is misleading to say that what is contained in the genome is information because it implies that it is the same as what most people think of as information when it's not.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34294766642025989662013-01-26T23:21:13.119-08:002013-01-26T23:21:13.119-08:00"How long were we told the existence of '..."How long were we told the existence of 'junk DNA', supposedly the majority of our genome was left over from our evolutionary past and was thus proof of evolution? Now that it's known to have function after all, it is now argued this is what evolution predicted all along and its functionality is now proof of evolution."<br /><br />Name the scientists who are now arguing that "evolution" predicted all along that junk DNA would be found to have "function" and "its functionality is now proof of evolution".<br /><br />To get up to speed on the alleged debunking of junk DNA you should start with this:<br /><br /> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/09/encode-leader-says-that-80-of-our.html<br /><br />And then work your way through newer posts about Encode and junk DNA on Sandwalk. There are a bunch of posts and accompanying comments. <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28235432838014264732013-01-26T18:34:34.722-08:002013-01-26T18:34:34.722-08:00Nic
If you knew even a little bit about the desig...<i>Nic<br /><br />If you knew even a little bit about the design position, you would know this is a preposterous statement.</i><br /><br />Why is it preposterous Nic? Please give an example of something that <b>would</b> be a problem for a design scenario, and why it would be a problem.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55875487979568912312013-01-26T17:03:04.008-08:002013-01-26T17:03:04.008-08:00Nic
I really don't see how I'm misreprese...<i>Nic<br /><br />I really don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position and I'm sorry you feel that way.</i><br /><br />There is a HUGE difference between "this is true because most scientists accept it" and "most scientists accept it because the evidence shows it is true".<br /><br />I keep arguing the latter, you keep accusing me of the former. If your grasp of logic is so poor you can't see the difference I feel sorry for you.<br /><br /><i>I'm well aware of that. However, there is a difference between revision and straightforward reversal. And reversal is exactly what has happened with the junk DNA situation.</i><br /><br />There was no reversal of position at all in the scientific community. The position went from "we don't know of any function for most non-coding DNA" to "we now know of some function for some non-coding DNA." How is that a reversal? <br /><br />Evolutionary biologists did the work, evolutionary biologists made the discovery, evolutionary biologists published the results. How does that tie in with your "all evidence against ToE is automatically rejected" claim?<br /><br /><i>I wholeheartedly disagree. The picture very much was assumed beforehand. </i><br /><br />100% unadulterated bullcrap. Show me <b>anywhere</b> in the time before Darwin that the scientific establishment said "OK guys, we need to come up with a way to overthrow religion. Get to work on a new theory that doesn't require miracles from the Christian God". I <b>guarantee</b> you can't.<br /><br /><i>But whether or not evolution occurred? No question at all.</i><br /><br />There's no question NOW because we have 150+ years of supporting evidence. There was great question and opposition when OOS was first published. Look up the famous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Oxford_evolution_debate" rel="nofollow">1860 Oxford evolution debate</a> with the well known encounter between <a href="http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html" rel="nofollow">Bishop Wilberforce and T.H.Huxley.</a> The first supporters of ToE had to prove their case to the scientific community, and by preponderance of evidence they did. There's been no 150 year secret conspiracy to push an unsupported idea. <b>The evidence won out</b> as it always does.<br /><br />You can make up all the revisionist history you want Nic, but the facts don't support you.<br /><br />Sharks off to 4-0 start. Patty Marleau 8 goals in 4 games, Joe Thornton 11 points. Pity West won't play East till the finals this season. F*** you Gary Bettman.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5219374815830983072013-01-26T16:08:00.403-08:002013-01-26T16:08:00.403-08:00Ian,
"Same tree, different information."...Ian,<br /><br />"Same tree, different information."<br /><br />I understand what you're trying to accomplish with this example, but I'm afraid you're equivocating. The information contained within a program such as the genetic code of the tree, is not the same type of information which can be gleaned from studying the growth rings of that tree. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27063634115560639452013-01-26T15:49:22.751-08:002013-01-26T15:49:22.751-08:00The whole truth,
"Of course plate tectonics ...The whole truth,<br /><br />"Of course plate tectonics is not a problem within a design scenario, because anything at all can be fit into a design scenario. An allegedly omnipotent, omniscient sky daddy designer can allegedly do anything."<br /><br />If you knew even a little bit about the design position, you would know this is a preposterous statement. But as it seems you spend very little effort trying to find out the truth, it doesn't surprise me you would not understand how plate tectonics create no problem for design scenarios.<br /><br />Perhaps you should change your name from 'the whole truth' to 'my perception of truth'.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90381160687885453962013-01-26T15:40:36.871-08:002013-01-26T15:40:36.871-08:00Thorton,
"I give up. You've made up your...Thorton,<br /><br />"I give up. You've made up your mind to deliberately misrepresent what I write and argue against your misrepresentation despite being corrected on it three times."<br /><br />If you do not believe that the fact a vast majority of scientists accepting evolution as a fact is a sound argument, why use it? To simply say you're doing so because there must be some reason they come to this conclusion does not lessen your reliance on it as an argument you see as working in your favour. <br /><br />I really don't see how I'm misrepresenting your position and I'm sorry you feel that way.<br /><br />"BTW Nic, ALL scientific theories are open to revision and modification when new evidence becomes available. That's how science works."<br /><br />I'm well aware of that. However, there is a difference between revision and straightforward reversal. And reversal is exactly what has happened with the junk DNA situation.<br /><br />"But the picture wasn't assumed beforehand."<br /><br />I wholeheartedly disagree. The picture very much was assumed beforehand. The only question was in what style would it be painted, Picasso or Rembrandt. But whether or not evolution occurred? No question at all. And it is this predetermined outcome which has derailed science over the last 150+ years. ID or creation have not been the science stoppers as so many like to say, evolutionary thinking has, with its unwavering commitment to 'naturalistic' origins of life. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78983551993276250922013-01-26T14:03:07.304-08:002013-01-26T14:03:07.304-08:00Nic
Sure it's a simple fact there is an '...<i>Nic<br /><br />Sure it's a simple fact there is an 'overwhelming majority'. It's also a simple fact that overwhelming majorities mean nothing when determining the outcome of a question.</i><br /><br />I give up. You've made up your mind to deliberately misrepresent what I write and argue against your misrepresentation despite being corrected on it three times.<br /><br /><i>It matters not what data comes down the pike, it's made to fit the evolution paradigm.</i><br /><br />Another falsehood spoken from ignorance. I already gave you a number of things that would falsify the current ToE is an instant. <b>But none of those discoveries have been made.</b> You seem to be another Creationist who doesn't know the difference between not falsifiable and not falsified. BTW Nic, <b>ALL</b> scientific theories are open to revision and modification when new evidence becomes available. That's how science works. So claiming ToE is a 'rubber band' is really quite silly.<br /><br /><i>Not a bad analogy at all. The evidence is like a giant jigsaw, and as the pieces come together it is showing a completely different picture than that of the assumptive evolutionary image on the box.</i><br /><br />But the picture wasn't assumed beforehand. The picture was empirically determine by the evidence. All the Creationist hand-waving revisionist history won't change that.<br /><br /><i>As for being a Leafs fan, I do get a lot of sympathy. But I have been a Leafs fan all my life, as was my Father and my Grandfather. I may be a 'mook', but I am loyal. </i><br /><br />What a wonderful tradition to pass down between generations.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39256191430722426152013-01-26T12:08:30.834-08:002013-01-26T12:08:30.834-08:00Thorton,
"I merely point it out as a simple ...Thorton,<br /><br />"I merely point it out as a simple fact, there IS an overwhelming majority opinion among people who study and work with the topic for a living, and am asking for your explanation WHY it is so."<br /><br />Sure it's a simple fact there is an 'overwhelming majority'. It's also a simple fact that overwhelming majorities mean nothing when determining the outcome of a question. As I said to velikovskys, ask the French at Agincourt, or the Zulus at Roarke's Drift how their overwhelming majorities worked out. <br /><br />As I've said before, 110% of people can believe something to be true. It matters not how much they believe it if it is in fact false.<br /><br />"These people aren't stupid or deluded Nic."<br /><br />Never said they were, I only said they presuppose the truth of evolution, which is simply a fact. They're convinced evolution is a fact and all data points to that fact. Does not the fact evolutionary theory is like a rubber band not affect you in any way?<br /><br />It matters not what data comes down the pike, it's made to fit the evolution paradigm. How long were we told the existence of 'junk DNA', supposedly the majority of our genome was left over from our evolutionary past and was thus proof of evolution? Now that it's known to have function after all, it is now argued this is what evolution predicted all along and its functionality is now proof of evolution. <br /><br />When it comes to evolution it's always 'heads I win, tails you lose'. <br /><br />"Again, you're the guy arguing that all pilots and aviation engineers are merely predispositioned to believe powered flight is possible to the guys who have actually built and flown powered planes."<br /><br />This has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. Powered flight is an observable, demonstrable and repeatable phenomenon, evolution is not, so the comparison between the two is utter nonsense.<br /><br />"In one sense the evidence for ToE is like a giant jigsaw puzzle."<br /><br />Not a bad analogy at all. The evidence is like a giant jigsaw, and as the pieces come together it is showing a completely different picture than that of the assumptive evolutionary image on the box.<br /><br />"I can tell you're a reasonably sharp guy (except for the occasional lapse into mook-dom, and being a Leafs fan ;)"<br /><br />Yes, I am a reasonably sharp guy and thank you for saying so. By the way, I am still waiting for my 'Mook of the Day Award'. I can understand if you wish to keep the actual trophy for presentation to other future winners, but you could at least send me a photo of it so I can put it on my desktop. I've earned it after all. <br /><br />As for being a Leafs fan, I do get a lot of sympathy. But I have been a Leafs fan all my life, as was my Father and my Grandfather. I may be a 'mook', but I am loyal. <br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34989011692373145072013-01-26T08:57:15.086-08:002013-01-26T08:57:15.086-08:00tokyojim January 23, 2013 at 2:32 PM
[...]
I th...<i><b>tokyojim</b> January 23, 2013 at 2:32 PM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />I think the designer paradigm has far more explanatory power for the evidence that we have.</i><br /><br />I don't see that it has any explanatory power at all.<br /><br />All that ID does is to posit that an intelligent agent of unknown nature and powers is behind the <i>appearance</i> of design in Nature. That's all.<br /><br />The rest is about trying to use probability theory to show that structures that <i>appear</i> designed could not have come about any other way.<br /><br />That and the argument from incredulity: since we cannot imagine any <i>naturalistic</i> way the Universe could have come about, it must have been created.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46565907215439439342013-01-26T08:39:53.908-08:002013-01-26T08:39:53.908-08:00Nic
But mentioning the fact of majority opinions ...<i>Nic<br /><br />But mentioning the fact of majority opinions is meaningless unless you believe that it carries weight and is persuasive. Do you believe the fact a majority of scientists hold to evolution is a meaningful argument? </i><br /><br />Nic. Buddy. Read the words I write again. Slowly. Follow with your finger if it helps.<br /><br />I am not offering majority opinion as a persuasive or meaningful argument. I am not offering majority opinion as an argument AT ALL.<br /><br />I merely point it out as a simple fact, there IS an overwhelming majority opinion among people who study and work with the topic for a living, and am asking for your explanation WHY it is so.<br /><br />The best you can do is the meaningless assertion "they're predispositioned to believe" that is demonstrably false. Sure most have college level training in the subject, but they also all have first hand empirical experience with the evidence and how the theory brings the whole picture together. These people aren't stupid or deluded Nic. If what they saw in the lab and the field <b>didn't</b> match what they were taught it would be all over every news service on the planet.<br /><br />Again, you're the guy arguing that all pilots and aviation engineers are merely predispositioned to believe powered flight is possible to the guys who have actually built and flown powered planes.<br /><br />You keep asking for the evidence for ToE but that's impossible to do justice to in this tiny space. The subject covers 150+ years' of work in hundreds of different scientific disciplines and literally millions of research papers and documentation on the details. I can link you to introductory sites with a very high level overview, but we could spend years drilling into the details and barely scratch the surface. If you want we can pick a very specific topic and examine some scientific papers, but without more background I'm not sure what benefit it would provide for you.<br /><br />In one sense the evidence for ToE is like a giant jigsaw puzzle. There are millions of pieces, and any one piece by itself won't show you much. But there's only one coherent, consilient way to put <b>all</b> the pieces together, and when science did the picture of evolution of life on Earth over the last 3+ billion years became unmistakeable. When new pieces - new data - becomes available of course scientists see if it fits into the existing picture. So far every bit has.<br /><br />I can tell you're a reasonably sharp guy (except for the occasional lapse into mook-dom, and being a Leafs fan ;) ) but your problem is you don't know what you don't know. You are using your religiously-based misconceptions to fill in the blanks, and that doesn't help anyone. Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40411114616511654792013-01-25T22:07:06.721-08:002013-01-25T22:07:06.721-08:00Whole Truth,
"Apply that to predisposed reli...Whole Truth,<br /><br />"Apply that to predisposed religious beliefs in general, and to christianity in particular."<br /><br />Everyone starts from a predisposed position, and those who adhere to religion are no different. <br /><br />So what's your point?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89757524311100966482013-01-25T22:02:43.345-08:002013-01-25T22:02:43.345-08:00Whole Truth,
"In other words, you can't ...Whole Truth,<br /><br />"In other words, you can't support your claim."<br /><br />No, I simply don't want to supply names for a couple of reasons. One is that people expressed these opinions in confidence and I, unlike some others, respect that fact. The world of academia is not a place which is tolerant of dissent from popular opinion. Second, you strike me as the kind of character who, if he had names and found some way to contact these people, would begin to harass them.<br /><br />As I said before, you're delusional if you think there are not people who publicly toe the party line on evolution while privately expressing doubt or even outright disbelief.<br /><br />However, if it makes you feel good to deny their existence you go right ahead, it won't affect me in the slightest. <br /><br />As for Joe G, he knows I'm right, so I don't expect to hear from him on the subject.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77905457723567008912013-01-25T21:49:20.475-08:002013-01-25T21:49:20.475-08:00Thorton,
No Nic, it doesn't amount to the sam...Thorton,<br /><br />No Nic, it doesn't amount to the same thing. Not even close. I have NEVER appealed to majority opinion. I have merely pointed out that there IS a vast majority opinion from qualified professionals, and given reasons for WHY it is the majority opinion." <br /><br />But mentioning the fact of majority opinions is meaningless unless you believe that it carries weight and is persuasive. Do you believe the fact a majority of scientists hold to evolution is a meaningful argument? <br /><br />"Take it easy with the recovery. One thing I learned especially as I got older is don't try to come back from injuries too fast or too soon."<br /><br />Thank you, I will. What I'm dealing with right now is a secondary issue to the cancer. The cancer is under control, but resulting nerve damage is limiting my abilities to work and be otherwise active. It is improving, but it is slow and frustrating.<br /><br />"Does the rumor mill still have Luongo going to Toronto?"<br /><br />Yes it does. Early rumours included Lupul, but that is now moot. Other rumours have included Kadri and Bozak. That would be a big mistake to let either of those guys go for an aging goalie who clearly wants to go to Florida.<br /><br />I think the public pressure affected Luongo in Vancouver. It would only be worse in Toronto. In Florida he can be virtually anonymous, which better suits his personality. He's an excellent goalie, but the public scrutiny he faces in Canada puts unwanted pressure on him and reduces his performance. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88653752346791698182013-01-25T18:54:27.589-08:002013-01-25T18:54:27.589-08:00Try Uncommon Descent 26 October 2009Try <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jeff-shallit-leveling-the-charge-of-incompetence-incompetently/" rel="nofollow"><i>Uncommon Descent</i> 26 October 2009</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35742459670449106292013-01-25T14:16:21.843-08:002013-01-25T14:16:21.843-08:00What is my "position", joey?What is my "position", joey?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10728664620761032642013-01-25T09:16:51.556-08:002013-01-25T09:16:51.556-08:00Nic
Yeah, I can read and I can also interpret wha...<i>Nic<br /><br />Yeah, I can read and I can also interpret what I read. Though you may have never used the phrase "evolution is true because so many scientists believe it.", your appeal to majority opinion amounts to the same thing. So I have not misrepresented what you've said. </i><br /><br />No Nic, it doesn't amount to the same thing. Not even close. I have NEVER appealed to majority opinion. I have merely pointed out that there IS a vast majority opinion from qualified professionals, and given reasons for WHY it is the majority opinion. I have NEVER appealed to authority and said "you should believe ToE just because scientists do". Your self denial mechanisms are twisting my arguments beyond recognition.<br /><br />Just like saying "97% of all geologists accept plate tectonics" is NOT the same as "plate tectonics must be true because geologists say so."<br /><br />Take it easy with the recovery. One thing I learned especially as I got older is don't try to come back from injuries too fast or too soon.<br /><br />Does the rumor mill still have Luongo going to Toronto?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76897212240538126432013-01-25T08:37:39.376-08:002013-01-25T08:37:39.376-08:00Thorton,
"Can you not read? I NEVER said &qu...Thorton,<br /><br />"Can you not read? I NEVER said "evolution is true because so many scientists believe it." NEVER. I said so many scientists accept ToE because of the quantity and quality of evidence. There's a REASON that it's the overwhelming scientific consensus."<br /><br />Yeah, I can read and I can also interpret what I read. Though you may have never used the phrase "evolution is true because so many scientists believe it.", your appeal to majority opinion amounts to the same thing. So I have not misrepresented what you've said. <br /><br />I've got to get to work, so I'll answer the rest of your response later. I'm slowly getting back to my business after Cancer treatment and I'm trying to get myself back into a routine.<br /><br />Yeah, losing Lupul is going to hurt. Best to keep your eyes open when screening the goalie on a Phaneuf shot. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5323063092559397952013-01-25T05:31:37.483-08:002013-01-25T05:31:37.483-08:00Your position asserts that. Nice to see that you a...Your position asserts that. Nice to see that you are just ignorant of everything.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44310222722063716022013-01-25T04:10:31.359-08:002013-01-25T04:10:31.359-08:00emty bluster boy:
We've got demonstrable, repe...emty bluster boy:<br /><i>We've got demonstrable, repeatable and observable evidence of evolutionary processes occurring in real time. </i><br /><br />Yup and we have no idea if those evolutionary processes are design processes or blind watchmaker processes. Not only that what we do observe in no way supports evolutionism.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5909865775509941392013-01-25T04:08:15.453-08:002013-01-25T04:08:15.453-08:00Dembski listed around forty different definitions ...<i>Dembski listed around forty different definitions of information and complexity. </i><br /><br />Reference please.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3417769401421977472013-01-25T02:39:41.232-08:002013-01-25T02:39:41.232-08:00Nic said:
"You're a rather peculiar char...Nic said:<br /><br />"You're a rather peculiar character. You like to come across as a very highly informed individual, but in reality your attitude comes across as that of a punk. You think you can hurl insults and issue demands and everyone should jump."<br /><br />Hmm, that's not a bad description of joey g. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41743646576844598192013-01-25T00:52:00.350-08:002013-01-25T00:52:00.350-08:00tokyojim said:
"Given the fact that you asse...tokyojim said:<br /><br />"Given the fact that you assert it all happened by chance..."<br /><br />I don't recall that I've ever asserted that in my entire life. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71079778545431604482013-01-25T00:28:14.653-08:002013-01-25T00:28:14.653-08:00Nic said:
"The evidence supports the idea b...Nic said: <br /><br />"The evidence supports the idea because of their predisposition to interpreting the data in that manner. Data is open to interpretation based on ones presuppositions. Your presupposition is that evolution is true and therefore you simply accept that all evidence points towards it. I don't presume evolution as true and therefore, I don't accept that all evidence is evidence for evolution."<br /><br />Yeah, because you're predisposed to believe in religious fairy tales. And you seem to have missed the fact that every scientist on Earth is aware of religious fairy tales (and it's likely safe to assume that a lot of them were brought up on them) yet most accept the ToE and other scientific tests/theories that support the ToE, such as radiometric dating, plate tectonics, etc. <br /><br />"Well we're making progress, now we're down to 97%. Still to high, but heading in the right direction."<br /><br />Too high? The exact percentage doesn't really matter since most scientists obviously do accept evolution and the ToE, and I seriously doubt that they would do so if the evidence and interpretations and explanations weren't convincing. There are disagreements between some scientists about the particulars of evolution and the ToE but the vast majority of total non-acceptance of evolution and the ToE is by religious zealots. <br /><br />"Why do you think that because a very large percentage of scientists are predisposed to evolution that evolution is therefore true?"<br /><br />Why do you think that one person or a large percentage of people believing in religious fairy tales makes them true? <br /><br />"The vast majority of today's scientists have throughout their entire education been told evolution is a fact. As a result I would be surprised if the vast majority didn't believe evolution to be true."<br /><br />All scientists on Earth have been 'told' that religious fairy tales are true or a "fact", and like I said above it's likely safe to assume that a lot of them were told that from their birth. <br /><br />"However, these numbers are meaningless in determining whether or not evolution is indeed true. You could have every person on the planet convinced of evolution's truth, but that would not make it in fact true."<br /><br />Yes, it's true that numbers don't matter, unless the numbers accept something based on evidence and a rational interpretation/explanation. And you could have every person on the planet convinced of the truth of religious beliefs but that would not make them, in fact, true. <br /><br />"If everyone on Earth was to believe the Sun revolved around the Earth, would the Sun then begin to revolve around the Earth? Truth is its own defence regardless of popular opinion."<br /><br />It's funny that you used the Sun orbiting the Earth example. And yeah, popular opinion doesn't establish that religious beliefs are true. You obviously think that most scientists are brainwashed from childhood on into accepting evolution and the ToE but you aren't willing to apply the same thinking to religious beliefs. <br /><br />"No one is saying they are delusional or misinformed. I have only claimed they are predisposed to interpreting the evidence in light of their presuppositions."<br /><br />Actually, you are saying that they're delusional or misinformed. Why can't you god pushers be honest? <br /><br />"As for plate tectonics, that is an observable and measurable phenomenon which has really nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Plate tectonics is not a problem within a design scenario."<br /><br />Plate tectonics does have something to do with evolutionary theory, especially in regard to the location/distribution of prehistoric and extant organisms and sediments. Of course plate tectonics is not a problem within a design scenario, because anything at all can be fit into a design scenario. An allegedly omnipotent, omniscient sky daddy designer can allegedly do anything. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32531334053728817892013-01-24T23:26:54.164-08:002013-01-24T23:26:54.164-08:00Nic said:
"I can't give you numbers beca...Nic said:<br /><br />"I can't give you numbers because I don't keep track. Suffice it to say that over the last thirty or so years it would number in the hundreds. As for giving you names, why would I do that and why would you want them? Do you seriously think you would know all those people?"<br /><br />In other words, you can't support your claim. joey g should be along any minute now to give you a hard time for that. <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.com