The Evolution Fail/Religion Hijack Thread

[JoltinJoe]

That wouldn't be true either. It has never been Catholic doctrine that Genesis is to be read literally. Now, prior to Augustine, some accepted Genesis literally. That would true. But most always read Genesis allegorically -- as did many Jews at the time of Christ.

I like upsetting you...

But you're the one talking bullshi!t Joe... Just own it - or throw it out
But the dancing backwards only makes the whole thing look stupid

Last I looked something like 38% of American Christians still believe in Genesis - and it's 2018

It doesn't upset me that you are an under-educated pseudo-intellectual. It should upset you, but it doesn't, so why would it bother me?

You said the Pope has been walking back Church teaching on Genesis. That's not true. It's been Church teaching since the 4th century that Genesis is allegorical. If 38% of Americans accept Genesis literally (source?), so what? You said the Pope was walking back official Church teaching and, like most things you say, that is nonsense.

[Chizzang]

I like upsetting you...

But you're the one talking bullshi!t Joe... Just own it - or throw it out
But the dancing backwards only makes the whole thing look stupid

Last I looked something like 38% of American Christians still believe in Genesis - and it's 2018

I love all of Cleets mini lectures on God and Christianity.

For a guy who claims that nobody knows what God wants, you sure do tell everyone what God wants.

Your reading comprehension must be lower than I originally assessed...
Where do I say anything at all about god..?

I say a lot about Christians
I know that gets confusing for you



If you want to sit with the adults
you're going to have to tighten your game up a little bit

also this:

[CID1990]

I think we may be distinguishing Catholics from Christians

I know Protestants do lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

It's on bitches! I got the next seven days off to shame you into oblivion...just not tonight. Drinking wine tonight. Fuck off.

Junk DNA and it's adherents take a beating.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/08/princ ... a-at-work/

The article refers several times to “darwinists”. What’s a Darwinist? Why can’t they believe in creation?

Also, how do these on/off switch DNA thingies refute evolution?

[Chizzang]

I think we may be distinguishing Catholics from Christians

I know Protestants do lol

Interesting to note:
Years ago I read about a religious study and one of the "side data" points to reveal itself
was that Catholics as a group averaged a higher IQ than other American Christians

and it's wasn't just a little bit...
It wasn't at all what they were looking for in the study - but it was pretty clear in the data

[∞∞∞]

Interesting to note:
Years ago I read about a religious study and one of the "side data" points to reveal itself
was that Catholics as a group averaged a higher IQ than other American Christians

and it's wasn't just a little bit...

Anecdotally, this does seem to be the case.

[Gil Dobie]

Christian based doesn't mean anti-evolution. There are millions of Christians that believe in evolution. You are trying to lump anti-evolution into a Christian belief. Over half Catholics and over half main stream protestants believe in evolution according to PEW. The 5 groups that have a majority that doesn't believe in evolution is Muslim, Mormon, Evangelical Christian, Historically Black Protestant and Jehovah's Witness. Oh, and 77% of the Jewish population believe in evolution.

If you believe in Evolution you're not entirely Christian by definition
Christianity has been dancing madly backwards for 400 years
in 100 years just believing that Jesus existed at all will be defined as Christian

The current Pope gets this and is working had to move with the times

A current model evolution believing Christian of today
would not be recognized as anything other than a heretic of yesterday
and end up hanging from a rope

Christianity has morphed to suit science
and that is just a cold hard fact

If evolution had never been discovered they'd still be referencing genesis verbatim

Christianity is following the teachings of Jesus. Does anyone have documented evidence that Jesus taught anti- evolution? The belief in evolution has been around even before Christianity, Darwin brought it into modern context.

[Gil Dobie]

Interesting to note:
Years ago I read about a religious study and one of the "side data" points to reveal itself
was that Catholics as a group averaged a higher IQ than other American Christians

and it's wasn't just a little bit...

Anecdotally, this does seem to be the case.

Years ago I read about a religious study and the main point was that there was no evidence of IQ being related to religious affiliation.

[SeattleGriz]

I love all of Cleets mini lectures on God and Christianity.

For a guy who claims that nobody knows what God wants, you sure do tell everyone what God wants.

Your reading comprehension must be lower than I originally assessed...
Where do I say anything at all about god..?

I say a lot about Christians
I know that gets confusing for you



If you want to sit with the adults
you're going to have to tighten your game up a little bit

also this:

Ha! Your comeback would only be better if you used the Old Capn Cat line, "Go study up and report back to me when you learn something."

[SeattleGriz]

It's on bitches! I got the next seven days off to shame you into oblivion...just not tonight. Drinking wine tonight. Fuck off.

Junk DNA and it's adherents take a beating.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/08/princ ... a-at-work/

The article refers several times to “darwinists”. What’s a Darwinist? Why can’t they believe in creation?

Also, how do these on/off switch DNA thingies refute evolution?

As a prediction that came from the evolutionary theory that we are here due to random mutations and natural selection, the term junk DNA was used to describe all the DNA that didn't have a purpose (function). It was predicted that our junk DNA was genetic floatsam and jetsam - the leftovers from many millennia of mutations.

Well, with the ENCODE project done, the portion of the DNA that was considered junk, has now been discovered to have all the switch DNA thingys - controls our DNA.

This proves that the evolutionary theory produced a real stinker of a prediction. In fact our DNA is not junk and never was, it is highly ordered.

In the scientific process, you make a prediction and then you need to test that prediction. If the prediction is incorrect, then chances are you underlying assumptions that got you there are most likely incorrect.

By the way, not saying evolution in it's entirety is incorrect, just that the Darwinist version needs something added to it, to help it make better predictions. You are starting to see that now in the field. Many are realizing the theory is lacking something.

[Chizzang]

Christianity is following the teachings of Jesus. Does anyone have documented evidence that Jesus taught anti- evolution? The belief in evolution has been around even before Christianity, Darwin brought it into modern context.

It would be nice in general if Christianity just moved completely past the Old Testament

But, what can be done about slavery...

[SeattleGriz]

If you believe in Evolution you're not entirely Christian by definition
Christianity has been dancing madly backwards for 400 years
in 100 years just believing that Jesus existed at all will be defined as Christian

The current Pope gets this and is working had to move with the times

A current model evolution believing Christian of today
would not be recognized as anything other than a heretic of yesterday
and end up hanging from a rope

Christianity has morphed to suit science
and that is just a cold hard fact

If evolution had never been discovered they'd still be referencing genesis verbatim

Christianity is following the teachings of Jesus. Does anyone have documented evidence that Jesus taught anti- evolution? The belief in evolution has been around even before Christianity, Darwin brought it into modern context.

Lamarck's theory seems to be doing better than Darwin's, especially in light of epigenetics.

[CID1990]

I think we may be distinguishing Catholics from Christians

I know Protestants do lol

Interesting to note:
Years ago I read about a religious study and one of the "side data" points to reveal itself
was that Catholics as a group averaged a higher IQ than other American Christians

and it's wasn't just a little bit...
It wasn't at all what they were looking for in the study - but it was pretty clear in the data

Where did former Protestant atheists rank?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

You should read the links cited in the opinion piece. It's really funny how the author (and yourself) took those articles and ended up twisting it into something that completely misses the entire point. If anything, the ENCODE project and this new information about junk DNA further expands human knowledge regarding the evolutionary process. It did nothing to debunk it as you're trying to claim.

What you've done is create a hypothesis and fit the facts around it. And worst of all, it's a conclusion based on very complicated science that you're not even involved in.

I'd much rather trust the conclusions of actual scientist with PhDs, tens of thousands research hours and experimentation, passion for their field, and respect for the scientific process.

I hope you see how they've EARNED to have more credibility than you...

[Chizzang]

Interesting to note:
Years ago I read about a religious study and one of the "side data" points to reveal itself
was that Catholics as a group averaged a higher IQ than other American Christians

and it's wasn't just a little bit...
It wasn't at all what they were looking for in the study - but it was pretty clear in the data

Where did former Protestant atheists rank?

I'm pretty sure all the way at the bottom...

[SeattleGriz]

You should read the links cited in the opinion piece. It's really funny how the author (and yourself) took those articles and ended up twisting it into something that completely misses the entire point. If anything, the ENCODE project and this new information about junk DNA further expands human knowledge regarding the evolutionary process. It did nothing to debunk it as you're trying to claim.

What you've done is create a hypothesis and fit the facts around it. And worst of all, it's a conclusion based on very complicated science that you're not even involved in.

I'd much rather trust the conclusions of actual scientist with PhDs, tens of thousands research hours and experimentation, passion for their field, and respect for the scientific process.

I hope you see how they've EARNED to have more credibility than you...

Give me a little reference to how this finding of usefulness supports the Junk DNA hypothesis? I can't specifically answer if you give me generalities.

[Pwns]

It doesn't make any sense to me that you could just rely on random mutations to create new and useful alleles and variants in a population. That would just be way too slow. Nature needs to cast a wide net and try a lot of different new things to come up with something useful by chance.

I'm guessing introns are sort of a library of experimental DNA that can sometimes gain promoter regions and become active.

[Silenoz]

"Evolution News and Science Today"

Love it. It's like when anti-vaccine pseudo-science sites are labelled "Vaccine News and Science Today." Bitches be trying their hardest.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I went ahead and took the time to read it this time and I don't see how that discredits the overall theory of evolution in any way.

If you've known me for many years you know that I think people can get a bit over the top with respect to the certainty associated with the overall body of theory. I don't like the dogmatic approach some people have taken.

But I don't see this as discrediting the body of theory at all.

[Chizzang]

BTW I went ahead and took the time to read it this time and I don't see how that discredits the overall theory of evolution in any way.

If you've known me for many years you know that I think people can get a bit over the top with respect to the certainty associated with the overall body of theory. I don't like the dogmatic approach some people have taken.

But I don't see this as discrediting the body of theory at all.

John,
If you end this thread with a thud like that I won't get to annoy Joe anymore...



I guess I can wait until SeattleGriz gets drunk and posts another evolution thread next weekend
but you're really taking the wind out of my sails

[SeattleGriz]

BTW I went ahead and took the time to read it this time and I don't see how that discredits the overall theory of evolution in any way.

If you've known me for many years you know that I think people can get a bit over the top with respect to the certainty associated with the overall body of theory. I don't like the dogmatic approach some people have taken.

But I don't see this as discrediting the body of theory at all.

So how did finding complexity in what was formerly considered junk DNA bolster that prediction?

I appreciate you taking the time to read the article.

If you read through my posts, I didn't say this disproved evolution, but that a really bad prediction shows there is something lacking with the current hypothesis. This was more about how a prediction is 100% accurate, until the science shows the opposite.

But to be honest, this was never about junk DNA. It was about the evolution field using the term like a pejorative to stick their fingers in the eyes of those who believed in creation. Non-functional would have been appropriate and obviously more technical.

By the way, not saying evolution in it's entirety is incorrect, just that the Darwinist version needs something added to it, to help it make better predictions. You are starting to see that now in the field. Many are realizing the theory is lacking something.

[SeattleGriz]

My other favorite topic on evolution. Dr Richard Lenski's long term experimental evolution project. A great study in which they have had over 50,000 generations of E Coli. Not much in the way of mutations or creation of new strains of bacteria. Evolution is apparently resting. Joking, but I am serious about his experiment being a good one.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/index.html

The inexorable rhythm of the project is as follows:

Every day, the cultures are propagated;
Every 75 days (500 generations), mixed-population samples are frozen away; and
Mean fitness, relative to the ancestor, is estimated using the mixed-population samples.

[kalm]

BTW I went ahead and took the time to read it this time and I don't see how that discredits the overall theory of evolution in any way.

If you've known me for many years you know that I think people can get a bit over the top with respect to the certainty associated with the overall body of theory. I don't like the dogmatic approach some people have taken.

But I don't see this as discrediting the body of theory at all.

So how did finding complexity in what was formerly considered junk DNA bolster that prediction?

I appreciate you taking the time to read the article.

If you read through my posts, I didn't say this disproved evolution, but that a really bad prediction shows there is something lacking with the current hypothesis. This was more about how a prediction is 100% accurate, until the science shows the opposite.

But to be honest, this was never about junk DNA. It was about the evolution field using the term like a pejorative to stick their fingers in the eyes of those who believed in creation. Non-functional would have been appropriate and obviously more technical.

By the way, not saying evolution in it's entirety is incorrect, just that the Darwinist version needs something added to it, to help it make better predictions. You are starting to see that now in the field. Many are realizing the theory is lacking something.

In other words, right wingnut political correctness....

[CID1990]

Everything we don't know is a mystery

Mystery = Jesus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

On Darwinism: I haven't looked it up but I doubt that Darwin knew anything about "junk DNA." I doubt that it was part of Darwin's theory. I think his theory was mostly about natural selection.