Frank Rommey - Interesting: The most disparaging comments against beliefs come from people that declare "I *believe* there is no god"... Conversely, the most disparaging comments against science com from people that declare "I'm *not* a scientist"... And the most vitriolic comments against non-believers come from people that declare to be religious, but are ignorant of their own *religion*. We also find mischievous, those people that claim to be *Democrats*, but despise every Democratic accomplishment... If one does not believe in something, shouldn't be a problem to say to others, that one is a non-believer. Why we try to sugarcoat what we are? What we shouldn't do is to pretend to be what we are not...
Herb Neu - Part of the solution would be meditation. It would help us to believe in ourselves. Once that happens, so does truth. Damn, I'm feeling so philosophical today. I found my wedding band out in the yard today. I dreamed that I'd find it today. It had fallen off my finger while doing yard work about 5 months ago, due to weight loss. But I digress. Ommmmm.
Bill Dew - Religion is bad. Mmmmkay?
Muhammad Rasheed - The sheep in the pews believe there is actually "overwhelming evidence" for evolution theory, meanwhile the priests behind the curtain admit to no such a thing. The pro-evolutionary theory scientists don't like to debate it because they can't admit that their hand is weak in public, so that they may continue to get public support and institutional funding.
Frank Rommey - @Muhammad, how you justify your assertion that evolutionary scientists "can't admit that their hand is weak, in public."? So far there is a complete agreement that evolutionary theory is the foundation of everything we study in biology and every related field... The few exceptions aren't even part of the scientific community. I am making reference to any creationist, or their brethen, the intelligent design gang. There is only a reason for the opposition to the evolutionay theory, and it is exclusively political, although it often hides under a flimsy religious mask.
Muhammad Rasheed - THEORY POINT #1: New species arise from biological populations being isolated by geographical barriers, such as mountain ranges, or open bodies of water, that force an ancestral population to diverge.
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT QUOTE: “While that model fits for many parts of the natural world, it doesn’t explain why some species appear to have evolved separately, within the same location, where there are no geographic barriers to gene flow.” ~Vicki Friesen, professor of biology (Science daily article, 20 Nov 2007) Doctor Friesen’s own research indicated that the band-rumped storm petrel shares its nesting sites in sequence with other petrels, with this conflicting with the standard view of evolutionary theory.
CONCLUSION: Speciation proceeds in both the presence and absence of geographic barriers, while evolutionary theory says that just such barriers are needed for it to function.
Muhammad Rasheed - THEORY POINT #2: Biological organisms engage in a continuous evolutionary process in which competing reproducing entities engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge, leading to the species transforming into other species slowly over time.
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT QUOTE: “Most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account of evolution.” ~Robert Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution
"In sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. Important issues about selection remain unresolved.” ~Joel Kingsolver, The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations (2001)
“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds’ major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” ~Eugene Koonin, The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution (2007)
“The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” Emile Zuckerkandl, Neutral and nonneutral mutations: the creative mix--evolution of complexity in gene interaction systems (1997)
CONCLUSION: The concept that species slowly evolve into different species, leaving behind a fossil record of numerous, partially transformed species growing more and more complex or specialized, is a fiction promoted as a blind faith doctrine unsupported by any facts. Experimentations on millions of fruit flies, as well as over 6,000 years of barnyard artificial selections have never left any trace of any of these organisms ever transforming into a new species. Ever.
Muhammad Rasheed - THEORY POINT #3: Natural selection causes mutations to appear in the genetic code that enable a species to survive.
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT QUOTE: “The great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations.” ~Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of Molecular Biology (1983)
CONCLUSION: Waves of probability ebb and flow throughout the molecular structure of a living organism. Whether a mutation is fixed within a population or whether it is simply washed away is 100% a matter of pure chance.
Muhammad Rasheed - The above Theory Points represent the heart & soul of evolutionary theory, and the facts... or the conspicuous absence of the facts as the case may be... absolutely don't even come close to supporting the blind faith belief of its proponents that there is actually any "overwhelming supporting evidence" for it. The idea is absurd.
The demand that the facts somehow support the theory is thus treated as it so often is in evolutionary theory by its true believers: As an inconvenience.
Muhammad Rasheed - I wait with baited breath to read your refutation to my challenge.
Throw down your rod!
Evolutionary theory is not a scientific principle, but an ideology of blind faith unsupported by any facts and by the scientific community themselves. They have a shaky optimism that someday a fact might surface that will actually prove one of these major tenets of the evolutionary religion that they so desperately want to replace the concept of God with.
Herb Neu - Adaptation, and not the "fittest", ensures survival—ergo, "sudden" evolution.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol "Sudden evolution," eh? Is that why there are no strictly gradualistic fossils in the record, because evolution now magically functions as a "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" technique of biological organism appearance?
Muhammad Rasheed - Interesting.
Muhammad Rasheed - smh
Muhammad Rasheed - Good luck in your nonsense theory replacing God. Sounds like you are just trying to replace all of the biblical concepts with pseudo-scientific claptrap and pretend it’s your own.
Herb Neu - Actually, "sudden" can be hundreds of thousands of years for complex beings, or in the blink of the eye when it comes to bacteria and other organisms.
Muhammad Rasheed - Explain how this "sudden" shift in the theory still qualifies as "evolution" at all?
Muhammad Rasheed - A "sudden" appearance of entire new biological species with no record at all of gradual intermediary animals to get there from previous different species is the literal exact opposite of the theory -- the opposite of exactly what the proponents NEED in order for it to actually function the way they say. Do you recognize this? That's why they invented Piltdown Man as kind of a plastic place holder until their darwin god could somehow magically provide the missing data.
Herb Neu - You can find it yourself if you are really interested in other scientific pursuits on the subject. Creationism, intelligent design... a result of indoctrination.
Muhammad Rasheed - Herb Neu wrote: "You can find it yourself if..."
No, I cannot, nor can YOU because it is 100% FICTION. Stop peddling your nonsense and pretending it is true. If there were in fact "overwhelming supporting evidence" for it you would have ZERO PROBLEM supporting it with just such "overwhelming" facts. Am I realistically supposed to believe that the "overwhelming facts" are right at your finger tips and you simply don't feel like providing them? lol
Admit it. All you have is blind faith.
Frank Rommey - Muhammad, every theory point you presented "as accepted" are fake. That's your understanding. Not the Theory of Evolution on which details the biologists are working. When are you believers to understand that in science there are no absolutes but explanation of observations on which corroborating evidence is found. Theological philosophies are not applicable. Period... "Interesting" and "smh" work only within the flok of converts... You are asking the wrong questions what only reveals your lack of intention of ever considering a possible answer. Your wrong questions are on public record and debunked in hundreds of articles. But it haven't changed the questions... so let's end this here. Copy and paste (which is what you have done) of supposed critiques to a supposed definition of evolution is not what helps us to understand the motivation of those who engage in such behavior. But thanks for showing us an example of that behavior my status was addressing.
Muhammad Rasheed - Frank Rommey wrote: "@Muhammad, every theory point you presented "as accepted" are fake."
Based on what? lol
Because it conflicts with your evolutionary religion? awww...
Muhammad Rasheed - hahaha
Muhammad Rasheed - Show me how they are fake. What do you have that definitively refutes them in the wake of the fictional "overwhelming evidence" per Bill's meme?
Frank Rommey –
Muhammad Rasheed - hahahahaha
That’s what I thought. See how touchy people get when you challenge their religion? Yikes! lol
Abdur Rasheed - Where did you get those quotes from? were they direct quotes or second hand from another source?
Muhammad Rasheed - They are direct quotes from the books and scientific papers. They are all PDFs or available as online articles.
Abdur Rasheed – Ok
so you don't believe in evolution at all?
Muhammad Rasheed - I believe in a lesser form of evolution... behavioral evolution, emotional evolution, an evolution in maturity development from child to adult... but there's no evidence for Evolutionary Theory as being the catalyst for the origin of species as those proponents claim. In fact, their decades long desperation for it to be the concept that replaces the God origin of the universe and of life on earth makes me automatically biased and ungenerous towards it, so when I see the "behind the curtain" aspect of what they actually hold in their cards as "science," all I can do is point and laugh.
Because it means -- in the absence of facts -- that they are blind faithin' it up just like the theists they make fun of. And worst! Because religion is SUPPOSED to run on belief/faith, while what they hold is SUPPOSED to be fact-driven science.
Abdur Rasheed - Misconceptions About Evolution
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur's article wrote: "Today, we understand the genetic basis for the inheritance of traits..."
The second SBE quote in Theory Point #2 shows that to be a lie.
Abdur's article wrote: "...and we can study how evolution has shaped development at a molecular level."
Theory Point #3 shows that to be a lie.
Abdur's article wrote: "These advances — ones that Darwin likely could not have imagined..."
What advances? The article is just 'talking,' and saying what the theorists have, but that they actually DON'T have. Where are the "corrections?"
Many of these questions aren't my questions. I know what a "theory" is, for example.
I'm only interested in penetrating to the direct heart of the actual tenets of the evolutionary faith. Those three items. What do the proponents have that demonstrate the 'overwhelming evidence' for these three items to be scientific principles as "true as gravity?"
Abdur Rasheed - Evidence for Evolution
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur's new article wrote: "During and since Darwin's time, people have been looking for and studying evidence in nature that teaches them more about evolution. Some types of evidence, such as fossils and similarities between related living organisms, were used by Darwin to develop his theory of natural selection..."
That's not "evidence." That's what Jackals Home would call "spelling words out in the Alpha-bits." There's actually no evidence for his ideas to be true.
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur's new article wrote: " Others, such as DNA testing, were not available in Darwin's time, but are used by scientists today to learn more about evolution."
The 3rd SBE quote in Theory Point #2 show that as a lie.
Abdur's new article wrote: "Five types of evidence for evolution are discussed in this section:"
I'm RIVETED. lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur's new article wrote: "Another important type of evidence that Darwin studied and that is still studied and used today is artificial selection, or breeding."
You mean all the new species that farmers and dog/cat breeders have created from artificially selecting pets and barnyard animals for a trillion years? (see: Theory Point #2)
Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad's wrote: "THEORY POINT #1: "While that model fits for many parts of the natural world...”
scientists are still looking for the evidence for the gaps. If there is NEW data introduced then they follow the data.
Muhammad Rasheed - I know. Therein lies their problem: Looking for evidence isn't quite the same as evidence innit? You don't see the conflict? Evolutionary Theory says that IS the model for natural selection to work. The fact that speciation happens outside of that model at all means that the theory doesn't "have gaps," but it falls apart.
Abdur Rasheed - if they find conflicting evidence then they follow where the evidence leads them.
Muhammad Rasheed - Well, "if they finds" shouldn't be used when people are describing the work as having "overwhelming supporting evidence" I should think...
Muhammad Rasheed - Well, "if they finds" shouldn't be used when people are describing the work as having "overwhelming supporting evidence" I should think...
Muhammad Rasheed - Her line "fits for many parts of the natural world" is just her covering her ass in that industry so it doesn't pointblank sound like she's rejecting it, so she doesn't get ostracized or something.
Abdur Rasheed - thats not how it works Muhammad.
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur wrote: "if they find conflicting evidence then they follow where the evidence leads them."
Actually they either stare at it dumbfounded, or cover it up:
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur wrote: "thats not how it works Muhammad."
Okay. You're right. I'm sorry for wasting your time. I see it now. Thank you for helping me. I'm glad I talked to you about it. I don't know what I was thinking. Thank you so much.
How's the family been?
Abdur Rasheed - You have got to be SHITTING ME?? THIS CRAZY MOTHERFUCKER????
What in the fuck happened to my brother? FUCK KUWAIT!!!
Muhammad Rasheed – You are now demonstrating the "genetic fallacy."
And I bought that book in 2008. Or 2007.
Abdur Rasheed - So we're NOT brothers?
Muhammad Rasheed – lol
The genetic fallacy (Jackals Homes' pet fallacy) is when you ignore the material and attack the dude saying it as if it refutes the material.
Muhammad Rasheed – [from Amazon] "After having spent best part of the last 6 months reading this juggernaut and cross-checking references, I can only say that the authors have done a tremendous job of proving that the evidence for the great antiquity of man is at least as strong as much of the evidence commonly accepted today as proof of human history. Those reviewers who claim the authors do not know their subject, or that they employ junk science or bad archaeology, quite simply have not read the book. Those claims are based more upon the (often very impressive) ignorance and preconceptions of the reviewers; do not be put off by them. Examine the evidence and judge for yourself."
Muhammad Rasheed - *shrug*
Abdur Rasheed - Did you know that David Duke gives health and diet advice?
Muhammad Rasheed - Yes.
Abdur Rasheed - Did you know that Micheal Cremo can make a living is by selling an against the grain batshit theory as truth? What else is he gonna do? The family is good.
Muhammad Rasheed - You're trying to say that because he has interests in areas you disapprove of, it means his archaeology masterwork should be dismissed without addressing the points in anyway.
Is that logical?
Muhammad Rasheed - David Duke is also pretty good in algebra. Should I chuck algebra because he thinks you're a monkey? "FUCK ALGEBRA!!"
That in a nutshell, is why the genetic fallacy is bad.
Abdur Rasheed - yeah.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Yeah" you should chuck algebra? hahaha
Abdur Rasheed - have you ever used Algebra in your adult life?
Abdur Rasheed - Fuck no you haven't! Then FUCK ALGEBRA THEN!!
Muhammad Rasheed - Dammit, I'm not a mathematician or a computer programmer or whatever! hahaha
Muhammad Rasheed - Counting the numbers on this ruler is as high up as I go in that math shit... lol
Abdur Rasheed - just know that it ain't no more fun with a tape measure.
Muhammad Rasheed - I use tape measures, too. Mostly at work measuring walls for murals and such.
Muhammad Rasheed - Stop performing the genetic fallacy. Leave that as Jackals Homes' shtick. I don't feel like having the exact same argument when I talk to you two. Pick a different fallacy as your signature super villain power. Every time you use the genetic fallacy, it’s like The Riddler using an aquatic bird motif in his crime spree. Get your own shit.
Abdur Rasheed - do you remember my rant about Bill Whittle?
Muhammad Rasheed - No. When was that?
Abdur Rasheed - before we started arguing about shiny rocks and shit, it was the last conversation I had with Kirby.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Bill Whittle (born April 7, 1959) is an American conservative blogger, political commentator, director, screenwriter, editor, pilot, and author.” That was someone Kirby was into? Do you still have the argument? Perhaps stored in a convenient FB Note...?
Abdur wrote: "before we started arguing about shiny rocks and shit…"
That wasn't an argument. You just came in there to clown me. It's cool.
Abdur Rasheed - "Michael Daniels wrote: "The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit"
Very true Rev Michael, but what happens if you REPEATEDLY catch somebody in bait and switch lies time and time again and you go through all the trouble of exposing them time and time again?
Are you STILL obligated to go through the motions of exposing them yet again?
At what point do you say, "I SEE YOU, SATAN!" And be on your way not wasting your time with lies and intentional falsehoods?
If someone is at work and you call them 3 different times and tell them that their house is on fire and they rush home to see you pointing and laughing at them. If they hang up on you the fourth time and dismiss your word does your definition of a "genetic fallacy" still come into play?
Of course it doesn't.
I'm not a fan of being repeatedly intentionally fooled.
When he justified the murder of that boy by slandering him with lies that he himself made up was enough for me.
There is NO HONOR in Bill Whittle.
If you two want to keep drinking his kool aide...knock yourselves out.
If you have another source...post up.
Whittle is a waste of my time.
Abdur Rasheed - Kirby wrote: "I don't see how it shows that the argument in the video is false."
Here's a better question: how could reading ANYTHING that I wrote above give you even the slightest impression that I could have possible watched another one of your bullshit Bill Whittle videos that you keep posting like gospel?
The man had YOU convinced that Trayvon Martin was a "Leen" attic who was trying to beat poor Zimmerman to death and he was lucky that he killed the boy.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Bill Whittle didn't just say what he had heard but he INITIATED the scam and ALL of the both Conservative websites AND ALL the White Supremacist web sites ALL used Bill Whittles lie to fool the stupid who don't have the magical ability to pause Bills video and see for yourself.
When I showed YOU you were like, "Damn! I need to look closer into this.
Out of every source for this blatant lie on all of the Internet They ALL site Bill Whittle as the source.
And so did YOU.
YOU keep watching his videos and keep believing his bullshit.
You followed his lie as he justified killing that young boy as a "sex crazed hip hop thug" and supported it with blatant lies and now you want him to teach YOU about RACISM and where you can find it?
I do believe I have lost all respect for what you call intelligence, Kirb.
Abdur Rasheed - Afterburner w/Bill Whittle: The Lynching
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur responded: "Very true Rev Michael, but what happens if you REPEATEDLY catch somebody in bait and switch lies time and time again and you go through all the trouble of exposing them time and time again?"
If we are specifically discussing XYZ, I quote something that supports my side of the argument, and you completely sidestep that support to misdirect towards the cocaine/hooker-fest that guy was engaged in, how did you address my point? The genetic fallacy is used as a legitimate tool in court cases in which witnesses will be discredited, but it is actually a petty technicality that literally doesn't address the point. Should Einstein's theory of relativity be chucked because we found his porn stash of chunky asian women? Really?
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur responded: "At what point do you say, 'I SEE YOU, SATAN!' And be on your way not wasting your time with lies and intentional falsehoods?"
Science is meticulous. To find the truth in science you are obligated to search through EVERY. SINGLE. PIECE. OF. EVIDENCE... until you verify which one is real, and which one's are false. Every single one. The one that's real you keep. The verified falsehoods you discard. That is "how it works muhammad."
Muhammad Rasheed - If this Bill Whittle cat was proven to be a liar by saying XYZ, then the points that were supposed to be supported by what he said would collapse.
If he told the truth about ABC, and ABC was used to support Deac's argument, then it would be a genetic fallacy to discard his argument because Wittle said XYZ.
As a truth seeker you would be obligated to only address ABC, regardless of who said it. The other thing he said would be irrelevant in context and inadmissible to the argument. Period.
Abdur Rasheed - No. Eienstein's theory would not be suspect, but if Einstein had ZERO education or experience in science, astrophysics, math, or anything other than a Hari Krishna com pound of spiritual enlightenment and that he could spell words in his alphabet soup and then wrote a book on how light was the slowest thing in the universe and that all f the actual scientists were wrong... I would say, 'Yup. Batshit."
Abdur Rasheed - and then get a chicken burrito or something.
Muhammad Rasheed – lol
The academic institutions do not have a monopoly on the research method. Anyone interested in a field can research and perform the scientific method and put together a competent body of work in areas they are interested in.
That quote from the reviewer about Cremo's book is the heart & soul of that point. He took the time to cross-reference the actual material and discovered it legit.
Abdur Rasheed – k
Muhammad Rasheed - Dismissing the whole thing because you don't like Cremo's incense choices is not “science.”
See Also:BATTLE MODE: Evolution versus Religion
Post a Comment