How to control the people : Keep them stupid and uninformed

[buckshot24]

You have my position wrong. Of course we know the universe is approximately 14 billion years old according to scientific theory. We know it in the normal sense of knowing anything scientifically. We believe that science is the best logical tool to gather truth based on data rather than what some text, for example, that claims to be true by it's own words without outside validation via experimental evidence. I said we know this because is scientific knowledge based on broad corroboration, whereas one text claiming to be the absolute truth will contradict another that says the same thing. This is why non-scientific explanations for truth are called opinions. We know the universe is 14 billion years old approximately but we may be wrong. We infer it from what we know about chemistry and physics etc. Inference is a genetic ability we possess. We don't have to hit ourselves on the head with a rock to know it's not a good idea.

So you are not using the word knowledge in the usual way it is used. Your usage is arcane and may not even be good in horseshoes. I mentioned that you tend to focus on these minor issues like somebody with Asperger's can sometimes do. You are drilling in when vision comes from a wider perspective.

Perhaps you would care to express what you mean by knowing?

Please focus on your 100% claim. I am not the subject of conversation.

 

[buckshot24]

Oh lawdy, @Moonbeam, you're asking a guy who can't even spell "epistemology" to explain his own?

Go pet your 30 cats.

 

[buckshot24]

He hasn't got shit and we all know it. Deep down, he knows it too, hence why every time he's challenged he tone-trolls and runs away.

I'm not going to argue against the theory of evolution because I know what it becomes. It takes way more time than I have to give. And you don't have time either because somebody has to clean all those kitty litter trays.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm familiar with the whole song & dance. It's one angle on the "teach the controversy" argle-bargle. The probability of life doesn't even matter because life exists. It either arose from natural forces or some supernatural agency must be employed to explain it.

Given the evidence at hand, the former seems much more likely because the latter demands a leap of faith.

How life began, unguided via chemistry alone is a leap of faith. You can't just admit you misunderstood why I brought up those numbers in the first place. Its obvious.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

You don't wanna argue creationism, Buckshit. It's the strongest possible argument for an outright evil God-figure there is. Incidentally, I'm taking care of the cat litter by dumping it in your bed; I figure since you've constantly been shitting it since you started posting here a little clumping action might do you some good

 

[buckshot24]

It appears you've misunderstood why I posted those numbers. I'm not "misusing" probability, I'm challenging Moonbeams 100% claim he made earlier.

I'm not really interested in getting sucked down this rabbit hole with BS24; he's shown us before he has zero interest in discussing this topic honestly. I simply note his denial is crafted from a mix of flawed science and deceitful math. I'll leave this here for the rest of you if you're interested.

First, here's one of many nice summaries rebutting his denial: Misuse of probability by "creation scientists". Not only does it deconstruct his reasoning, but it cites a couple of examples of real world evolution. For example:

"Ample and well-established experimental evidence supports the scientific view. For example, in a 1974 paper by biologists Barry Hall and Daniel Hartl, a gene was identified in the bacterium E. coli that is responsible for metabolizing lactose, using a complicated three-part process. They removed this gene, and then permitted the bacteria to multiply in a stressed environment containing lactose. Within 24 hours the bacteria had evolved a capability to utilize lactose, by means of a similar but distinct three-part biochemical pathway, involving two mutated genes [Hall; Miller, 1999, pg. 145-147]."​

Note that this didn't require billions of years and a planet full of organisms. It was observed in a lab, and it took a day. Life adapts.

This hasn't rebutted anything I've said here. All I've said that if something is fantastically unlikely that 4 billion years isn't all long to make them likely or certain. So we need to know more.

It taking a day is evidence that it wasn't a random change that caused this. The adaptability of organisms isn't evidence that these systems were the product of Neo-Darwinian evolution, quite the opposite.

Second, BS24's starting assumption of 100 trillion (10^14) organisms is ridiculously wrong. The current best estimates are that there are somewhere around 10^30 to 10^35 simple microscopic organisms on Earth This does NOT include more complex lifeforms, each with billions or trillions of cells. (For example, each individual human body is estimated to have between 10^13 and 10^14 cells.)

First the number of cells in more complex lifeforms are irrelevant to this discussion. Reproductive cells are all that count there. Secondly, I wasn't trying to make a probability argument so the actual numbers don't really matter (as explained above).

The estimated number of microorganisms I found was 9.2×10^29 and 31.7×10^29 here. Not that it matters AT ALL to what I've been saying.

Also, I assumed replication once every second when things like ecoli takes 20 minutes to replicate but again, it doesn't matter.

Bottom line: assuming only 100 trillion organisms are replicating is off by a good 20 orders of magnitude, give or take a few. When one starts with accurate numbers and assesses evolutionary processes accurately, yes, complex life forms are a virtual certainty over billions of years.

Show us your numbers. You're just making things up.

 

[HTFOff]

How do we combat this trend, is it time for a few good men and women to do something different than nothing?

"Have you heard what those backwards turks are doing with their curriculum? What cavemen!"

"Yes I was telling little Sally (Billy) about it during todays HRT session."

"What's going on with this crazy world?"

"Tell me about, Jim."

Let's not pretend the modern progressive is in any position to call the turks a backwards people.

Also, try and keep it "woke" within our own borders, please. The world doesn't give a shit about America's sensibilities.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Non-sequitur, false equivalence, and ad-hom all in one. You pulled off the hat trick! By which I mean you shit in your own hat and plopped it on your head. How very debonair.

 

[NostaSeronx]

"The Origin of Life and Evolution" -> "Living Beings and the Environment"
Strict Darwin and Neo-Darwin is being pushed into college which is required by teachers that teach the above shift.

//If the USA didn't have that freedom of religion clause. Protestant majority would do exactly the same thing Turkey is doing.

Gathering religious leaders in the Rose Garden, he announced that he would be signing a document that would restore their voice. “For too long, the federal government has used the power of the state as a weapon against people of faith…,” the president said, associating himself with the persecution complex that afflicts some on the religious right. “You are now in a position where you can say what you want to say.”

Trump is on record as saying that he wants to “totally destroy the Johnson Amendment.” If he were to persuade Congress to repeal the law, the effects could extend beyond priests and preachers issuing endorsements from the pulpit. Churches could become major factors in the financing of political campaigns and conduits for unaccountable special-interest political contributions. That would be bad for both politics and religion.

Trump is totally for getting rid of it. If it helps him get re-elected and republicans(majority conservatives) get re-elected.

///The most likely issue is that Darwin is mistaught. Direct evolution isn't a thing, everything is actually divergent distant cousins, till the two are no longer related.

 

[soulcougher73]

lol @ Trying to talk about scientific facts with a religious fanatic who's core values for life are devoid of facts. You cant talk sense with someone who believes in nonsense.

 

[xthetenth]

Yeah, if the landscape is full of useful outcomes you are correct, that isn't how living systems work.

The landscape is full of useful outcomes. Humans are great at replicating human DNA, ants are great at replicating ant DNA, and so on down the chain. Look at the big cats. Each is a different way of filling a similar niche from a similar starting point.

Once you get a self-replicating molecule that carries a large amount of information and can be assembled in more than one way, each strand and eventually cell and eventually organism is its own trial. There's two sides to the law of large numbers, by the way. One is that regression to the mean is increasingly likely (but not certain, mind), the other is that the unlikely outcomes happening at least once and more accurately in proportion to their likelihood becomes likely. If you have ten billion bacteria in a colony each with a one in a million chance of having a particular mutation occur in a day, then suddenly one in a million most certainly isn't a shorthand for "incredibly unlikely" anymore.

Okay I'm actually just giving statistics lessons to the audience and talking past bucky because I suffered for that. (Actually it's the second half, the basic counting theory stuff is crazy easy. Kids who're still in school, look the hell out for when the difficulty curve explodes in statistics class if you end up taking the heavier stuff.)

 

[Jhhnn]

How life began, unguided via chemistry alone is a leap of faith. You can't just admit you misunderstood why I brought up those numbers in the first place. Its obvious.

Please. Confronted with things you don't understand, you hypothesize God & attempt to justify that leap of faith with whatever means you can muster.

 

[Stokely]

Scary how easy it is to substitute "Kansas" for "Turkey". And not to only pick on Kansas, there's a number of other states for whom this is a great solution for that pesky evolution problem.

 

[cytg111]

How life began, unguided via chemistry alone is a leap of faith. You can't just admit you misunderstood why I brought up those numbers in the first place. Its obvious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...t-shows-bacteria-evolve-giant-petri-dish.html

The video at the bottom is especially enlightening. So damn fascinating that you almost forget that its trying to kill you.

 

[soulcougher73]

It is how religions maintain control. Science relies on the opposite, to keep people smart and informed.

 

[ch33zw1z]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...t-shows-bacteria-evolve-giant-petri-dish.html

The video at the bottom is especially enlightening. So damn facinating that you almost forget that its trying to kill you.

It's God's will that it kills you. No worries.

 

[cytg111]

It's God's will that it kills you. No worries.

I will have words with the old man then, make him remember that he is my creation, not the other way around. I giveth him life, I can taketh it away.

 

[buckshot24]

The landscape is full of useful outcomes.

Quantify that. Your point requires this and just asserting it isn't enough.

 

[buckshot24]

lol @ Trying to talk about scientific facts with a religious fanatic who's core values for life are devoid of facts. You cant talk sense with someone who believes in nonsense.

That isn't a fact. The microbe to man via genetic copying errors and selection is devoid of facts. It is religious dogma.

 

[repoman0]

That isn't a fact. The microbe to man via genetic copying errors and selection is devoid of facts. It is religious dogma.

It might seem that way to the stupid, uninformed, and scientifically illiterate.

 

[buckshot24]

It might seem that way to the stupid, uninformed, and scientifically illiterate.

No, that is because it is. The mechanism that you think created your brain hasn't been demonstrated to create a single simple organ. The only thing you have is your blind faith and absurd extrapolations.

 

[repoman0]

No, that is because it is. The mechanism that you think created your brain hasn't been demonstrated to create a single simple organ. The only thing you have is your blind faith and absurd extrapolations.

Case in point.

 

[buckshot24]

Case in point

Keep the faith brother.

 

[repoman0]

Keep the faith brother.

Same to you. Luckily, your point of view is dying off except in places like Turkey.

 

[buckshot24]

Same to you. Luckily, your point of view is dying off except in places like Turkey.

The Neo-Darwinian view is dying. Have you heard of the "third way"? It isn't happening because modern research is bolstering that position, just the opposite.