sexism of evolution

[MelT]

LOL! You knnow Jonathon, in all my time here I've rarely seen somebody get their ass kicked so hard. You truly live on another planet and refuse to see anything other than what christianity has taught you. I don't think there's any need for me to go on. You come across as terribly bigoted - and sexist - a good sign that christianity is working out well for you. You have not a glimmer of understanding of the things you talk about, and you consistently use wrong terms and ideas for what you represent, showing your knowledge of them is layman at best. I've got no idea why you think that anyone here is gong to fall for the lame arguments you present.

I'll just make one small point out of the many that I could make

'What has evolution done for us?' - My wife works in the National Blood Service as a researcher. I asked her where the work of blood-typing and transfusion (that has now saved millions of lives worldwide) would be without the study of evolution. She said, "Without the study of evolution there would be no Blood Service, and there would be none of the genetic treatments I use and recommend every day. It's providing cures for some forms of cancer and genetic diseases that would, just a few years ago, have killed anyone who got them. Without it, we would still be in the dark ages of medicine."

You see, it isn't just that you're wrong about the study of evolution, but that you're blustering along and saying ridiculous things like above to try and save your argument - and you therefore come across as an extremely biased fundamentalist, trotting out all the 'defence' for your ideas that you've been taught, whether it has any meaning in the real world or not. Don't you see, it's making your argument for christianity worse, not better? It all makes christianity sound like a petulant, foot-stamping child. I don't think you're winning any converts...

I for one am very happy to have you here posting, as you're a perfect example of the terrible things that religion would have us believe if we let it. Please, let's hear some more about how little use evolution is, it's the best read I've had for months!

MelT

[jonathan]

melt:

LOL! You knnow Jonathon, in all my time here I've rarely seen somebody get their lalala kicked so hard. You truly live on another planet and refuse to see anything other than what christianity has taught you. I don't think there's any need for me to go on. You come across as terribly bigoted - and sexist - a good sign that christianity is working out well for you. You have not a glimmer of understanding of the things you talk about, and you consistently use wrong terms and ideas for what you represent, showing your knowledge of them is layman at best. I've got no idea why you think that anyone here is gong to fall for the lame arguments you present.

I have not gotten anything kicked. What I've set out to show people has not been proven false by any means, and people may show soemthing that seems to contradict, but it's really not, because the issue is more complicated. Like with radiometric dating, they'll make blanket statements about how old the earth is, by they never tell you all the assumptions that went into coming to that conclusion. They won't tell you that of course, because they need the confidence in evolution, otherwise people would not be able to stand on it.

'What has evolution done for us?' - My wife works in the National Blood Service as a researcher. I asked her where the work of blood-typing and transfusion (that has now saved millions of lives worldwide) would be without the study of evolution. She said, "Without the study of evolution there would be no Blood Service, and there would be none of the genetic treatments I use and recommend every day. It's providing cures for some forms of cancer and genetic diseases that would, just a few years ago, have killed anyone who got them. Without it, we would still be in the dark ages of medicine."

Here's another blanket statement. Please, explain for us how blood research has anything to do with evolution? Why, because diseases can mutate? Well, that's not evolution at, and if people really studied it they would understand that it has to do with preexistant information in most places, and in other times there was a mutation, but it's never an increase in information. There is no application for evolution in the real world. It only serves as a dead religion.

You see, it isn't just that you're wrong about the study of evolution, but that you're blustering along and saying ridiculous things like above to try and save your argument - and you therefore come across as an extremely biased fundamentalist, trotting out all the 'defence' for your ideas that you've been taught, whether it has any meaning in the real world or not. Don't you see, it's making your argument for christianity worse, not better? It all makes christianity sound like a petulant, foot-stamping child. I don't think you're winning any converts...

I am extremely biased, I sure am, and proud of it. And i recognise my bias, unlike others. Your attempt of chastisement does not prove anything to me.

I for one am very happy to have you here posting, as you're a perfect example of the terrible things that religion would have us believe if we let it. Please, let's hear some more about how little use evolution is, it's the best read I've had for months!

alright, read here for starters, but I'll let you know I'm been in forums alot lately, and my computer seems to be slowing down like the tin man without grease, so I may not be able to answer all your questions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...ctober2002.asp

and for more information on dating methods:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...faq/dating.asp

I'll try to respond now and then, I have to give my comp a break.

[Liquidtruth]

Hey, buddy, just because you do not read the evidence that people supply, or do not understand it, does not mean your false claims have not been proven to be exactly that.

[MelT]

Still at it? You have admitrable tenacity for someone who IS being so resoundedly put down. Let's just check what's happened so far: You've said that evolution is sexist and that christianity isn't, and have been shown to be wrong by numerous biblical quotes. Chrsitianity is sexist, get over it.

My favourite though is after me actually listing all the modern ways of dating artifacts, you plainly state that there are no other ways other than Carbon 14!! Actually in the very post you responded to. But no, oops, that has to be wrong. Of course methodology in science can sometimes be flawed, but that doesn't mean that it always will be. Watches go wrong sometimes and tell the wrong time, people still wear watches, because on the whole they ARE accurate.

Your next bit is...well, incredible. Do you have any idea of what you're talking about at all? "preexistent in most places"? A "dead religion"? LOL! "If people studied it"? Which people? You mean those actually working in the field are not studying it?

QUOTE: Here's another blanket statement. Please, explain for us how blood research has anything to do with evolution? Why, because diseases can mutate? Well, that's not evolution at, and if people really studied it they would understand that it has to do with preexistant information in most places, and in other times there was a mutation, but it's never an increase in information. There is no application for evolution in the real world. It only serves as a dead religion.


LOL! So, you and christianity know that mutation isn't a sign of evolution, and that my wife, some who works in the field, doesn't know her job? What do you think mutation is caused by? Changes in DNA, brought about by survival of the fittest, accident, and environmental pressures. Evolution.

Without an understanding of, and an observation of evolution in action, the NBS would not have developed tests and fixes for genetic (evolutionary) diseases as they're passed from one generation to another. It wouldn't be able to trace Y chromosomes and place markers at specific generations and blood types to help it combat things like sickle cell anaemia. Without the study of evolution, genetics as a science would not exist. There would be none of the emerging treatments for things like Alzheimers and Parkinson's. They could not even begin to work without a firm understanding of how things EVOLVE. And the sad thing is, that should you ever grow ill at any time and need these treatments you'll happily take them, because they work.

But these three points show something very important about you; even if someone came up and placed absolute 100% proof of evolution in your hands you would still bluster and gripe that it wasn't real, because that's your only defence. None so blind as those who do not want to see.

MelT

PS to all. Please do go to the links J has provided, I've read few things funnier. I see where he gets this from now....

[the roach]

man: we cant disprove this "evolution" craze! any ideas?

cronies: Lets acuse it of being sexist, crazy, and racist!

man: our work here is done. soon people will believe in our crazy, sexist, and racist religion that has absolutely no evidence.

[jonathan]

Melt:

Still at it? You have admitrable tenacity for someone who IS being so resoundedly put down. Let's just check what's happened so far: You've said that evolution is sexist and that christianity isn't, and have been shown to be wrong by numerous biblical quotes. Chrsitianity is sexist, get over it.

If this is the attitude you have with people in everyday life I can pretty much gaurantee you're going to get the stuffing knocked out of you. You're just slandering and you don't get your accusations right at all. You havn't proven Christianity is sexist at all. Your conclusion is based upon your "modern" presupposition that women and men are exactly equal, which is wrong. I have pointed out that men and women are equal in value yet have different roles. This is no way demeans the woman at all. The article I posted on the other hand reveals a philosophy that supports the idea of not only women, but ethnic minorites, children and even retarded people being judged as lesser beings, and used as an excuse to look down on them.

My favourite though is after me actually listing all the modern ways of dating artifacts, you plainly state that there are no other ways other than Carbon 14!! Actually in the very post you responded to. But no, oops, that has to be wrong. Of course methodology in science can sometimes be flawed, but that doesn't mean that it always will be. Watches go wrong sometimes and tell the wrong time, people still wear watches, because on the whole they ARE accurate.

When did I ever say that carbon 14 is the only dating method? Do you even pay attention? Yes the "methodology" used in all long age dating methods is extremely flawed and often gives a wide range of results, it's never consistent. They all require huge assumptions, there are a lot of variables that people don't know about the past, and they have to make asumptions. I'm not going to go through all of them because it's time consuming and I certainly wouldn't do it for someone with your kind of attitude.

Your next bit is...well, incredible. Do you have any idea of what you're talking about at all? "preexistent in most places"? A "dead religion"? LOL! "If people studied it"? Which people? You mean those actually working in the field are not studying it?

They're deceived, just like you are.

jonathan:

Here's another blanket statement. Please, explain for us how blood research has anything to do with evolution? Why, because diseases can mutate? Well, that's not evolution at, and if people really studied it they would understand that it has to do with preexistant information in most places, and in other times there was a mutation, but it's never an increase in information. There is no application for evolution in the real world. It only serves as a dead religion.

LOL! So, you and christianity know that mutation isn't a sign of evolution, and that my wife, some who works in the field, doesn't know her job? What do you think mutation is caused by? Changes in DNA, brought about by survival of the fittest, accident, and environmental pressures. Evolution.

No, mutations are harmful affects on living organisms and dna caused by such things as chemicals and radiation. They do change things, but mutations do not make things better. They randomize and even destroy genetic information. There has never once been an observed increase in genetic information caused by mutations. It's a farce.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...-mutations.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...view/part3.asp

Without an understanding of, and an observation of evolution in action, the NBS would not have developed tests and fixes for genetic (evolutionary) diseases as they're passed from one generation to another. It wouldn't be able to trace Y chromosomes and place markers at specific generations and blood types to help it combat things like sickle cell anaemia. Without the study of evolution, genetics as a science would not exist. There would be none of the emerging treatments for things like Alzheimers and Parkinson's. They could not even begin to work without a firm understanding of how things EVOLVE. And the sad thing is, that should you ever grow ill at any time and need these treatments you'll happily take them, because they work.

That is absolute nonsense. This has nothing to do with goo-to-you evolution but rather merely genetics and natural selection. People often seem to misunderstand that change does not mean evolution. It's an incredible error, mistaking genetic variability for evolution with requires an increase in genetic information. Why don't you look at the article I posted, there plenty of of information to refute this.

But these three points show something very important about you; even if someone came up and placed absolute 100% proof of evolution in your hands you would still bluster and gripe that it wasn't real, because that's your only defence. None so blind as those who do not want to see.

It's interesting you claim something like this you cannot prove. And you never will because that is not how life operates. The most important primary evidence there would be for evolution is the ability to develop entire functioning new parts (which is admitted by evolutionists themselves to be absolutely necssry, intermediate parts such as half a hand will not work in evolution) caused by gentic information icreasing mutations, which have never been observed.

In fact, if you knew about mutations you would understand that they are the cause of a host of diseases that we have today. Most people have many genetic errors in their dna caused by mutations, and the truth is things are only getting worse. In some places certain people are not allowed to marry, because the chance of problems in the children are so high. We get worse and worse all the time. If you knew about genetics, you would understand that when animals become specialized to their eniroment they actuallyhave a decrease of genetic information which is exactly the opposite of darwinian evolution. This, amoung other evidence found in the fossil record is what has compelled many to abandon long periods and turn to even more rediculous punctuated equilibrium or rapid evolution followed by long periods of nothing, because that what all the fossil records show. They do not show lines spreading out from a common anscestor. They find distinct groups of animals as independent lines up to the very present.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...2/genetics.asp

mutations are the enemy of evolution.

If you want to talk about laughable, let's take a look at darwin's original theory of what was the original mechanism for evolution. It must be pointed out that this was not based on any scientific evidence but rather pure guesswork and imagination, must like everything in evolution. This was very common as it is today, and Ernst Haekels fraudulent drawings are a great example.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...pangenesis.asp

But the real issue that's being discussed here is the philosophy that evolution is the basis of, they are inescapable from each other. Whether christianity is "sexist" in your opinion or not, It is clealy pointed out in the article that evolution is clearly rascist, sexist, and a foundation for eugenics and merciless killing such as in many of the philosophies that have guided nations and made this past century more filled with war and death than all of the previously known wars in history combined!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../communism.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/morality.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../humanlife.asp

And lastly I would like to say that your attitude is not kind at all and if you intend to have such a rotten arrogant attitude please don't continue posting in here and being verbally abusive.

[Azimuthal]

Against better judgement, I followed the first link(http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...-mutations.asp), and found this tantilizing piece of information about mutations:

Fortunately, mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (10⁷, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (10¹⁴). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them.

I don't know if the first piece of information is true, let's assume it is. If 1/10^7 dnas are mutated, then it makes sense that 2/10^14 are mutated, right? Let's be sure:

1/10^7 = x/10^14 (hopefully x ends up being 2)
x=10^14 / 10^7
x=10^(14-7)
x=10000000 = 2 * 5000000

Hm, so it seems that our bodies should actually contain some 10 million mutated dna molucules, not just a couple, as Dr. Gary Parker would have you believe. A understatement by a factor of 5 million.

The paragraph that follows the one I quoted haseven more abysmal math, and also seems to be ignorant about how the mechanism of mutation works (as am I).

I can imagine a more realistic method. The article doesn't take into account the fact that most (many,all?) life starts out as a single cell, so a mutation that has an effect in the first cell (mutation during conception, or a mutated dna's from one parents) would be reproduced in the whole organism.

Just a couple of overlooked or misrepresented facts in as many paragraphs as I cared to read.. I suggest some new sources.

[jonathan]

Against better judgement, I followed the first link(http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...-mutations.asp), and found this tantilizing piece of information about mutations:
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Fortunately, mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (10⁷, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (10¹⁴). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

I don't know if the first piece of information is true, let's assume it is. If 1/10^7 dnas are mutated, then it makes sense that 2/10^14 are mutated, right? Let's be sure:

1/10^7 = x/10^14 (hopefully x ends up being 2)
x=10^14 / 10^7
x=10^(14-7)
x=10000000 = 2 * 5000000

Hm, so it seems that our bodies should actually contain some 10 million mutated dna molucules, not just a couple, as Dr. Gary Parker would have you believe. A understatement by a factor of 5 million.

He said mutations are rare, but not so rare. His statement is still in tact.

Besides the fact that it's completely arrogant of you to without hesitation to doubt common data presented by a scientist who knows more than you do, and who is accountable to the scientific community , you seem to miss the bigger picture. I don't know whether your math is correct or not, but I sure wouldn't take it from you when you contradict widely accepted data suc has was presented. Even if you were however, and there were as many mutations, it in no way discounts what Dr. Parker said. The number you came tois actually not very large at all when looked at in the bigger picture.

edit: I forgot to mention that fact that you completely overlooked his statement:

So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene

That is more than a couple as you falsely stated. Should I really trust your math? It looks like you may turn out to be like your hero darwin.

Nevertheless you fail to recognise that mutations do not make things better, only worse. So go ahead and keep your millions of mutations, because they are a cause of a host of diseases in the world today, and our dna is not made better by them.

The paragraph that follows the one I quoted haseven more abysmal math, and also seems to be ignorant about how the mechanism of mutation works (as am I).

This forum has some of the most ignorant, arrogant people I have ever met in my lfe. How dare you so quickly call out a Doctors data "abysmal". Do you understand that these people are contantly under fire by the rest of the sientific community? If math as well known as this was false, it would be easily pointed out. Dr. Parker has spent many many years lecturing on this perhaps even before you were born, he's been doing it since the early eighties I beleive, or even before.

I can imagine a more realistic method. The article doesn't take into account the fact that most (many,all?) life starts out as a single cell, so a mutation that has an effect in the first cell (mutation during conception, or a mutated dna's from one parents) would be reproduced in the whole organism.

It is well recognised in numerous articles on the website and many other creationist resources that mutations can be passed on to offspring, what you fail to understand like I've said before Is that mutations simply do not make things better, but worse. And btw, it does not neccesarrily show up in the offspring. In reproduction the males information overlaps the faulty genes in the female and vice versa, this is why we can carry so many mistakes in our genetic information and still come out mostly "normal".

Just a couple of overlooked or misrepresented facts in as many paragraphs as I cared to read.. I suggest some new sources.

I will continue to use them and whoever else I please. Thier credentials are in tact and you are incredibly arrogant.

Edit: Azimuthal, how about you send your concerns to the website, I'm sure they'll be glad to respond to your newly found data. make sure you click on the button that gives them permission to post in on site.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by jonathan

He said mutations are rare, but not so rare. His statement is still in tact.

Again, proof you do not read or acknowledge what others write. Az showed you the error and you gloss it over as if it does not exist. People should just ignore you from now on, there is no point in speaking to you or even reading your misinformation. You're ignorant on what you talk about, everyone knows it but you. You then follow the quoted statement with yet another logical fallacy! Jesus Christ, this is beyond annoying. This is totally disruptive and asinine.

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Again, proof you do not read or acknowledge what others right. Az showed you the error and you gloss it over as it does not exist. People should just ignore you from now on, there is no point in speaking to you or even reading your misinformation. You're ignorant on what you talk about, every knows it but you.

You know there is a problem when you get your information on evolution from an anti-evolutionary group.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

You know there is a problem when you get your information on evolution from an anti-evolutionary group.

No kidding, misinformation and lies spouted off as truth. The funny thing is, people keep explaining it and he keeps ignoring it as if they never spoke, and if he does acknowledge what people say, he simply argues from authority that his source must know more than them so therefore they are wrong! It is aggravating, frustrating, and annoying beyond all reason!

[jonathan]

l.t.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by jonathan
He said mutations are rare, but not so rare. His statement is still in tact.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Again, proof you do not read or acknowledge what others right. Az showed you the error and you gloss it over as it does not exist. People should just ignore you from now on, there is no point in speaking to you or even reading your misinformation. You're ignorant on what you talk about, every knows it but you. You then follow the quoted statement with yet another logical fallacy! Jesus Christ, this is beyond annoying. This is totally disruptive and asinine.

He showed me what eror? There is no error.

Everyone knows it but noone has proved it . I see.

You seem to attack me alot, but here as well as in other places you give absolutely no argument against what I said. You only say that I am in error. Well, anyone can do that.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by jonathan

l.t.



He showed me what eror? There is no error.

Everyone knows it but noone has proved it . I see.

You seem to attack me alot, but here as well as in other places you give absolutely no argument against what I said. You only say that I am in error. Well, anyone can do that.

Everyone knows it, everyone has provided evidence, just because you decide you want to ignore it or dismiss it, does not mean it is not valid. I am tired of trying to have a reasonable discussion with you, it is quite obvious, that is impossible to have.

Took this from R_M's thread Here.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NWCvXlnQphg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NWCvXlnQphg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

That is a nice little tongue-in-cheek video, I hope everyone finds it as entertaining as I do, also spend some time looking up Kent Hovind, there is no limit to what some people will do to push their lies upon people.

Creationism is not science. Need some links to show you that? Fine. Here they come.

[web]http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html[/web]

http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/crenotscience.html
http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blaguevol.htm
http://skepdic.com/creation.html
http://media.www.dailycampus.com/med...e-975214.shtml
http://atheism.about.com/od/creation...scientific.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/evolution.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/25/id_not_science/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...n_not_science/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/f...ationists.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/grantmuseum
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

I look forward to your next post where you say I give no argument for the things you say. It will be great.

Oh, one last thing that I posted before and I am assuming you ignored.

The Collapse of Intelligent Design:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JVRsWAjvQSg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JVRsWAjvQSg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Azimuthal]

Originally Posted by jonathan

Edit: Azimuthal, how about you send your concerns to the website, I'm sure they'll be glad to respond to your newly found data. make sure you click on the button that gives them permission to post in on site.

The website in question is a medium for lies, they are not held accountable by the scientific community as you erroneously claim. It does not exist to represent the truth, but instead misinterprets the truth(as best we know it) into illogical arguments, in an attempt to discredit science as a whole.

Their about us page says it all:

We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

They wear the bias quite clearly on their sleeve, which I applaud.

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by jonathan

They're deceived, just like you are.

Dude, honestly. What the fuck are you talking about? You're now claiming that science deceives people? How? By putting the proof right in front of your fucking face? I'm not sure you know what deception means. I think a better example of deception would actually be a religion that requires that you take a leap of faith and throw logic and reason to the wind, while appealing to the comforting idea that when you die, you don't actually die.