• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Annoying creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aww, I thought this was going to be on ways to ignore them and I was going to suggest the archaeological record! Damn it!
 
Hi Paul, can you cater to my laziness and briefly describe the 16 binding site arguement they are making?

Are they considering mutations in transcription factors? If you consider these proteins to be sources of mutation, HUGE changes in phenotype can be expected. So, I don't see how punctuated rapid evolution is not explainable at a genetic level.
 
That entire thread is a discussion of the simulation of the evolution of genetic binding sites by the Ev program, described here:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

Kleinman is attempting to convince us that Ev demonstrates that there was not enough time for binding sites to develop. Actually, his thesis is that there was not enough time for macroevolution to occur. What that has to do with genetic binding sites I cannot imagine. He claims that various results that we got from running experiments with Ev support his thesis. He throws around numbers like 4^1000.

That's all well and good. He can discuss this if he wants. But I really get annoyed when he starts misrepresenting what I said.

~~ Paul
 
Thanks Paul.
not knowing the generational life span of the first organisms to develop, this is a pretty weak argument. Presumably, a lot of the initial life forming molecules were a series of microenvironment biochemical reactions. In these settings, there would be a ton of binding site type generational experiments that could have occured with unknown kinetics.

We don't know if life started as prions that assembled into viruses that started to incorporate dna... In such a series, DNA would only be selected if it possessed a binding. As such, there wouldn't be a random generation of binding sites.


Oh well. I'll give him this much, It is interesting to think how fast life did progress in relation to the span of the earth.
 
LostAngeles said:
Aww, I thought this was going to be on ways to ignore them and I was going to suggest the archaeological record! Damn it!
Click to expand...
I also hoped it was about ways to annoy creationists. I'll sign up for that, I thought. No such luck.

Creationists are impenetrable, much like Trotskyists and ... lets take a very long list as read.

eta : Catholic apologists are high on that list. I shouldn't let them off without a mention.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
not knowing the generational life span of the first organisms to develop, this is a pretty weak argument. Presumably, a lot of the initial life forming molecules were a series of microenvironment biochemical reactions. In these settings, there would be a ton of binding site type generational experiments that could have occured with unknown kinetics.
Click to expand...
This is something creationists/IDists miss. They start from the unlikelihood of life as it is, ignoring the astronomical number of equally unlikely systems that didn't make it but might have. At the base of their thinking, IMO, is the assumption that life was meant to be as it's turned out, specifically with humans as its crowning achievement. From that initial assumption of meaning ID necessarily derives.

We don't know if life started as prions that assembled into viruses that started to incorporate dna... In such a series, DNA would only be selected if it possessed a binding. As such, there wouldn't be a random generation of binding sites.
Click to expand...
Viruses are actually very advanced parasites, they need cellular mechanisms to expolit. They're DNA renegades.

The prion thing is more apt. Prions have a catalytic effect which reproduces the prion. Pre-cellular proto-life (or whatever) must have had the same kind of catalytic effect, one that acted to reproduce the original, randomly-generated catalyst. Not necessarily by one step; the catalyst could produce a different catalyst which in turn produced the original, or produced yet another catalyst which produced the original ... The circular chain can get indefinitely long in theory, although there are obvious practical constraints. The players need to be kept in reasonably close proximity, for instance. In life as we know it the cell does that.

We may never know exactly how it happened, but I like Black Smokers as a good bet for the location. They're hugely fractal, have vast numbers of tiny niches that could confine sets of quite complex molecules, the walls of the niches could themselves have a catalytic effect, they sit in the middle of a very steep energy gradient (life is all about the energy gradient) and there all sorts of energy-rich chemical building-blocks streaming through that could eddy into the niches. The complex molecules could seep out and congregate again in other niches. If the reproduction was inexact - which it surely would be - evolution by natural selection kicks in. Before you know it we've got income tax and rice-pudding.

It could be happening today. Potential chemical ancestors of life might be popping up every day, every hour. What our chemical ancestors didn't have was predation by established life-forms. Newbies are toast these days.

Oh well. I'll give him this much, It is interesting to think how fast life did progress in relation to the span of the earth.
Click to expand...
It is indeed. To me it speaks of the likelihood - not to say inevitabliity - of life emerging where it can, rather than the IDers' unlikliehood crutch.
 
I posted the Top Ten list from the latest Commentary on a board where people brought up a new thread every few hours, it seemed. Totally killed all discussion of it.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Why? Change is good for you.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

One moment you've "Alive" status, the next it's changed to "Dead", no obvious benefit there. One day your best girl adores you, the next she's run off with a lawyer. Not all change is good, and I happen to be a rather conservative chap. I'm even nostalgic for the Cold War (as least you knew where you stood in those days, it's been bloody mayhem ever since).
 
Yahzi said:
Change is bad.

(Assuming you worked hard to get where you are.)

:)
Click to expand...

:D

If it was good enough to make my father rich ... and good enough to make his father rich ... it should be good enough to make me rich. Not referring to hard work, of course.

I have a Computer Science degree from 1976, in no small part because I saw it as the best ticket to buy. I've been de-skilled in my own lifetime. Go on someone, pass me the gun and tell me again that change is good.
 
The best part about annoying a creationist is that you then get to go to hell. I hear the chicks there are hot.
 
There is one sure-fire way to annoy Creationists -- IGNORE them!

Really, many 'creos' seem to engage 'evos' (and vice-versa) in pointless arguments for the attention alone. Since nothing offends a fanatic so much as indifference to their particular idealistic cause, ignoring them is a mortal offense.

And by 'pointless,' I mean that neither side is ever going to convince the other of the truth and validity of their argument. Even if their facts are in order and their reasoning sound, no-one will win. So, why bother?

BTW: This is my first post on JREF.

- Fnord of Dyscordia -
 
Fnord, I disagree with your last point. While one who believes what they believe regardless of the amount of evidence may not ever be convinced by any argument, one who belives what they believe entirely because of evidence, who can and does change their mind as new evidence comes in, would certainly be willing to hear the other side's arguments if they are in fact sound and valid. So no, I'd say a rational person who came to believe in evolution for rational reasons WOULD in fact be convinced of creationism IF they had valid evidence and arguments for it. As of yet, they have not.

As to ignoring them, that's fun too. Unfortunatly, ignoring them has led to this point where they are trying to get it taught in public schools. Ignoring is no longer an option.
 
I was referring to the extreme cases on both sides. Of course, there is somewhere in the middle where a dichotomy of thought can be held.

As for wanting to teach Creationism in public schools -- let them try. But give those kids an earlier start on Philosophy and Reason, especially when it comes to recognizing fallacious statements and unsubstantiated data.

You know; the "Scientific Method."

Once people know how to think for themselves, they should reach the rational conclusions on their own. Otherwise, they are innocents caught in the middle of a doctrinal war, getting fired upon from both sides. Sooner or later, they'll shut everything out and muddle along without reason or thought to their own existance.

THAT is the tragedy.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-
 
Are we missing an "O" in fnoord, or is my brain screwed? Or neither?

I do not need to see fnoords right after watching someone get chased down my street in Torchwood. Gimme a break.
 
More reasons for head-frick : both election episodes of West Wing Series 7 in succession. Said episodes arriving on DVD accompanied by a bottle of 10-year-old Jamieson's Malt. And the following earlier in the day when everything seemed to be pretty normal :

There's this excellent pub up the way that was known as the Poet's Corner since forever, way before Dylan Thomas got thrown out for mine-sweeping. About ten years ago the name was changed to the thoroughly innapropriate Tut 'n' Shive (immediately re-christened the Twp and Swive, look it up). Fortunately the pub remained essentially the same. Even when there was scaffolding in the pool-room to hold up the roof well, hey, there was never open access. Three tables in what's essentially an attic, waddya gonna expect?

The bullet had to be bit in the end. The pub has re-opened - and the name has been changed again. Now it's the Poet's Corner. Where will it end? Do we just have to put up with it? Have we no say?
 
Bronze Dog said:
I've got an annoying Creationist. Feel free to deal with him so I won't have to waste my time when you can do the same.
Click to expand...
You could at least demonstrate how a master does it. Whether Paul felt he needed to be unleashed by you before he had a try is for Paul to say. If he decides he should bother. I can't, off the top of my head, imagine why he would.
 
Fnord said:
As for wanting to teach Creationism in public schools -- let them try. But give those kids an earlier start on Philosophy and Reason, especially when it comes to recognizing fallacious statements and unsubstantiated data.

You know; the "Scientific Method."

Once people know how to think for themselves, they should reach the rational conclusions on their own. Otherwise, they are innocents caught in the middle of a doctrinal war, getting fired upon from both sides. Sooner or later, they'll shut everything out and muddle along without reason or thought to their own existance.
Click to expand...
Aren't they trying to stop the teaching of how to think in the education system in the USA?
 
CapelDodger said:
Are we missing an "O" in fnoord, or is my brain screwed? Or neither?

I do not need to see fnoords right after watching someone get chased down my street in Torchwood. Gimme a break.
Click to expand...

Hee! I've had fun recognising areas where I've worked in Torchwood, but watching your street on TV must be slightly disturbing.

On a side note, the Urdd Eisteddfod was held in the field behind our house this year, and I had the strange experience of waking up to see the Tardis out of my bedroom window.
 
McCulloch said:
Aren't they trying to stop the teaching of how to think in the education system in the USA?
Click to expand...

Who or what do you mean by "they"?

a) The Government.
b) The Gnomes of Zurich.
c) The Limosine Liberals.
d) The Ivory-Tower Conservatives.
e) The Feminists, Feminazis, and/or Feministas.
f) The Public School Boards.
g) The Religionists.
h) The Atheists.
i) All of the above.
j) None of the above.

Personally, I choose "i) All of the above."
 
Fnord said:
Who or what do you mean by "they"?
Click to expand...
I'm not one for the "they" term either, it lacks rigour.

There are always interests in any society that do not welcome independant thought because their status and other privileges are founded on diktat, not persuasion. Be it aristocracy, religion, or economic oligarchy. Which do tend to fade into each other. "He's the lord because his father was, the church says that's right and proper, and he owns your ass". So shut up.

I don't doubt the forces of anti-rationality have been gaining momentum over the last decade or three. I'm fifty-something, I remember the days when science was on a roll (where's my jet-pack?!) and superstition apparently reeling. It's different now. To my mind there was a cusp around 1973-76 in the Anglo-Saxon world, which is my arena of experience. It was later in the Muslim world, starting weakly in 1979 - Iranian Revolution, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Zia ul-Haq Islamising Pakistan - but catching a fair wind in its sails. The Soviet block suppressed anti-rationality unintentionally by making every citizen a cynic, and the post-Soviet experience has carried on the good work. China's social trajectories have never been closely synced to the West, Western impressions notwithstanding. I've given up trying to understand Japan, life's too short.

The world is in the early stages of a Great Crisis, the sort of thing that has occurred before at a regional level. At each such crisis the region is larger; at this one it's reached global. That hasn't happened before. And at each such crisis period the irrational and anti-rational gain ground because the rational says you're screwed. And who wants to hear that.
 
Mashuna said:
Hee! I've had fun recognising areas where I've worked in Torchwood, but watching your street on TV must be slightly disturbing.
Click to expand...
It's not as if I live in Los Angeles, you know? Initial reaction : how did I not notice the filming? I work from home, I shop locally, I chat regularly with neighbours. Then it occurred to me that none of us would raise - or do raise - an eyelid when somebody is chased past our window by a copper. And todays's filming technology means you can shoot it almost as quickly as you do it.

The spooky gas-mask double in first series New Who (as it's known round here) meant the crew were encamped on the old (closed) Cardiff Royal Infirmary for a week or so, everybody knew it was going to feature. I turned into the Hayes a few months ago to find it decked out for Xmas, I was fazed for a few seconds there, then recalled the special Xmas episode to introduce the new side-kick. But twenty seconds of pursuit shots? Wouldn't leave a mark.

The Torchwood Cardiff looks so amazing I'm considering moving there :) .

On a side note, the Urdd Eisteddfod was held in the field behind our house this year, and I had the strange experience of waking up to see the Tardis out of my bedroom window.
Click to expand...
I've had nights like that too.
 
CapelDodger said:
It's not as if I live in Los Angeles, you know? Initial reaction : how did I not notice the filming? I work from home, I shop locally, I chat regularly with neighbours. Then it occurred to me that none of us would raise - or do raise - an eyelid when somebody is chased past our window by a copper.
Click to expand...

How often are people chased by your window by cops?! I'd certainly give it a second thought, and would certainly be VERY interested.
 
Examination of the original text confirms that there is only one "O" in fnord. My recollection was that there were two. Which, given the context, is downright disturbing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom