Dad said: Name any science that I dismiss! Try to be truthfulYou have dismissed all Science. On several occasions.
Thanks Lausten, I searched in vain for that 4 minute quote.
But I knew it had to be a misrepresentation, even if unintended.
What are we to make of this entire one sided exchange? This guy doesn’t even know what he doesn’t know!
So you cannot name on thing then, but continue with false accusations. Fine
So the 4 hours was not literal. Do I need to explain to you why you still need to support the claim? Or do you miss the forest for the trees. As for the turtle thing, I also use that against religion. In this case so called science religion. Again you miss a lot.
So the 4 hours was not literal.IOW, it was false. You are treading on a slippery slope my friend. It is you who has no supporting evidence for any of your claims, while falsely accusing science of not having supporting evidence for their claims.
Keep digging, when that unreinforced supporting wall gets too high it will come crashing down and bury you.
In this case so called science religion. Again you miss a lot. -- dad1I've reflected back to you, and so have others, that anything that you don't like, you call religion. You can claim "God", and use ancient ideas and terms and stories, but if one of those stories contradicts something you said, then that's religion. It's pretty much "you're right, everyone else is wrong". Pretty boring to converse with you.
Do I need to explain to you why you still need to support the claim? -- dad1What would you accept as support? CC was talking about millions of years of processes, supported by several theories, a mountain of data, across multiple disciplines. I can't "support" that in one CFI Forum post. I could give you links to sites about Darwin, what has been discovered since, genetics, evolution that we have watched happen over a few decades, how breeding of animals works, how GMOs work, there's a lot of support. But would you accept any of it? You brushed off Write4U's graphic of the scientific method, which is fundamental to all of this. Where do we start? How do we resolve this, or do you just end up banned from this forum, or run just run out steam.
What would you accept as support? CC was talking about millions of years of processes, supported by several theories, a mountain of data, across multiple disciplines.False no one supported it here. You might imagine it has tons of support. Not my problem. If you talk about millions of years show the basis for the dating! Basically it will probably boil down to absolute faith based radioactive decay ratio dating. So let's see the goods what do you have for support exactly?
I can’t “support” that in one CFI Forum post. I could give you links to sites about Darwin, what has been discovered since, genetics, evolution that we have watched happen over a few decades, how breeding of animals works, how GMOs work, there’s a lot of support.Science claims man's closest relative is the flatworm apparently! You could start by supporting that evo whopper! Precisely how is it you think the relation exists? Ha You mention genetic support, too bad that cannot work or apply. Not unless genetics were the same (in other words the same nature had to exist in the past that makes genes work as we see them work now) That is NOT KNOWN. Once again you are preaching faith. Not knowledge or evidence.
or do you just end up banned from this forum, or run just run out steam.Looking at all your threats one assumes that time is not far away. You cannot win so you have no other course of action but to bully, threaten and ban. No sweat of my uknowwhats. I can say toodleloo anytime.
If you claim science has support for ridiculous whoppers like that four hour thing it is up to you to provide/post it. Whether the four hours ‘really’ meant millions of years or whatever doesn’t change anything. Just admit defeat.
@dad1. If you claim science has support for ridiculous whoppers like that four hour thing it is up to you to provide/post it. Whether the four hours ‘really’ meant millions of years or whatever doesn’t change anything. Just admit defeat.Dad1, please take a moment to read the following, it explains that understanding Evolution demands some serious homework. If you refuse to read up on the evidence, then you haven't a clue of what we do know. That is being willful and belligerently ignorant, I don't need to argue with you over nonsense. I am supporting my claims with a list of educational resources that support what I'm writing about, it's up to you to do the verifying for yourself.
What you ridicule by framing it as “spam” is actually a bibliography list of a whole series of articles/papers/video lectures, each explaining a different facet of the folds within folds of harmonic complexity flowing down the cascade of time that is Earth’s Evolutionary Pageant.
A narrative of Earth’s 4.6 billion years of Evolution reduced to a 24 hour scale.
#346592
I lit up that text with over 160 links that range from published scientific papers, science articles and YouTube videos. Because, I’ve come to like creating Student Resources – issue focused bibliographies of solid information, to help some save time with their projects, and lend a little support to those with their own unique ideas.
That’s why I’ve listed and share the following titles and authors in the order of their appearance. Over at my blog these are all linked to the source - here all you need to do is copy and past into a search engine and bet you can find said article or such.
It’s about providing the information that I based my understanding on.
I can’t hand feed you @Dad1,
you need to have some genuine good faith curiosity – but I don’t sense that in you.
You seem more the warrior, your’s is not to think, but to overcome and vanquish. Though it would be fun if you had more substance than this handwaving and gotchas game you’ve shown us thus far.
It’s easy for people who simply want to confuse and misdirect attention and energy in order to avoid the real issues at hand, to toss up all sorts of demands and expectations, and attitude, yet somehow feel they themselves are immune from meeting those same expectations. Your double standard is horrendous.
I would love to field some serious questions about specifics because I love trying to explain this stuff, since that helps me understand it better for myself. I don’t play keep away or gotcha games, I’ll lay out my cards and defend them as challenged, always wanting to learn a little more.
I believe in an honest scientific style debate which means, honestly representing my ideas and just as importantly (to the best of my ability) honestly representing the ideas of others. Debates where truth is law, and willful deception is damnable. Where mistakes are for learning – rather than for creating bludgeons.
Why because better personal understanding is my goal. I don’t have an agenda beyond endlessly striving to better understand this world, myself, and my human family, the human condition.
Although I will say I feel a tad feisty toward people who presume to represent “God” – because at 66 can say that as a young lad I took to heart the Biblical invitation, SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND. I seeked and sonny let me tell you I have found. I’ve known god’s breath against my back and I’ve felt my puniness in the face of it all. I appreciate my moment of existence, because I know I’m literally the eye’s of the universe. Since, if a God there be, only through Its creations, could an ephemeral god, be able to know itself.
I am a biological being, an animal creature of Earth’s divining, here to live every day aware and in grateful awe, then I die and be gone body and mind. But I will live on, within the hearts and minds of others and within the deeds I’ve left behind. And it is good. And it is real.
You got ego and attitude. You know nothing of god and I see through you. So, you wanna have a friendly civil human conversation or want to keep playing your dog chasing tail game? Your choice, but don’t fancy you’re fooling anyone over here.
(an unexpected digression that I don’t intend to edit out, back to the preceding program…)
… Tragically, I find too many believe in the lawyerly, political debate where winning is everything and concepts such as honesty, honor, constructive learning are dismissed with contempt. That path only lead to ultimate self destruction.
Explain in your own words the best few reasons/data/evidence points that you actually think your close relative is a little flatworm?
Unlike some people, I am familiar with the key aspects of origin science claims and what they are really based on. I can actually discuss details. It is kind of sad to see spammers clucking up most of the posts that say nothing.
I lit up that text with over 160 links that range from published scientific papers, science articles and YouTube videos.Yet you fail to post one relevant point from the spam pile and post it and see how it stands of falls. Funny that. All smoke, no fire.
@Dad1 Explain in your own words the best few reasons/data/evidence points that you actually think your close relative is a little flatworm?Because that's where the physical evidence points to.
Plus the fact that the flow of evidence is so harmoniously self-consistent. But you wouldn’t have a clue what I mean if you never learned anything about genetics and the science of tracing DNA into the dim reached of the past.
@Dad1 I am familiar with the key aspects of origin science claimsThen why haven't provided any indication of that familiarity. All you are doing is baiting. Why do you have a difficulty appreciating the evidence. I mean don't you notice that accumulating change over time is about as fundamental as we can get. Why would what we witness day to days not lead to evolution over the centuries and eons. Care to respond to that. Or are you just going to ridicule and never actually engage???
Why don’t you believe a flatworm is a very distant relative of your’s.
{Heck, you can’t even pretend to take any this serious “close relative” - or are you just that awfully ignorant? I don’t mean ignorant as in stupid, I mean ignorant as in willfully ignoring evidence that is readily available.}
Next you will tell me I do it all on faith. Sure I have faith that the global community of scientists are dedicated to learning and for the most part honest, and best of all, that all these scientists get their work cross examined by other competitive experts, so seems to me the best humans can do.
Sure better than demanding I believe you or anyone, simply because their ego driven belligerent forcefulness demands no less. No sir, I’m no trumpkin type. It’s solid evidence and rational constructive arguments I believe in.
PS. The return of the flatworm by University of Bergen. (https ://phys_org/news/2016-02-flatworm_html)
… Shook the evolutionary tree
This used to be the common story between the 1990´s to 2011, when an international team of researchers found that flatworms and humans are not species with a simple common forefather, by new RNA-analysing methods and new ways of setting up experiments.
As a result, the flatworm, for a moment, lost its position as a key species. It was reduced to a deficient creature in terms of evolution, and belongs to the same branch as us humans. The new forefather must have been a much younger and more complex being than the original, the new findings concluded.
These findings, however, led to a lot of scientific doubt, also from Hejnol. He thinks the alternative sequence of evolution is a result of the researchers left out important data in their analysis. And if they where right, the acoel flatworms must have been evolved from a forefather with a central nervous system, gut, mouth and anus.
“If they would have been right we would have lost a very informative group of animals that helps to understand the evolution of organs,” Hejnol argues.
According to Andreas Hejnol, this is not necessary anymore. He claims he has now nailed the flatworms to its original position in the tree of life, once and for all. …
Here’s an oldie but Goldie, that still hold up for the most part. What can I say, the experts can explain better than the spectators and enthusiasts.
Journal of Neurol Sci 1985 Nov;12(4):296-302. doi: 10.1017/s031716710003537x. The brain of the planarian as the ancestor of the human brain H B Sarnat, M G Netsky PMID: 4084864 DOI: 10.1017/s031716710003537xAbstract
The planarian is the simplest living animal having a body plan of bilateral symmetry and cephalization.The brain of these free-living flatworms is a bilobed structure with a cortex of nerve cells and a core of nerve fibres including some that decussate to form commissures. Special sensory input from chemoreceptors, photoreceptor cells of primitive eyes, and tactile receptors are integrated to provide motor responses of the entire body, and local reflexes.
Many morphological, electrophysiological, and pharmacological features of planarian neurons, as well as synaptic organization, are reminiscent of the vertebrate brain.
Multipolar neurons and dendritic spines are rare in higher invertebrates, but are found in the planarian.
Several neurotransmitter substances identified in the human brain also occur in the planarian nervous system.
The planarian evolved before the divergence of the phylogenetic line leading to vertebrates. This simple worm therefore is suggested as a living example of the early evolution of the vertebrate brain.
An extraordinary plasticity and regenerative capacity, and sensitivity to neurotoxins, provide unique opportunities for studying the reorganization of the nervous system after injury. Study of this simple organism may also contribute to a better understanding of the evolution of the human nervous system.
Because that’s where the physical evidence points to.Plus the fact that the flow of evidence is so harmoniously self-consistent. But you wouldn’t have a clue what I mean if you never learned anything about genetics and the science of tracing DNA into the dim reached of the past.
Then why haven’t provided any indication of that familiarity. All you are doing is baiting. Why do you have a difficulty appreciating the evidence. I mean don’t you notice that accumulating change over time is about as fundamental as we can get. Why would what we witness day to days not lead to evolution over the centuries and eons. Care to respond to that.I have zero difficulty with evidence and we can see that you offer not a single piece. You mention adapting or evolving/changing 'over time'. So what? Why would creatures that were created with the ability to adapt NOT do so? That in no way means we came to exist BY adapting.
Why don’t you believe a flatworm is a very distant relative of your’s.
Next you will tell me I do it all on faith. Sure I have faith that the global community of scientists are dedicated to learning and for the most part honest, and best of all, that all these scientists get their work cross examined by other competitive experts, so seems to me the best humans can do.Some of us can defend our faith. Merely claiming faith in science doesn't do it.
Sure better than demanding I believe you or anyone, simply because their ego driven belligerent forcefulness demands no less. No sir, I’m no trumpkin type. It’s solid evidence and rational constructive arguments I believe in.Start anytime.
PS. The return of the flatworm by University of Bergen. (https ://phys_org/news/2016-02-flatworm_html)
… Shook the evolutionary tree
This used to be the common story between the 1990´s to 2011, when an international team of researchers found that flatworms and humans are not species with a simple common forefather, by new RNA-analysing methods and new ways of setting up experiments.
As a result, the flatworm, for a moment, lost its position as a key species. It was reduced to a deficient creature in terms of evolution, and belongs to the same branch as us humans. The new forefather must have been a much younger and more complex being than the original, the new findings concluded.
These findings, however, led to a lot of scientific doubt, also from Hejnol. He thinks the alternative sequence of evolution is a result of the researchers left out important data in their analysis. And if they where right, the acoel flatworms must have been evolved from a forefather with a central nervous system, gut, mouth and anus.
“If they would have been right we would have lost a very informative group of animals that helps to understand the evolution of organs,” Hejnol argues.
According to Andreas Hejnol, this is not necessary anymore. He claims he has now nailed the flatworms to its original position in the tree of life, once and for all. …
Here’s an oldie but Goldie, that still hold up for the most part. What can I say, the experts can explain better than the spectators and enthusiasts.Journal of Neurol Sci
1985 Nov;12(4):296-302.
doi: 10.1017/s031716710003537x.
The brain of the planarian as the ancestor of the human brain
H B Sarnat, M G Netsky
PMID: 4084864
DOI: 10.1017/s031716710003537xAbstract
The planarian is the simplest living animal having a body plan of bilateral symmetry and cephalization.The brain of these free-living flatworms is a bilobed structure with a cortex of nerve cells and a core of nerve fibres including some that decussate to form commissures. Special sensory input from chemoreceptors, photoreceptor cells of primitive eyes, and tactile receptors are integrated to provide motor responses of the entire body, and local reflexes.
Many morphological, electrophysiological, and pharmacological features of planarian neurons, as well as synaptic organization, are reminiscent of the vertebrate brain.
Multipolar neurons and dendritic spines are rare in higher invertebrates, but are found in the planarian.
Several neurotransmitter substances identified in the human brain also occur in the planarian nervous system.
The planarian evolved before the divergence of the phylogenetic line leading to vertebrates. This simple worm therefore is suggested as a living example of the early evolution of the vertebrate brain.
An extraordinary plasticity and regenerative capacity, and sensitivity to neurotoxins, provide unique opportunities for studying the reorganization of the nervous system after injury. Study of this simple organism may also contribute to a better understanding of the evolution of the human nervous system.
@Dad1 - There is no reason to think God is a liar and that such foolishness has any merit.That's funny. The personal God's that people have created for themselves are full of lies. The Bible is full of lies. People are full of lies. Simply because. you're ego blinds you to evidence, does not make your imagination real, or honest. Are you one of them Christians, who's a Right to Lifer, and who simultaneously advocates for every idiot being able to purchase assault weapons and ammo? Where's there any internal honest in that?
All you seem to have is denying that physical evidence is evidence at all. Then you refuse to read and learn about the evidence that is presented to you and pretend I haven’t brought anything to the table. Of course, you can’t learn a thing if you don’t make a good faith effort to educate yourself, that means reading some of these information loaded links I’ve shared.
@Dad1 - I am kind of old fashioned when I see people actually thinking cockroaches are kinfolk.Nothing old fashioned about it. Many people throughout history appreciated that we are children of Mother Earth. Why blind yourself to that ancient knowledge. Ancient knowledge that is now being flesh out in solid physical evidence and growing understanding among the few who love learning.
What have you got? You’ve replaced that sense of awe for our origins story with a “God” created by your EGO and one that demands you think God made you the center of creation. Now that I find silly as …
@Dad1 - Some of us can defend our faith. Merely claiming faith in science doesn’t do it.But you haven't defended a blessed thing.
You offer gotcha questions.
You have zero interest in pursuing the answers.
You speak from a position of assumed certainty, but it’s an empty certainty only held together by the force of your willpower and a shield of ridicule and unknowing.
Your kind of Faith - is faith in the absence of evidence and reason. Faith intended to salve the ego and nothing else.
What’s wrong with believing in the scientific method?
Which is fundamentally a series of rules and a method intent of reducing the human ego’s influence as much as possible. It’s based on observing, measuring, accumulating evidence and processing that evidence to the best of our abilities at the time. With those abilities always improving as our instruments and data improves.
All you’ve shown us is a lot of self-certainty in your own assumptions and your own myopic ego driven world view. Not willing to actually debate on the facts, you’re left to playing a ridiculous game of belligerent gotcha, never demonstrating anything but your sense of incredulity (and distain) at what science has amassed.
@Dad1 - So science changed it’s tune and then changed back again, embracing their imagined kinfolk. So? All based on belief in evolving as the one big truth to explain all creatures and life we see. That is religious fanaticism.Well yeah, but you try to ignore that all of that stuff is based on the available evidence at the time. You also seem oblivious to the scientific venture being about cross examining each other, constantly testing the validity of assumptions, seeking more evidence to form a better picture. Of F'n course it's going to be dynamic with a few missteps here and there.
You were expecting absolute perfection ??? Or what?
@Dad1 - Having things like a regenerative capacity does not mean we need to call it uncle!Here's an example how you willfully distort what you hear in order to not-understand. I say "change over time" and you switch it to "regenerative capacity" in order to sterilize the concept of the passage of generations, and accumulating changes in light of environmental conditions, from your mind -just so's you don't have to worry your head about it.
Best, or is it worst, you don’t even recognize the amazing irony.
Why do you think the universe, or god, owes humans an absolute simplistic answer???
Why do you think your little head has tapped into the ultimate knowledge? Then it turns out your knowledge (pick the Abrahamic religion of your choice) is limited to a series of books that are nothing more than human centric soap operas with morals to the stories for spice. As though nothing else on this Earth matters. All those religions really have is a self formed notion that we are superior to all else and that we are supposed to consume our planet and discard it as soon as possible.
You’re the one who’s attitude and words scream an intellectual/spiritual superiority and certainty, that sense of all-knowing you try so hard to exude. From the outside it looks like nothing so much as silly in action.
@dad1 The thing is, a bonobo (a chimp, like we have humans who are Black and humans who are white) are 98% genetically similar to us. The whales and dolphins are our aquatic equivalent and are also genetically similar to us, competing with us in intellect even.
The thing is, a bonobo (a chimp, like we have humans who are Black and humans who are white) are 98% genetically similar to us. The whales and dolphins are our aquatic equivalent and are also genetically similar to us, competing with us in intellect even.That's just because god used the same bucket of dirt when he created man, monkeys, dolphins and whales.
?
@mrmhead Monkeys are not chimps and chimps are not monkeys, but all too many human apes get confused. 
Second point, if we were all made from the earth, the same dirt from the earth, and the same heavenly falter that shows we are very much related, because we all have the same dud.
So what? You are also similar to a banana! The leap of faith involved in believing we therefore must share kinfolk with vegetables is outrageous. It is a belief that sits atop a high mountain of woulda coulda shoulda IFS. It is hard to see such a religious fanaticism as anything else but a hatred of God and a desperate attempt to credit creation and life to anything and anything else.
We were NOT all made from dirt, same or different. Eve was made from a bone. Everyone else since then was made from someone getting boned. (except if the process was replicated in a glass tube or whatever, but amounts to the same thing, the process of reproduction)