#401
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#402
|
|||
|
I guess I will have to take your word for it huh? Perhaps a link or reference to what you are talking about would help solidify your position.
| ||
|
#403
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Tyroan Biggums (55 Enchanter)
Shamalam Adingdong (27 Shaman) <Harmony> | |||
|
#404
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#405
|
||||
|
Quote:
hebrews from thousands of years ago had no understanding of scientific concepts like atmosphere, air density, or meteors. and you're dismissing their scripture because it doesn't discuss in detail scientific concepts that they couldn't have understood or even verbalized with a vocabulary that was incapable of even describing numbers beyond "a lot of a lot" (direct translation)? was there even a word for "atmosphere"? do you think they had a word for "billion"? stop being ignorant before being dismissive. even if an omniscient deity were dictating the bible directly, he'd be limited to the language and concepts understood by the people of the time. when you explain procreation to a 7-year old, do you discuss mitosis, meiosis, alleles, gametes, zygotes, genetics, sperm, and ova? or do you say that when a man and woman love each other, they make babies? you'd have a better shot at describing alleles to a 7-year old. at least the vocabulary exists. reading the bible like a scientific textbook is disingenuous at best, fucking retarded at worst. yes, it could've been a 9 trillion page manual to the universe that explains things like the atmosphere, dark matter, and the space-time continuum to a species that was still thousands of years removed from sewage systems. but it's not. acting like it was supposed to be is a straw man. | |||
|
#406
|
||||
|
Quote:
You guys still haven't addressed the stomach or tings like the pleiotropy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiotropy From Wiki. - Pleiotropy of genes impacts the evolutionary rate of genes and allele frequencies. Traditionally, it has been expected that evolutionary rate of genes is related negatively with pleiotropy; however, this has not been clearly found in empirical studies.[7][8] Contrary to this traditional expectation, it has been theoretically demonstrated that evolutionary rate should be positively related with pleiotropy by itself as the square root of gene pleiotropy;[9] however, other effects of pleiotropy may explain why a clear relationship between evolutionary rate and gene pleiotropy has not been found at the genomic scale.[9] I love how the idea is pooed on by saying no emperical studies have "clearly "shown the negative effects but then provide how theoretically evolution demonstrates this being something positive. | |||
|
#407
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#408
|
|||
|
if you're bringing in the fossil evidence claim, and not considering a force of geology like erosion then you're trying to stipulate a specific that won't hold up to basic scrutiny. it's hard to analyze a fossil that has been weathered into dirt particles that are spread hundreds if not thousands of miles by the wind.
__________________
| ||
|
#409
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#410
|
|||
|
You don't go we have a theory of evolution now lets look everywhere for signs to support this. This is just confirmation bias. With the above example of pleiotropy we can see that evidence is deemed not concrete unless it fits the model. They are just sifting or cherry picking data that supports the model. It is like climate change but because we live in a society of learned experts we are not supposed to question their authority.
| ||
|
|
|