Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I looked around the forum for the piece you posted asking me to gently dissect a claim about 5 mutations and such but I can no longer find it.

Perhaps some moderator mistook serious science for desecrating the flag. Anyway my recollection is that somewhere in there was a comment about 10,000 genes and one of my arguments against the piece having any validity was that the number was purely arbitrary.

Here we are, just a few weeks later, and proof of that is published.

Researchers Find Smallest Cellular Genome
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061012184647.htm

From which I quote:
"Carsonella ruddii has only 159,662 base-pairs of DNA, which translates to only 182 protein-coding genes, reports a team of scientists from The University of Arizona in Tucson and from Japan."

I would say 182 a far cry from 10,000 and a clear demonstration of the fact that the items numbers were there to lend credibility to a fairy tale rather than to provide value.


DA Morgan
.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Thanks Dan.

I came to the conclusion that the creationist piece wasn't serious science, but was an attempt to cobble some dodgy stats together to back up a conviction that had been reached on an intuitive or religious level and far divorced from any real evidence.

Thanks for more confirmation.

I would add that as I know quite a few Creationists, I wouldn't accuse them all of being dishonest, just lacking in good dispassionate scientific methodology.

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Blacknad wrote:
"I know quite a few Creationists, I wouldn't accuse them all of being dishonest, just lacking in good dispassionate scientific methodology."

I would agree if we are talking about the parishioners rather than the clergy. Having had more than a few serious discussions with members of the clergy I have become convinced that they fall into roughly one of three categories.

2% ... seriously delusional
3% ... in need of criminal prosecution.
95% ... knowingly telling "white lies" with the best of intentions (more on this in November if you ask)


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Dan,

I have to call you on this one.

You promote a scientific approach to understanding the universe, but you then quite happily come to the conclusion that 95% of clergy knowingly tell white lies, based upon a sample group of 'more than a few'.

You can't just abandon science when you feel like it. At best you can say that 'more than a few clergy knowingly tell white lies'. Anything else is conjecture without a solid base.

I know you're not stating it as fact, but simply that you have become personally convinced (so credit due there), but it says something about your thinking if you can become convinced with so little evidence.

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
My percentages were tongue-in-cheek. That is why I indicated I'd tell you more off-forum. Sorry if the light-hearted nature of the response didn't come through.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Boy, do I feel like an idiot now - and rightly so.

Sorry.

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Please don't: That was not my intention.


DA Morgan

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5