"Don't Want To Be An American Idiot"
Video Transcript: -
Here is one simple piece of evidence which supports the theory of evolution. Protein sequence is produced through the translation of a non-lapping degenerate triplet code.
All code for alanine = GCA, GCT, GCG, GCC
All code for proline = CCA, CCT, CCG, CCC
So these 2 mutations will not effect the protein. And therefore have no effect on the organism.
But there's a complication. Condon bias can effect the rate of translation and therefore have an impact on fitness.
So these mutations are not as neutral as we thought. In humans though, one amino acid is special. Glutamic acid coded by GAA and GAG shows no bias. Therefore switching the codons has no effect on fitness.
So where does all this get us?
The theory of evolution makes a simple prediction. Since mutations occur at a low rate, closely related species should use the same condons for glutamic acid simply because there has not been enough time for divergence.
Intelligent Design/ Creationism make no prediction and therefore not testable and are not science.
So what do we find?
We are going to look at condons for glutamic acid in the alpha and beta chains of hemoglobin. We are going to compare 3 closely related species. 1. human 2. chimp 3. rhesus monkey
In both the hemoglobin alpha and beta chains ALL THE CONDONS MATCH.
Twelve of twelve positions use exactly the same codon in two species closely related to us. The probability of that occuring by chance is 1: 16, 777, 216.
But it didn't occur by chance. Evolution predicts this result. (Since mutations occur at a low rate, closely related species should use the same condons for glutamic acid simply because there has not been enough time for divergence.)
And that is only 2 of the 30,000 genes in our genome. And we only compared 3 species. This is only one of millions of pieces of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Think about it.
For further information on evolution see:
evolution , natural selection , biology , genetics , intelligent design , creationism , greenday , green day
posted by beepbeepitsme | 1:36 pm
48 Comments:
Whew, that went so far over my head that I couldn't even see it. Maybe that's what happens when I begin my day by eating Halloween candy. I dunno.
So Happy Halloween and if you give me treats I won't throw this raw egg at your computer screen. ;)
Or perhaps, the reason there so similar is because they were created by the same person. It is truly amazing how two different people looking at the same piece of information conclude vastly different results depending upon their presuppositions.
Happy All Hallows Eve and Saints Day :)
RE: under
DNA is a code. It is written in only four 'letters', called A, C, T and G.
The meaning of this code lies in the sequence of the letters A, T, C and G. To change the symbols used in the code, does not alter the attributes which the code represents.
The rungs of DNA are formed by bases. Bases are the familiar DNA ‘letters’ known by their initials, A (adenine), C (cytosine), G (guanine) and T (thymine).
The sequence of A, C, T and G along the DNA molecule form a coded instruction which the cell uses to make proteins.
Proteins are made up of chains of amino acids. There are 20 amino acids which can be arranged in any order or length, so there is a huge number of combinations.
It takes three of these letter combinations called a codon, to represent one amino acid.
Alanine and proline are both amino acids and are represented by a codon.
Changing the symbol which represents the codon, does not alter the characteristics or the attributes of the codon, it merely changes the symbol used to represent these characteristics.
Example:
The english language is also a code. Sounds are represented by 26 letters each of which represents a specific sound. The sound which the letter "T" represents does not change if I change the symbol "T" to a spiral, as the spiral would still represent the sound.
The sound still exists regardless of the symbol used to represent it.
The word "dog" also uses a combination of a 3 lettered code. A dog's attributes and characteristics do not change if I call the dog a "ddg". It remains a dog regardless of the code I use to represent it.
What potentially does happen is that even though the dog continues to retain its characteristics and atttributes which make it a dog, the ability for people to pass on information concerning dogs is limited because of a lack of a common code to describe what a dog is.
DNA code works in the same way, it is merely a language which describes the attributes and characteristics of specific proteins.
The existence of the protein does not depend upon what its code is, the code merely describes the attributes and characteristics of the protein.
RE under:
Have fun celebrating your pagan holiday. :)
Nice one Beep. One my all time fav Greenday songs. My boy loved it too...:)
under_mercy:
Or perhaps, the reason there so similar is because they were created by the same person.
Newsflash: nope. Nobody had anything to do w/it.
It is truly amazing how two different people looking at the same piece of information conclude vastly different results depending upon their presuppositions.
Especially when the mythologist demands a presupposition.
Maybe you missed this sentence?
Evolution predicts this result.
It's called the scientific method. Maybe you need to do some research on it.
so DNA is a code that randomally evolved without an intellagent designer. I personally dont buy it.
RE: ka:
"Especially when the mythologist demands a presupposition."
Actually, that would make it LESS amazing, not more.
P.S. Celabrating Haloween is not something I do. I dont concider dressing up like demons and inviting them into my home the britiest of ideas, but then again, I'm just some wierdo who believes in demons...funny how everybody across the globe happened to come up with rather similar ideas about them.
If they were "created by the same person," that person sure pitched a lot of rough drafts at evolution's wastebasket!
The "miracle" of us being here is that it required gazillions of other beings trying and not succeeding at getting their offspring to be here.
Creationism is like saying, "Isn't it miraculous how the reservations in the U.S. are just big enough for the Native Americans!" forgetting, of course, how many of them were slaughtered or sent into exile.
Miracles are always recounted by the winners, who then have the audacity to say that evolution is dog-eat-dog. Evolution is not always a nice story, but if you substitute "went to hell" for "went extinct," which is more dog-eat-dog, evolution, or religion? At least scientists don't believe that the dinosaurs suffer hideous torture for eternity.
Hi Beep ....next time please put up a warning NOT TO BE READ AFTER SMOKING A JOINT...OR ONE OT TWO CARDS SHORT OF A DECK.
I meen I no I didant stay in skool long enuff. But that one made me feel stupid :(
Still it sounded right...I luuuv that song! Although it's obvious to me that chimps and humans are related without having to resort to any of that mind bending GGG GGG stuff. Humans and chimps look alike. They're aggressive, kill each other, are notoriously selfish, and just love to steal. So if we didn't come from them, what are these crazy religious wingnuts suggesting? That the Chimps came from us? Talk about the Descent of Man. Isn't that blasphemy?
so DNA is a code that randomally evolved without an intellagent designer. I personally dont buy it.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
but then again, I'm just some wierdo who believes in demons...funny how everybody across the globe happened to come up with rather similar ideas about them.
Argumentum ad populam
funny how everybody across the globe happened to come up with rather similar ideas about them
Sorry dude... All-Hallows eve is mostly a Druidic tradtition. It is the night on which the souls of the dead roam the streets and villiages and take any unsuspecting folk (living people) that may also be outside. Druids used to lock themselves inside. Christians invented "All Saints Day" on 1-Nov to give themselves a better chance at converting Pagans.
There were no kids around my area "trick or treating" because here in Aus they tend to get told "we live in Australia not America, so please go away."
As Beep says, it is most definatley a Pagan festival.
Sorry dude... All-Hallows eve is mostly a Druidic tradtition.
I think Under_the_Mercy was making a point about the existence of demons. To wit: many people in many different parts of the world believe in the existence of demons; ergo, demons exist (or are likely to exist, or "there must be something to the idea that demons exist").
Textbook case of the Appealing to Popularity fallacy, but one which I've encountered in many an online exchange with fundamentalists/evangelists.
under_the_mercy:
so DNA is a code that randomally evolved without an intellagent designer. I personally dont buy it.
Then be so kind to explain junk DNA, if you would.
Of course you don't buy it. Problem is, it's not a purchase.
You need to understand that 'random' is a human word, for 1. For the other, nature builds by increments, by structure. It all designed itself.
funny how everybody across the globe happened to come up with rather similar ideas about them.
Funny how they all came up w/the wheel, too. Or tools. Or shelter. Or animal domestication.
Also how interesting that these 'similar' ideas varied wildly, from the Sluagh to the Seely court, or the Lhiannon Sidhe as opposed to the Chinese version of the vampire. Or that the steam engine was invented quite a few times ere it was accepted & patented.
The secret ingredient?
Evolution.
Now get used to it.
Arthur:
Thanks for pointing that out. I got hung up on the Druid thing and completely neglected to make my point which was that All-Hallows has nothing at all to do with demons. It has to do with ghosts and there's a hell of a difference, if you'll pardon the pun...
No time now. I'll have to get to the evolution part tomarrow, but did you know that Christmas and Easter were also pagan holidays?
Daniel
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
RE anonymous
RE pagan holidays
Many of the christian holidays were pagan. A pagan is someone who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew and someone who probably is polytheistic.
The christian religion, like others before it, used pagan holidays as special days in its own religious calendar, in order to gain popularity and power.
daniel:
I'll have to get to the evolution part tomarrow, but did you know that Christmas and Easter were also pagan holidays?
That's really old news.
Yule dates back to the ancient Egyptians (the resurrection of Osiris), & Easter was named after a teutonic goddess Eostre.
& you can't get a better fertility symbol than a bunny.
I guess I don’t see much support for evolution in this. And you do realize that believing in evolution; you are making a literal monkey of yourself.
But there are some parts that I can dispute. Under_the_Mercy has a point. The similarities could be easily accounted for by a designer.
But it didn't occur by chance.
If it wasn’t by chance, than what was it? You have assumed that there is no Creator, so what was it if not chance?
‘…simply because there has not been enough time for divergence.’
And how long ago did the divergence between man and ape take place? In our previous debate, I showed you that the earth cannot be more than 20 million years old ABSOLUTE MAX, and is almost certainly younger. If there hasn’t been enough time for a divergence of some of the genes in our genome, than how would there be enough time for us to turn from monkeys into people? If you want, I can give you evidence that the earth is A LOT younger, but I generally don’t kick people while their down. But just so you don’t think that I don’t have any, I will give you evidence upon request.
‘This is only one of millions of pieces of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.’
If there are MILLIONS of pieces of evidence that support evolution, than you should absolutely blow my creationist arguments out of the water. If not, than where is your evidence?
Re: Christmas, Easter. ‘That's really old news.’
Come on ka, give me some credit, how many Christians are you aware of that will denounce Christmas and Easter?
Daniel
RE anonymous daniel
RE: "I guess I don’t see much support for evolution in this. And you do realize that believing in evolution; you are making a literal monkey of yourself."
What you fail to realize is that I have no problem with being related to all the other hominids. The hominids are the members of the biological family Hominidae (the great apes), which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.
I don't think that monkeys ascribe superiority to themselves over humans like humans do. Perhaps the only species that can be evidenced at doing this is humans.
This has been to the detriment of many other species on the planet, but of course in a believers mind, the other species are not as important as themselves.
Most human beings, believers and non-believers will agree that humans are important as it is mutually advantageous for humans to respect their own kind. But it takes "god belief" to create a mental hierarchy of life that puts human beings at the top.
I happen to think that it is disadvantageous to all other species when one species, (homo sapiens) place themselves on a pedestal above and beyond all other living things.
Religion has been successful in planting this "superiority meme" and by doing this, I think it will be to our collective detriment.
In other words, the need in some humans to ascribe their superiority over all other living things has been promoted and propagated by religious beliefs.
As I do not follow a religion, nor do I have god belief, I look at life in a slightly different way. I am better at being a human than a monkey is and a monkey is better at being a monkey than a human is, but nonetheless, we are all hominids.
So, human beings are "better" at the things that humans are good at. Not surprising really, as we have adapted to be "better" at these things.
Therefore we are better tool makers, we have better cognitive abilities, we are better abstract thinkers AND we are better at pondering the "meaning" of our individual and collective existences.
RE: ka:
""junk" DNA is a collective label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has yet been identified. About 97% of the human genome has been designated as "junk""
Natural selection sure did a bad job if 97% of our genome is useless "junk". Maybe we just dont understand it yet. After all, "If the human brain was simple enough to understand, we would not be able to understand it".
There are many examples of "body parts" man did not know the use in the past but now do.
RE anonymous daniel
RE: "But there are some parts that I can dispute. Under_the_Mercy has a point. The similarities could be easily accounted for by a designer. "
This is of course what many believers do, they manage to slot scientific information into their pre-existing god belief. So hindus, muslims, tikki tikki tembo worshippers all do basically the same thing.
This type of rationalization is similar to the process of "shoehorning", but is more than likely the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Example:
1. There are similarities in genetic code.
2. We know that Tikki tikki tembo created everything.
3. Therefore the similarities in genetic code are evidence of the existence of Tikki Tikki Tembo.
Or:
1. We can observe the natural process of photosynthesis.
2. We know that Allah created everything.
3. Therefore photosynthesis is evidence of the existence of Allah.
See how easy it is to make the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? It's ease of operation is why it is a popular fallacy for god believers to use.
In reality, it doesn't explain anything, it just allows religious believers to rationalize new information into their pre-existing god belief.
RE anonymous daniel:
RE: "But it didn't occur by chance."
The basic claim - "Everything is too complex to have come together by chance."
The theory of evolution most emphatically does not say that humans arose purely by chance.
Evolutionists do not state that complex structures arose by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution.
The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very OPPOSITE of chance.
Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.
1. amino acids, in space
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/aminospace.html
The basic claim: "Random means chaos."
A common misconception is that all results are equally likely in a random process. This is not the case.
A random process only implies that every possible outcome has some assigned probability, and that probability is that influences whether or not a particular event occurs.
under_the_mercy:
Natural selection sure did a bad job if 97% of our genome is useless "junk".
BINGO!
Evolution is a messy, violent system. It has no preferences: it cares nothing about us.
Maybe we just dont understand it yet. After all, "If the human brain was simple enough to understand, we would not be able to understand it".
An appeal to wonder? Mayhap you can elaborate on that a little further?
There are many examples of "body parts" man did not know the use in the past but now do.
Please, do share.
RE: ka:
Not an appeal to wonder, but an appeal to a messy, voilent system that has no preferences.
No problem, In a recent article, for instance, beep said that first mankind thought only the woman was needed for conception, then only the man.
RE: under_the_mercy
RE: "Not an appeal to wonder, but an appeal to a messy, voilent system that has no preferences."
Either of these appeals is illogical and probably based on your emotional assumptions about god belief.
The system is messy and sometimes violent with the majority of people in the world believing in a god.
Probably because each one of them plays the "no true scotsman fallacy" over and over in their head before they go to bed.
The only way to have a "non-messy" system is to install some kind of dictatorship and make it punishable by death if people stepped out of line or thought differently. Though it is very "messy" for those who disagree with the installed dictator.
But then, I guess you would like that, as long as your version of god was the dictator.
A refresher course for you -
1. Freedom = good.
2. Dictator = bad.
People have preferences whether they believe in a god or not.
RE: "No problem, In a recent article, for instance, beep said that first mankind thought only the woman was needed for conception, then only the man."
How does this relate to any point you are trying to make?
under_the_mercy:
Not an appeal to wonder, but an appeal to a messy, violent system that has no preferences.
Sorry, no court of appeals. That's reification.
Time to ring in w/a chorus of 'You've lost that lovin' feelin''.
No problem, In a recent article, for instance, beep said that first mankind thought only the woman was needed for conception, then only the man.
How that relates is a mystery indeed.
I suppose your commentary about organs is about the 'vestigial tail', pharangeal gills in the embryo, or the appendix?
I understand allegory pretty well (I think), but only if it's done properly.
Beepbeep.
You STILL haven’t answered any of my ‘the earth is young’ arguments. Is that because you have no answer?
Daniel
RE: anonymous daniel
RE: "You STILL haven’t answered any of my ‘the earth is young’ arguments. Is that because you have no answer?"
I have read most of them. From what I have also read, they seem to have been rebutted successfully by the scientific community.
If you want to create a web blog and post your arguments one by one, go right ahead.
Basically, I am not interested in either Kent Hovind's version of the world, or any other "new earth creation" fantasies.
If you really are interested, go to Index to Creationist Claims ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC ) and see if your claims have been rebutted.
I have no interest in going over old ground. Pardon the pun :)
Beepbeep.
‘I have read most of them. From what I have also read, they seem to have been rebutted successfully by the scientific community.’
So essentially you have no rebuttal for me? You do not seem like the kind who will easily let a debate be lost. Yet now you are not answering my challenges. Why?
‘Basically, I am not interested in either Kent Hovind's version of the world, or any other "new earth creation" fantasies.
If you really are interested, go to Index to Creationist Claims ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC ) and see if your claims have been rebutted.’
No. This is you’re blog, and I have come here. You have made a claim for evolution and are unable to defend it. Thus, by not answering my questions, you concede my point. And I don’t need to check if the creationist claims have been rebutted because I already know that they haven’t.
Daniel
RE daniel
They have been rebutted at the site I gave you. I see no point in you posting a claim from answering genesis and me posting the rebuttal from talk origins.
If you believe so strongly in a young earth, go and set up a blog and blog about it.
And you still obviously have no idea what evolution is. I recommend you read and rebut this on your blog.
Natural Selection VS Artificial Selection
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/11/natural-selection-vs-artificial.html
RE: "Either of these appeals is illogical and probably based on your emotional assumptions about god belief."
It was a joke, beep.
RE: "2. Dictator = bad."
Actually, most people who have studied government believe that the best form of government is benevolent monarchy which is a form of dictatorship.
RE: "How that relates is a mystery indeed."
You said:
"There are many examples of "body parts" man did not know the use in the past but now do.
Please, do share."
So I did. Namely, that of the mans and womans "body parts" role in conception.
RE under:
RE: "Actually, most people who have studied government believe that the best form of government is benevolent monarchy which is a form of dictatorship."
I have never claimed to be "most people", neither do appeals to authority nor appeals to numbers have any (both logical fallacies), impact upon this argument.
RE: "You said: "There are many examples of "body parts" man did not know the use in the past but now do."
No, I didn't. Are you talking about vestigial organs?
RE: "So I did. Namely, that of the mans and womans "body parts" role in conception."
I think most of the people reading this blog are aware of the differences in female and male body parts. But thanks for sharing.
Anonymous daniel
You have made a claim for evolution and are unable to defend it.
She's actually done a marvelous job, you're just not listening.
Thus, by not answering my questions, you concede my point.
Maybe it's because there's only so many things you can say to someone who refuses to listen to the facts?
And I don’t need to check if the creationist claims have been rebutted because I already know that they haven’t.
You, my friend, are about as sharp as a marble. Next, you'll insist the earth is flat.
Creationism is pure punk pseudoscience. It's a childish indulgence in pre-pubescent fantasies.
Do grow up sometime soon.
Authority and numbers have no impact upon this argument? They what does?
"think most of the people reading this blog are aware of the differences in female and male body parts. But thanks for sharing."
Key words: In the PAST.
RE under
"Actually, most people who have studied government believe that the best form of government is benevolent monarchy which is a form of dictatorship."
First logical fallacy -
1. The appeal to numbers.
Even if most people believe something, it doesn't automatically make it true. So by saying "most people who have studied government believe that the best form of government is blah blah blah" is an appeal to numbers. An appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy. Most people might believe that the sun sets, it doesn't mean it is correct.
2. The appeal to authority.
Even if most people agree that the best government is a dictatorship, it doesn't make it automatically true, just because it involves an appeal to authority. Something isn't automatically true because an authority figure says so.
This is different from citing an authority in order to make a case. In that situation, the person is citing an authority whose claim/s may or may not be able to be demonstrated as justifiable.
You did not answer my question, if numbers and authority have NO impact upon an argument, then what does?
RE under
Reason.
I believe your mistake is calling the appeal to numbers and the appeal to authority (prestige) a fallacy. It is propaganda, but not necessaraly a fallacy. Propaganda is simply the art of persuasion, wheather or not it is valid depends upon the argument.
What is unreasonable in the idea that because most experts on government consider benevolent monarchy to be the best form of govenment, chances are that it is? This is not a fallacy, it is reason.
RE under:
If you make a statement like "most people believe that blah blah blah" and this is the crux of your argument, it is an appeal to numbers, or an appeal to popularity. An appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy.
If you make a statement like "the best form of government is benevolent monarchy which is a form of dictatorship" and this is also the crux of your argument, this is an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is also a logical fallacy.
Propaganda is a message aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviour of people, rather than impartially providing information. An appeal to one's emotions is, perhaps, the more obvious propaganda method.
An appeal to emotions is also a logical fallacy.
RE: "If you make a statement like "most people believe that blah blah blah" and this is the crux of your argument, it is an appeal to numbers, or an appeal to popularity. An appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy.
If you make a statement like "the best form of government is benevolent monarchy which is a form of dictatorship" and this is also the crux of your argument, this is an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is also a logical fallacy."
Ahh, so stats are always a falacy? I disagree.
RE: "Propaganda is a message aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviour of people, rather than impartially providing information."
In which case most of you site is propaganda and therefore a falacy.
No one can impartially provide information.
RE: "Ahh, so stats are always a falacy? I disagree."
The existence of statistics is not a fallacy, but statistics can be wrong, especially if all the variables are not taken into consideration.
RE: "RE: Propaganda is a message aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviour of people, rather than impartially providing information.
Your reply: In which case most of you site is propaganda and therefore a falacy."
An appeal to emotions is a logical fallacy if that is the crux of the argument.
Religions are basically an appeal to emotions. They provide very little, if any, supporting information and rely primarily upon the fear of death and the fear of hell.
This makes them the prime example of an appeal to emotions which is a logical fallacy.
RE: "No one can impartially provide information"
If you believe that there is no such thing as knowledge, which is basically what impartial information is, then there is no point in you posting here.
That would mean that you believe that all you have is "god propaganda" and all I have is "science propaganda."
In that case, I should let you know that your time on this blog has been wasted, as I am not susceptible to "god propaganda."
RE: "The existence of statistics is not a fallacy, but statistics can be wrong, especially if all the variables are not taken into consideration."
You said a few posts back:
"First logical fallacy -
1. The appeal to numbers."
Are statistics not numbers?
RE: propaganda:
You did not answer my point "In which case most of you site is propaganda and therefore a falacy" but rather went off into a rabbit trail on the appeal to emotions, lets stay on topic.
RE: "If you believe that there is no such thing as knowledge, which is basically what impartial information is, then there is no point in you posting here."
Again you are off topic, we are not talking about the existance of impartial knowledge, but rather mans ability to present it.
RE under:
An appeal to numbers is not synonymous with statistical evidence.
My site could only be viewed as propaganda if it didn't contain any impartial information. It doesn't fall into that category.
Impartial information is information based in objectivity, rather than on the basis of bias or prejudice.
Of course some things I post here are done so in a satirical way. Satire doesn't pretend to be impartial, unbiased or free from prejudice.
I suggest that your primary reason for wanting to call it propaganda is because there are articles which conflict with your personal opinion.
Personal opinions may or may not be based in reason.
If you believe that all information is subjective and hence impartial information does not exist, then you are basically dismissing the concept of objectivity.
If you believe that all information is subjective and hence partial, then it is difficult for you to accept that any information in a traditional sense, constitutes knowledge.
If you don't believe there is such a thing as knowledge, then your time here is wasted, as everything just becomes my opinion, or your opinion.
If everything is just a matter of opinion, then the fact that you don't agree with what is on this site, shouldn't bother you, as you have probably claimed more than once in our life, that we are all welcome to our own opinions.
RE: "My site could only be viewed as propaganda if it didn't contain any impartial information."
So one piece of impartial information makes the rest reasonable, right...
RE: "If you believe that all information is subjective and hence impartial information does not exist, then you are basically dismissing the concept of objectivity.
If you believe that all information is subjective and hence partial, then it is difficult for you to accept that any information in a traditional sense, constitutes knowledge.
If you don't believe there is such a thing as knowledge, then your time here is wasted, as everything just becomes my opinion, or your opinion.
If everything is just a matter of opinion, then the fact that you don't agree with what is on this site, shouldn't bother you, as you have probably claimed more than once in our life, that we are all welcome to our own opinions."
For the second time, I am not talking about the EXISTANCE of impartial information, but man's ability to PRESENT information impartially.
RE under:
RE :"So one piece of impartial nformation makes the rest reasonable, right..."
No. We are discussing the content of the whole site, not one piece of it.
RE: "For the second time, I am not talking about the EXISTANCE of impartial information, but man's ability to PRESENT information impartially."
So your claim is that there is such a thing as impartial information, but mankind is incapable of presenting impartial information.
And let me guess, only god has impartial information, but you know what this impartial information is because god told you, so NOW YOU have this impartial information.
Hate to tell you, but this contradicts your claim that no one is capable of presenting impartial information.
RE: "No. We are discussing the content of the whole site, not one piece of it."
So am I.
RE: "So your claim is that there is such a thing as impartial information, but mankind is incapable of presenting impartial information."
Exactly.
RE: "And let me guess, only god has impartial information, but you know what this impartial information is because god told you, so NOW YOU have this impartial information."
Sorry, you guessed wrong. Next time try using reason instead of guessing because this makes no sence.
Are you saying one "owns" information??? Information simply exists, because man allready has beliefs, feelings, and personality he cannot present information impartially.
Neither is God impartial (So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth. Rom. 9:18)
Post a Comment
<< Home