My intention is to demonstrate that science is capable of believing in unfounded myths through the extensive misinterpretation of evidence. And that is precisely what is about to occur.
Indeed, you believe it’s acceptable to employ science to discredit others, yet when someone demonstrates that your own scientific beliefs are flawed, you refuse to acknowledge your errors. It’s quite evident.
Not in an atheist debate forum, you surely have a basic understanding of science’s methods and know that is not how scientific theories and ideas are altered, established or even falsified?
I am sensing Déjà vu, did you just post this in another thread? Anyway as I said there, I can’t take the credit for that, the credit would have to go to your claim, to have bested the entire scientific world, even Darwin himself in your understanding of evolution, kudos. Oh and I don’t hold scientific beliefs pers se, I merely acknowledge the efficacy of the method, and the objective evidnece required to establish the pinnacle of scientific endeavour a scientific theory, a mere plodding intellect like mine can only look on in awe, as you best all that, sorry, I mean when and if you best all that. I got caught up in all the excitement for a moment.
Au contraire, if your claims are validated, and you get your Nobel prize I will be happy to acknowledge my scepticism was indeed misplaced, but for now, I am going to point and laugh.
[quote=“Sheldon, post:1347, topic:3719”]
An atheist forum is precisely the appropriate venue to present such ideas because you consistently employ science to reject any evidence beyond the confines of scientific parameters. However, if someone were to come here and demonstrate that science could potentially be significantly mistaken regarding certain foundational assumptions that have purportedly been conclusively proven, it opens the possibility that there may be other flawed assumptions within science.
This does not imply that we can accept anything without scrutiny; rather, it serves as a reminder to exercise greater caution when considering scientific assertions.
Why, the people here who accept the findings of science recognise your claims have not satisfied those methods, so the claims are worthless. if you acknowledge we value the efficacy of scientific methodology, it is absurd to imagine we would set it all aside, in favour of anonymous claims in a chat room with no scientific authority at all.
Why do you keep using this straw man fallacy?No one here has ever claimed science is infallible, we even had this discussion? That doesn’t mean anyone can sompy use an anonymous account in a chatroom to disprove accepted scientific theories of course, that’s simply risible.
If it as you claim going to alter science’s understanding of an accepted or established scientific theory like evolution, no one who has even a cursory understanding of the methods of science, would accept it without it being validated by those methods.
No it doesn’t, since the caution is inbuilt into those methods for anyone who understands them, and the people here are fully aware that no method can be infallible, but far more importantly anonymous claims on the internet that have not been subjected to those methods, don’t tell us anything about established scientific theories.
It is also obvious that this nonsense has been drummed up because you hold unevidenced subjective religious beliefs, and are annoyed that they are not given the same credence as scientific claims, else why try to discredit science in this risible fashion, and in an atheist forum, as if the atheists here are setting some biased double standard for belief, rather than the saem standard that your belief and arguments have failed to meet.
@Quim has instructed folks to “just wait, it’s about to happen!” on a few occasions now. I just can’t shake the feeling that IF s/he actually does produce anything, it will be some sort of dad joke and then claim he’s ever so clever for it.
Sheldon,
Please explain why flood stories around the world share things such as;
Only a very few survive.
A raft was built.
Animals survive with the few survivors.
Global flood.
Deity is unhappy with man
Evil is pervasive
Only the righteous or good hearted survive
Great serpent is an enemy of mankind
Landed on a mountain after waters receded
The earth was young
People mocked a man for building a floating device
People were made out of clay
The survivor was named Noah
The survivor opens the window of the boat
Survivor instructed by deity to build boat
Raven was used to check if flood subsided
Dove was used to check if flood subsided
The boat had levels
Bitumen was used on the boat
The survivor guessed the flood would happen
Deity advised man to make a ship
Repopulated the earth
A rainbow associated with the flood
These deatails of a few examples:
Americas:
North America-
Algonquian flood
One man and animals saved
Choctaw flood
A few families who were saved on a great raft that was built.
http://www.native-languages.org/choctawstory.htm
Cautantowwit flood
When the earth was young a terrible flood was unleashed. (This story has semblance of the story of Genesis)
https://web.archive.org/web/20120901103900/http://ab.mec.edu/pinehawk/legends/cautantowwit.html
Cree flood
built a raft of logs and took many animals aboard with him.
Then a raven left the raft. He flew around the entire world, but found no land, only water.
http://www.native-languages.org/creestory4.htm
Knisteneaux flood
Only a male and woman survive
http://www.native-languages.org/creestory3.htm
Hopi flood
One version: Flood due to evil and only good hearted people survived
Second version: Only righteous survived
Land on mountain
Waynaboozhoo flood
A Great Spirit unhappy with man and created a great flood. Only survivor was a man who made a raft for himself and animals who floated for over a month.
A Flood of Myths and Stories | Blog | Independent Lens.
Ojibway flood
The great serpent is the enemy that eat humans.
Raft made by one man to save men women and animals and all mountains were covered. They floated until the flood subsided.
http://www.native-languages.org/ojibwestory3.htm
Mi’kmaq:
The world began with one man and one woman they procreated and wickedness prevailed. The rain came and only one man and woman were saved, who were the best people of all.
MesoAmerica-
Unu Pachakuti
A man and a woman spared floating in a wooden box
Bochica
Muisca people forsook teachings and turned to a life of excess and a flood engulfed where they lived. Bochia (messenger god) returned a rainbow the floodwaters were drained away.
Wow, Shifting The Burden of Proof and God of The Gaps Fallacy. You just don’t stop with the pitiful apologetic attempts do you? 
Don’t roll past my questions, and then imagine for a moment that I’ll have any interest in answering yours.
I asked first, and have asked several times:
Why do you believe the Noah flood myth, when the geological record demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has ever occurred?
I could care less that flood myths have shared hyperbole.
It truly is pitifully dishonest the way @WhoAreYou ignores questions, and refutations, and then insists others answer his questions.
@WhoAreYou, stories throughout history have shared commonalities. Do you know why? It’s because they are all written by humans. We have humanity in common so our stories will reflect that.
I find that your argument of commonalities across flood stories to be evidence of the existence of god(s) is weak. There are many, many stories about dragons with lots of commonalities, for instance, from many times and many cultures but you are not arguing for their existence, and I doubt you ever would. Because of this, it appears, at least to me, that you are trying to stuff the square peg of flood stories into the round hole of god(s).
Do you actually think that your ‘logic’ gets to be applied in one situation but not others?
You also ignored both of these responses to your claims as well. why would that be?
You still haven’t explained how the human genome evidences a deity, as you claimed. Or how nearly all of the elite biologists in the National Academy of Sciences don’t agree, as they’re atheists, and again this is not a bare appeal to numbers or argumentum ad populum fallacy, as you also claimed. Since I have not claimed anything is true based solely on an appeal to numbers. I refuted your claim that the human genome evidenced a deity, by pointing out that atheism is almost universal among elite biologists, so either these experts don’t understand the scientific evidnece or your claim was false, and since you can’t offer a single word of explanation or any objective evidnece to support the claim after many weeks of asking, it seems more likely your claim was false.
As I explained here, and you completely ignored:
I’m still trying my damnedest to figure out how Harley Quim thinks debunking Evolution is going to change our disbelief in any god(s). What little I know about Evolution on a VERY general scale has pretty much zero bearing on why I’m an atheist. Why is that so difficult for theists to understand? 
Ok I’ve got this one, I’ll use bullet points, because we atheists are too dumb to grasp ideas beyond the facile.
Tadah
Oh and rocks can experience stuff, but let’s put a pin in that one and come back to it later. Oh and this is evidence for a god as well, but I am a little hazy on exactly why, since @Quim flounced before explaining.
Ah, you poor foolish heathen, read points 4 through 6 again.
Bless, you’re just projecting now.
Why you gotta be so MEAN?.. 
I’m only trying to understaaaaaaaand… Being an atheist and having to always defend my belief in non-belief can be overwhelming sometimes. Had I known my life would become so complicated by choosing to believe in atheism, I never would have converted to this stupid non-belief religion. I never should have climbed out from under that sentient rock. 
Have you considered asking Jesus for help?
Yeah, you need to reject Satan.
Was anyone else’s suspicions aroused, when taking a peek at that paper Quim linked to?
The full citation for which is, wait for it:
Mutation Bias Reflects Natural Selection In Arabidopsis thaliana by J. Grey Monroe, Thanvi Srikant, Pablo Carbonell-Bejerano, Claude Becker, Mariele Lensink, Moises Exposito-Alonso, Marie Klein, Julia Hildebrandt, Manuela Neumann, Daniel Kliebenstein, Mao-Lun Weng, Eric Imbert, Jon Ågren, Matthew T. Rutter, Charles B. Fenster & Detlef Weigel, Nature, 602: 101-105 (2022)
Let’s highlight that title again, shall we? Namely:
Mutation Bias Reflects Natural Selection In Arabidopsis thaliana
Now I wonder why the authors chose that title?
Second, this:
shows that far from I and others here not understanding evolution, Quim doesn’t understand evolution. Because he obviously doesn’t understand what purifying selection is. Purifying selection occurs when a gene is critical for metabolic function, and mutations disrupting that function are lethal. As a corollary, genes falling into this category have a habit of being highly conserved, and it’s no surprise that post hoc mutation rates for these genes will be observed to be lower, simply because the lethal variants have been rapidly eliminated. As a corollary, the following:
First of all, the term “epigenome associated mutation bias” is defined nowhere in the paper by the authors. I’m not surprised at this, because there’s a lot of waffle spouted on this subject even by actual biologists, let alone pedlars of dupicitous apologetics. But it’s interesting that no mechanism is presented in this paper to back up this term, as should happen in any proper, rigorous submission.
Indeed, the authors of this paper seem to have trouble keeping track of propter hoc versus post hoc mutations throughout the paper, and end up presenting clains therein that are little more than blind assertions as a result. If I have been a peer reviewer for this paper, I’d have sent it back to the jounral editor with a substantial list of reasons for rejection.
Second, Quim obviously doesn’t understand the proper use of the word “random” in scientific circles, and as a corollary, ends up resurrecting Canard #10 from my grand list of creationist canards. From said exposition, I’ll reiterate what scientists actually mean when they use the word “random”, viz:
So not only did Quim choose an extremely bad paper for his apologetics, but also peddled a well-known creationist canard into the bargain.
Dumbass (muttering to self) Uh, wtf Tin? You had a nice secure spot and you just had to take it for granite…
Edit (my driveway is talking to me)
You’re confused, he’s a genius who knows better than 99% (his number) of biologists.
Well there you go, according to @Quim 99% of them.
I am sure @Quim will address this in his Nobel acceptance speech.
Geniuses are mavericks, they needn’t and don’t play by the rules.
You’re posting your way right out of @Quim’s memoirs, thas’all I’m saying.
Ok I was saving this, but now it seems like the right time.
Quim
noun
VULGAR SLANG•BRITISH
a woman’s genitals.
I recognised it right off obviously.
Meanwhile, dealing with this latest floater in the toilet bowl of discourse:
Just because mythologies contain the requisite assertions, doesn’t mean that those assertions constitute fact. Are you ever going to learn this elementary lesson?
Furthermore, it’s no surprise that pre-scientific humans with limited imaginations, living alongisde water bodies with a habit of inundating surrounding land on a regular or semi-regular basis, will concoct mythologies with recurring themes. You seem to think that some sort of fantastic magic process is needed for this: no it isn’t.
Then there’s the little matter of there being NO EVIDENCE that the fantasy “global flood” ever happened. Indeed, I’ve already presented to you, in detail, the cogent reasons why the fantasy “global flood” never happened on two separate occasions in this very thread, namely in post #572 and post #1217. Yet here you are again, ignoring that presentation of evidence, none of which you even attempted to acknowledge the existence of on each occasion I presented it.
Instead of addressing those issues, you pretend that they never existed or were never presented to you, and resort to irrelevant and fatuous ex recto apologetic fabrication to try and prop up this diseased mythological fantasy, and moreover, try do do so by reference to yet more blind mythological assertions.
When are you going to learn, ONCE AND FOR ALL, that BLIND MYTHOLOGICAL ASSERTIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE FACT? Step out of your complacent and duplicitous Christian Nationalist bubble once and for all, and start learning how REALITY works, instead of wasting time spooning up whatever lies on the subject you’re being fed by your “pastor” while he’s banking his “tithes” in an offshore slush fund.
Learn once and for all that your mythology inspired fantasies are garbage, and bear no relation to how reality operates. REALITY pisses on your infantile creationist fantasies from such a great height, that the piss is travelling at close to the speed of light when it lands. Indeed, I’ve already mentioned in post #744, the little matter than in order for your fantasies to be correct, basic trigonometry has to be wrong, and my response to this is “good luck with that”. Indeed, I presented in full, the paper in question via a Google Docs document here, demonstrating this.
Your sad little Jeebus fantasies don’t even rise to the level of competence to be worthy of a point of view, and the only reason we’re bothering with them, is because you’re providing us with practically the canonical pedagogical tool, with which to demonstrate that in order to be a creationist, you have to lie to everyone including yourself. Far from being an advertisement for your shitty little religion, you’re providing us with the very ammunition we need to destroy it. But I’ve noticed that creationists have a habit of being too stupid to realise this.
Yes, despite the limits of my education, my posted response: (edited for brevity)
“The paper does not support the claim.
The research, which is ongoing, indicates a possible “protective mechanism” for essential genes, altering the percentage of truly random mutations. The conclusions of the paper you cited do not make the bald claim that mutations are not random. While this is clearly a headline-grabbing claim, even if eventually supported by additional research, it indicates an additional aspect of mutation, not a completely new explanation as you so vociferously implied.
Full disclosure, I also am not an evolutionary biologist, but I can and do read, and your declarations of superiority over the entire scientific field would have to improve dramatically to reach the level of batshittery.”
While I do not possess the educational background to understand all of the research data, I do my best and can certainly ascertain misrepresentations and mischaracterizations when I see them.
I welcome any clarifying analyses your expertise can provide. 