Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-30-2010, 08:27 AM   #226
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,559
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
Well, "Real Science" apparently requires a "Missing Link", and since Creationists are not likely to find one, and too honest and intelligent to fabricate a "Lizard Link", it is doubtful they will ever receive any serious respect. They also lack a strong desire for popping Champagne corks and throwing big parties every time Rover digs up a bone in the back yard.....another shortfall on their part.
Best Regards!
Actually, Rupert, when it comes to your total inability to see reason on this, I don't expect you to iunderstand what peer-reviewed, replicatible results are, but, for Jeves, ... the fact is, Creationism makes no falsifiable scientific observations or predictions, at least which have not been falsified.

All 'Creationism' and its repackaging as 'Intelligent design' does is make fallacious arguments from ignorance ...to try and obfuscate, .... and when it's debunked, they just wait a while and try the same scam elsewhere.

It's not science, I'm afraid, no matter how much it claims to be peer-reviewable. Peer review means that what's not science or not replicateable... Doesn't end up with those published credentials.

That's why ID and other Fundie 'scienceyness' relies on things dressed-up to *look* like peer-reviewed journals, or sound like them, or come from evangelical religious 'universities' that largely play in their own sandbox....

Because ID in essence is not a scientific theory at all. It's an anti-theory, claiming 'This is too complex to understand, even if you actually understand it, so therefore it must be presumed to be my God...'

05-30-2010, 08:39 AM   #227
Site Supporter
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
Actually, Rupert, when it comes to your total inability to see reason on this, I don't expect you to iunderstand what peer-reviewed, replicatible results are, but, for Jeves, ... the fact is, Creationism makes no falsifiable scientific observations or predictions, at least which have not been falsified.

All 'Creationism' and its repackaging as 'Intelligent design' does is make fallacious arguments from ignorance ...to try and obfuscate, .... and when it's debunked, they just wait a while and try the same scam elsewhere.

It's not science, I'm afraid, no matter how much it claims to be peer-reviewable. Peer review means that what's not science or not replicateable... Doesn't end up with those published credentials.

That's why ID and other Fundie 'scienceyness' relies on things dressed-up to *look* like peer-reviewed journals, or sound like them, or come from evangelical religious 'universities' that largely play in their own sandbox....

Because ID in essence is not a scientific theory at all. It's an anti-theory, claiming 'This is too complex to understand, even if you actually understand it, so therefore it must be presumed to be my God...'


"All 'Creationism' and its repackaging as 'Intelligent design' does is make fallacious arguments from ignorance ...to try and obfuscate, .... and when it's debunked, they just wait a while and try the same scam elsewhere."

Will you just take a look at what you wrote here Ratlady? You are accusing Creationists of doing EXACTLY what I have been hollering about from your vaulted "Scientists"! First the Lizard, then this new "Ardi"....not to mention the many failed "Missing Links" in past years where these Egg Heads broke out the Champagne and celebrated their new-found evidence that would "Crush Creationists". When it doesn't work out for them....like when Mr Kitty points out that they only have a Commoon Lizard, the kind he buries often for later snacking, they just squeal like stuck pigs and.....move on to the next Scam! In this case it was "Ardi".......wanna bet that a new Scam appears within the next year? These guys are apparently rabid for Champagne and Fundi Bashing! Hilarious!
Best Regards!
05-30-2010, 09:43 AM - 1 Like   #228
New Member
JeyesFluid's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 14
Hi Rupert,

Hehe, I don't think it's quite that simple though. I believe most scientists in the field are decent, honest individuals just like everybody else. The problem is that the scientific establishment has a lot of politics and that's where the problems lay.

Let me give you an example of what happened to an aquaintance of mine. She was studying as a marine biologist and was tasked to do an impact study in a estuary in Mozambique. A large company wanted to set up a dredging works there.

After doing her research in the estaury she presented a report saying that the dredging works would have a major impact on the ecosystem and her conclusion was that the dredging works would be a bad thing.
Her professor told her that this company is a major benefactor to the university and that she should come up with different results.

Now you can't fault her for coming up with different results, if she doesn't, her education is down the toilet. I place the blame with the professor. In the end good science didn't achieve the goals they wanted and so the interpretations had to change.

Most large companies wouldn't give grants to anything remotely hinting at creationism, because religion is bad for business. So if you want to eat, you have to fall in line.

Then you have organisations such as the Centre for Science education which is totally riddled with humanistic philosphy plus magazines such as National Geographic pushing an evolutionary agenda, and it's within that status quo that young university students have to carve an existence for themselves.

I truly believe most people aren't aware of the politics and the philosophical assumptions within the scientific establishment, particularly where it comes to origins science and this isn't some tin-caravan conspiracy theory, it is a well known fact.

My personal experience in discussion about evolution is that people will say, "What you actually believe in young earth creationism? What about all the evidence". Once we start discussing the underlying assumptions when the evidence is interpreted the question invariably comes, "Surely you don't expect me to believe that all those scientists are wrong".

I think that's the crux of the issue, it's not so much the evidence that convinces many, but the authority of the scientific establishment.
05-30-2010, 10:08 AM   #229
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Corollary to creationism

Even if you "believe" that the science of creation could not happen in our enviroment, you still leave that possibility that we were (or all life) "created" in some lab out there in the universe... God is still not necessary.
so you have
1)Natural development
2)"creation" by a divine being
3)"creation" by other mortal beings

05-30-2010, 10:28 AM   #230
New Member
JeyesFluid's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 14
Hi RatMagicLady,

I'm new here so go easy on me

QuoteQuote:
Creationism makes no falsifiable scientific observations or predictions, at least which have not been falsified.
If creationism makes no falsifyable prediction, how could some predictions then have been falsified?

Have you given any thought about the falsifiability of evolution and its (many) auxilliary theories?

I believe that at this point evolution has become a religion in itself and it's plastic enough that it cannot be falsified. Think about the following:

Evolution is change over time, right? Can something as nebulous as this be falsified? Who would argue that things don't change as time progresses?

What about Natural selection, Vestigial organs and Sexual selection?
The first predicts the formation of attributes that promote survival. The second, the existence of useless attributes that are neutral to survival and the last attributes that are contra-survival i.e. bright colours, elaborate tails etc.

Between these three nothing cannot be explained or explained away.
You have mutation as the totally chaotic driving power and one of 3 all encompassing options for selection. Anything is possible, not so?

Here's another.
Evolution predicts similarity between related species, yes? This is often toted as proof that evolution has happened.
However, in nature we have unrelated species that are also homologous (Ichthyosaurus, dolphins and sea-bass for instance), so an auxilliary theory namely 'convergent evolution' was invented to explain this phenomenon.
But you also have related species that are totally different, right? So saltationism is the scientific term to explain this.

So you've covered any possible option and evolution cannot be falsified.

I can go on, but you should get the picture.

QuoteQuote:
All 'Creationism' and its repackaging as 'Intelligent design' does is make fallacious arguments from ignorance ...to try and obfuscate, .... and when it's debunked, they just wait a while and try the same scam elsewhere.
Actually it's not an argument from ignorance for two reason:

a) We have historical eyewitness evidence, from the Creator himself. You may not accept it as proof, but it's certainly evidence.
b) We argue by default not from ignorance. The argument is: If there are only two possible causes for a certain effect and one possibility is shown to be insuffient, then the other possibility is true by default.

So, either something made everything or nothing made everything (it made itself in other words). since nothing is an insufficient cause for the universe, by default, I believe Something made everything.

QuoteQuote:
It's not science, I'm afraid, no matter how much it claims to be peer-reviewable. Peer review means that what's not science or not replicateable... Doesn't end up with those published credentials.
You're begging the question.

I totally agree with you that real science is replicateable.
do you believe it's possible to replicate the curvature of the space-time continuum, or the big bang, the formation of heavier elements from hydrogen, or the origin of life from non-life or the origin of information?

QuoteQuote:
That's why ID and other Fundie 'scienceyness' relies on things dressed-up to *look* like peer-reviewed journals, or sound like them, or come from evangelical religious 'universities' that largely play in their own sandbox....
You seem rather angry. Ofcourse appealing to appearances and 'scienceyness' or that it only *looks* like real science isn't really a scientific objection, but rather a sort of ad hominem...

There are some bad apples in the creationism as well as in the evolution community. We have our Kent Hovinds and you have your Ernst Haekle's... But let's not focus on that and lets try and look at this objectively. I do my best to respect evolutionists and not treat them like evil schemers or idiots and I'd appreciate the same courtesy for what I believe. Let's stick to the facts, yes?

If you're going to dismiss creationism out of hand without even looking at the evidence, you're no better than those you accuse of bias and subjectiveness.

By the way, what made you so against creationism, is it the religious implication?
If I may ask, are you religious, if so what religion do you associate with?

Kind regards

---------- Post added 05-30-2010 at 10:33 AM ----------

Jeffkrol,
QuoteQuote:
Even if you "believe" that the science of creation could not happen in our enviroment, you still leave that possibility that we were (or all life) "created" in some lab out there in the universe... God is still not necessary.
so you have
1)Natural development
2)"creation" by a divine being
3)"creation" by other mortal beings
True, and more and more often these days one sees big players in evolution such as Dawkins claiming that the original organic life may have been introducted by extra-terrestrials (option 3).

That means that an intelligent agent created life, which actually supports ID. The problem for him though is that he's just shifted the problem to outer space. That no more explains the existence of life though.

Last edited by JeyesFluid; 05-30-2010 at 11:12 AM.
05-30-2010, 10:45 AM   #231
Site Supporter
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Even if you "believe" that the science of creation could not happen in our enviroment, you still leave that possibility that we were (or all life) "created" in some lab out there in the universe... God is still not necessary.
so you have
1)Natural development
2)"creation" by a divine being
3)"creation" by other mortal beings
Yes, I can buy that....can you give me the names of those that ran that Lab? Perhaps explain how they spontaneously appeared with lab equipment and the vast knowledge required for such an endeavor? Looks like #2 is still a pretty good option....?
Best Regards!

---------- Post added 05-30-2010 at 01:13 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by JeyesFluid Quote
Hi Rupert,

Hehe, I don't think it's quite that simple though. I believe most scientists in the field are decent, honest individuals just like everybody else. The problem is that the scientific establishment has a lot of politics and that's where the problems lay.

Let me give you an example of what happened to an aquaintance of mine. She was studying as a marine biologist and was tasked to do an impact study in a estuary in Mozambique. A large company wanted to set up a dredging works there.

After doing her research in the estaury she presented a report saying that the dredging works would have a major impact on the ecosystem and her conclusion was that the dredging works would be a bad thing.
Her professor told her that this company is a major benefactor to the university and that she should come up with different results.

Now you can't fault her for coming up with different results, if she doesn't, her education is down the toilet. I place the blame with the professor. In the end good science didn't achieve the goals they wanted and so the interpretations had to change.

Most large companies wouldn't give grants to anything remotely hinting at creationism, because religion is bad for business. So if you want to eat, you have to fall in line.

Then you have organisations such as the Centre for Science education which is totally riddled with humanistic philosphy plus magazines such as National Geographic pushing an evolutionary agenda, and it's within that status quo that young university students have to carve an existence for themselves.

I truly believe most people aren't aware of the politics and the philosophical assumptions within the scientific establishment, particularly where it comes to origins science and this isn't some tin-caravan conspiracy theory, it is a well known fact.

My personal experience in discussion about evolution is that people will say, "What you actually believe in young earth creationism? What about all the evidence". Once we start discussing the underlying assumptions when the evidence is interpreted the question invariably comes, "Surely you don't expect me to believe that all those scientists are wrong".

I think that's the crux of the issue, it's not so much the evidence that convinces many, but the authority of the scientific establishment.
I agree wholeheartedly. Your example story is excellent, and a common occurrence in both the scientific world as well as politics and Big Business...as witnessed currently in the Gulf.
I am not as ignorant on the theory of evolution as I might appear here, but I don't think that stifling conversation regarding creationism by scientists shows an intelligent attitude either.
Best Regards!
05-30-2010, 09:05 PM   #232
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,559
QuoteOriginally posted by JeyesFluid Quote
Hi RatMagicLady,

I'm new here so go easy on me
Oh, that is going pretty easy. I'm afraid I haven't been up to much for the past several days.





QuoteQuote:
If creationism makes no falsifyable prediction, how could some predictions then have been falsified?
What you quoted should answer that for you. It makes no falsifiable predictions which have not been repeatedly falsified, such as 'no transitional forms will be found,' or 'no explanation for this or that is possible, (which wouldn't actually prove anything scientifically anyway, since it's predicting a not-happening)



QuoteQuote:
Have you given any thought about the falsifiability of evolution and its (many) auxilliary theories?
Err, sure? Evolutionary science is the only scientific theory which accounts for a vast body of evidence, and it has not as yet been contradicted. Creationism has basically been discredited for centuries, no matter how many times it's been revised.

QuoteQuote:
I believe that at this point evolution has become a religion in itself and it's plastic enough that it cannot be falsified. Think about the following :
Declaring evolution a rival religion does not make it so, that's simply another dogmatic claim that's unsubstantiated by facts.

Anecdotes about corrporate corruption of a research project don't make evolution or science a thing of false prophets, either, since science isn't claiming to be a prophecy. Creationism is.





QuoteQuote:
Evolution is change over time, right? Can something as nebulous as this be falsified? Who would argue that things don't change as time progresses?
There is of course more to it if you bother to study. 'ID' is not science, it's just an attempt to sway pulblic opinion with non-reason like what you say right there. THat's just language and not the substance of the theories and bodies of observation.

Creationism demands people ignore evidence to fit words, but like other forms of denial all it needs to do is confuse people.

But it's not science.

It's not even science that ID is attacking: it's religion claiming that 'atheism and evolution' are false prophecies with false prophets and trying to attack them as not 'righteous,' .... when actually it's certain kinds of authoritarian religion which can't seem to help but see things in those terms, because those are the terms by which these religions claim to know more about the world than the world does: ie this is about trying to persuade people to *believe* somebody, not about learning what can be known.

In fact, ID is, as I said, nothing but an argument from ignorance: it says, "You can't figure this out," ...even if it is figured out.

It flatters people to think, I suppose, "If I can't understand this, only God can."

But actually it's not that hard.

Anyway, I hope that's clear enough for now: I do need to be getting some rest, ....been in a certain amount of ow, thus foggy of late. Maybe better in the morning.

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-30-2010 at 09:33 PM.
05-30-2010, 09:34 PM   #233
Site Supporter
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
QuoteQuote:
"Creationism demands people ignore evidence to fit words, but like other forms of denial all it needs to do is confuse people.

But it's not science.
"
Didn't you mean Evolution demands?......it is still interesting to see how you guys just simply ignore your "Lizard Men" and "Ardi Links" when they don't register the degree of "confusion" you desire.....mainly because they are completely phony.
Regards

05-30-2010, 11:08 PM   #234
New Member
JeyesFluid's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 14
Hi RatMagicLady,

QuoteQuote:
Oh, that is going pretty easy. I'm afraid I haven't been up to much for the past several days.
I'm sorry to hear that you're not feeling well and I hope that you'll feel better soon. Is the pain related to your disability?

In my previous post I asked what religion you were in if any? I'd still like to know, if it's allright. You alluded to people judging atheists...are you an atheist?

As for your response to what I posted, I'm rather disappointed that you didn't really address any of the salient points I've made.
I'm actually quite interested in your response to the 3 examples I gave that of the theory of evolution's unfalsifiability. Between the main theory and its auxilliary theories, nothing cannot be explain or explained away.

Do you think there's any species living or dead that can be discovered that'll actually falsify evolution? What attributes would such a thing need to have?

Saying ID is not science, simply begs the question.

I can just as easily claim evolution is not science and then simply handwave everything away as non-evidence, non-data, nonsense. But where will that get us?

By the way, I'm not actually ID. The Intelligent Design movement, although I agree with much and I'm a big fan of Dembski and Behe's work, they still believe in an old earth. I'm a young earther. I'm a semi-retarded, banjo playin', inbred YEC (I believe that's the general impression people seem to have of us, yes?)

QuoteQuote:
There is of course more to it if you bother to study.
Saying things like, "If you bother to study", implies that I'm ignorant and that if only I read enough stuff (out there) then I'd see things your way. I assure you that this isn't my first rodeo and although I don't claim to know-it-all (not even close) I have actually *bothered* to study quite a bit.

QuoteQuote:
Evolutionary science is the only scientific theory which accounts for a vast body of evidence, and it has not as yet been contradicted.
You're doing exactly the thing that I often find when discussing this topic and which I mentioned to Rupert,

"My personal experience in discussion about evolution is that people will say, 'What you actually believe in young earth creationism? What about all the evidence'. Once we start discussing the underlying assumptions when the evidence is interpreted the question invariably comes, "Surely you don't expect me to believe that all those scientists are wrong'."

You're referring to 'all the evidence out there', but as I said, when one looks at the indivual pieces of evidence itself, there is much assumption and circularity.
This tactic of simply making broad statements and not giving specifics is called elephant hurling, and it makes reasonable discussion quite impossible. If you can give specifics we can discuss it, but I certainly can't comment statements like "large body of evidence". Where do I begin, and no matter what I choose to refute, I bet that wouldn't be *the* evidence that you had in mind, right?

QuoteQuote:
Anecdotes about corrporate corruption of a research project don't make evolution or science a thing of false prophets
It wasn't meant to prove that at all. It's meant to show that there's politics in science and that it's not always purely objective. That, often, science is goal-oriented. Often, the goal is to "...free science from Moses" - Charles Lyell.

Believe me, I have a number of examples where evidence was massaged to fit the paradigm and or people were punished for going against the evolutionary status quo. If you like, we can discuss some examples.

QuoteQuote:
In fact, ID is, as I said, nothing but an argument from ignorance: it says, "You can't figure this out," ...even if it is figured out.
I believe I have answered the accusation that we argue from ignorance. You haven't responded to that.

QuoteQuote:
It flatters people to think, I suppose, "If I can't understand this, only God can."
This, ofcourse, is a non sequitur. No matter how flattering you might think creationism is, that doesn't make it false. The veracity of an idea is not dependant one whether or not it flatters.

Also, one has to wonder how flattering it is, admitting that our understanding is limited? I never understand this line of argumentation, should I be flattered

QuoteQuote:
It's not even science that ID is attacking: it's religion claiming that 'atheism and evolution' are false prophecies with false prophets and trying to attack them as not 'righteous,' .... when actually it's certain kinds of authoritarian religion which can't seem to help but see things in those terms, because those are the terms by which these religions claim to know more about the world than the world does: ie this is about trying to persuade people to *believe* somebody, not about learning what can be known.
I think this is probably getting to the core of you're problem with Christianity...

Do you see Christianity epitomised at this huge cold authority wanting to oppress human freedom, or else? And that Christians walk around making people feel unrighteous by their standards and trying to pursuade everybody?
Please would you mind expanding on this a little more. I'm interesting in hearing how people view Christianity.

Kind regards and I hope you'll be feeling better soon. Would you mind if we Christians here prayed for you?

Last edited by JeyesFluid; 05-31-2010 at 12:17 AM.
05-31-2010, 06:00 AM   #235
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,559
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
"All 'Creationism' and its repackaging as 'Intelligent design' does is make fallacious arguments from ignorance ...to try and obfuscate, .... and when it's debunked, they just wait a while and try the same scam elsewhere."

Will you just take a look at what you wrote here Ratlady? You are accusing Creationists of doing EXACTLY what I have been hollering about from your vaulted "Scientists"! First the Lizard, then this new "Ardi".
Actually, Rupert, it's just another case of Creationists accusing 'Science' of doing what they're doing themselves: claiming that the entire body of evidence is a mere dogma and insistence, to drag it down to the level of repackaged belief in Noah's Ark ...by dogma and insistence.

The first use of the term 'Intelligent Design' is *literally* from a manuscript where someone who wanted Creationism in schools basically did a find-and-replace.

Science isn't a discreditable prophecy, Rupert, that's the thing.

Creationists treat all of science like somehow any 'one bad apple' makes science itself flawed, when 'Science' does not have this problem because it does not make these kinds of claims to perfection or knowing the unknowable to begin with.

Authoritarian religion makes these claims. Not science or reason.



QuoteQuote:
...not to mention the many failed "Missing Links" in past years where these Egg Heads broke out the Champagne and celebrated their new-found evidence that would "Crush Creationists".
You characterize whatever you're ranting about in this way, but all I've seen is an oblique reference to scientific uncertainty about whether the latest find shows a common ancestry with neanderthals (Already known of) or interbreeding. (Which would be quite a discovery)


QuoteQuote:
When it doesn't work out for them....like when Mr Kitty points out that they only have a Commoon Lizard, the kind he buries often for later snacking, they just squeal like stuck pigs and.....move on to the next Scam!
Err., 'Common lizard?' What are you talking about?

You demand things of evolutionary theory that are neither in it nor necessary for evolutionary science. They hardly debunk a whole body of evidence or make the world a couple thousand years old or unknowable or anything.





QuoteQuote:
In this case it was "Ardi".......wanna bet that a new Scam appears within the next year? These guys are apparently rabid for Champagne and Fundi Bashing! Hilarious!
Best Regards!
There's no scam involved, actually, it just doesn't mean what you want to think it was claimed to mean.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 09:56 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by JeyesFluid Quote
Hi RatMagicLady,


I'm sorry to hear that you're not feeling well and I hope that you'll feel better soon. Is the pain related to your disability?
In large measure. And years without proper medicine took their toll. It's never simple.


QuoteQuote:
In my previous post I asked what religion you were in if any? I'd still like to know, if it's allright. You alluded to people judging atheists...are you an atheist?

No, I'm not an atheist. Nor am I an Abrahamic monotheist. But 'Science' is not an 'atheist prophecy.' You attack both science and atheism as if they're all the same thing.

Atheism actually isn't a thing, any more than 'not collecting stamps' is a thing, as they say.

Science and faith do not contradict each other, unless your particular religion overextends.

Frankly, that's part of your problem, actually, you think 'Science' is some 'Atheist religion' you're fighting.

Actually, to me *you and atheists look like competing rationalizations.* So you can put away your claims of soullessness in others.

You wouldn't believe how much I believe. That's why I like as much and as good of science as I can get. Wait till you get to the really interesting stuff.



QuoteQuote:
As for your response to what I posted, I'm rather disappointed that you didn't really address any of the salient points I've made.
Listen, dude. You're lucky you get any response at all right now. You're lucky you get any of my limited concentration span at all just now, never mind a right to be 'disappointed.'


QuoteQuote:
I'm actually quite interested in your response to the 3 examples I gave that of the theory of evolution's unfalsifiability.
Then we'll get back to them. You actually haven't shown why you assert evolution is 'unfalsifiable,' when you keep trying to claim certain little cases *do* falsify it, though they've all been debunked. By people not hurting so much. Look em up.

QuoteQuote:
Between the main theory and its auxilliary theories, nothing cannot be explain or explained away.
That makes it a robust theory, not 'unfalsifiable'

Are you clear on the terms here?

QuoteQuote:
Do you think there's any species living or dead that can be discovered that'll actually falsify evolution? What attributes would such a thing need to have?
I don't *expect* any will be found at this point, any more than the theory of gravitation will be 'falsified,' at least not to be replaced by something that does not fit all the observations, all of a sudden.

What attributes would such a thing need to have is really for ID people to come up with. They simply pull out things they say are too complex to understand, ignore explanations of how they *are* in fact understood, and claim that any resulting 'gap' means, 'Evolution is not complete, evolution is wrong, take our demonstrably-incorrect ideas instead!'

To throw out the entire body of science that supports evolutionary theory, you'd have to find something damn remarkable. Probably redefine the entirety of spacetime, and I doubt that would much please Christian literalists when things got there, anyway.



QuoteQuote:
Saying ID is not science, simply begs the question.

I can just as easily claim evolution is not science and then simply handwave everything away as non-evidence, non-data, nonsense. But where will that get us?
The difference here is that no matter how much ID you read about, that's all it is, an argument from ignorance, usually with misconstrued and cooked-up 'evidence' that simply does not make a scientific case.

Science can in fact answer all these charges, and anyone with effort and a modicum of intelligence can actually show the same things.

QuoteQuote:
By the way, I'm not actually ID. The Intelligent Design movement, although I agree with much and I'm a big fan of Dembski and Behe's work, they still believe in an old earth. I'm a young earther. I'm a semi-retarded, banjo playin', inbred YEC (I believe that's the general impression people seem to have of us, yes?)
In scientific terms, Pretty much. The only way you could possibly believe *that* is to think a), everyone else in the world is lying, including about technology working, or b) Everything was poofed into existence to *appear* exactly as it appears, 'old universe' and all.

Which would be tidy enough, but wouldn't give Fundies any especial authority to contradict science and reason at political convenience.






QuoteQuote:
Saying things like, "If you bother to study", implies that I'm ignorant and that if only I read enough stuff (out there) then I'd see things your way.
Actually I didn't tell you *my* way of seeing things, you were attacking *science,* and I was speaking on behalf of science. Your arguments against science don't hold.


QuoteQuote:
I assure you that this isn't my first rodeo and although I don't claim to know-it-all (not even close) I have actually *bothered* to study quite a bit.
Well, you see, the ID thing plays to *ego,* like I said, enlisting the brain to defend denial of reality may *seem* smart, but if you aren't examining your premises, (even willing to discard them as evidence warrants) ...then you simply won't get meaningful output.


QuoteQuote:
You're doing exactly the thing that I often find when discussing this topic and which I mentioned to Rupert,

"My personal experience in discussion about evolution is that people will say, 'What you actually believe in young earth creationism? What about all the evidence'. Once we start discussing the underlying assumptions when the evidence is interpreted the question invariably comes, "Surely you don't expect me to believe that all those scientists are wrong'."

You see, to you it's simply a matter of 'whose experts to believe in. Attack their character.'

I can see things which refute *young Earth* Creationism handily in my own backyard.

(And the darn fruit flies around here, heh. There's your evolution right there. )

QuoteQuote:
You're referring to 'all the evidence out there', but as I said, when one looks at the indivual pieces of evidence itself, there is much assumption and circularity.
So you assert, but you don't show a whole theory either that accounts for what you claim cannot be understood.

You're simply not using science. That's your problem.

QuoteQuote:
This tactic of simply making broad statements and not giving specifics is called elephant hurling, and it makes reasonable discussion quite impossible.
Like the above?


QuoteQuote:
If you can give specifics we can discuss it, but I certainly can't comment statements like "large body of evidence". Where do I begin, and no matter what I choose to refute, I bet that wouldn't be *the* evidence that you had in mind, right?
Every single person in the world isn't obligated to do research papers for every single Christian that comes along and claims theycan't look it up themselves.




QuoteQuote:
It wasn't meant to prove that at all. It's meant to show that there's politics in science and that it's not always purely objective. That, often, science is goal-oriented. Often, the goal is to "...free science from Moses" - Charles Lyell.

People doing bad science or claiming that there's more money in doing it properly in spite of that corruption, when people will pay *incompetent* scientists to sell their degrees and tell people and companies what they want to hear...*


Doesn't change the body of evidence or make Creationism a coherent or supported theory. Sorry.

QuoteQuote:
Believe me, I have a number of examples where evidence was massaged to fit the paradigm and or people were punished for going against the evolutionary status quo. If you like, we can discuss some examples.
Claiming martyrdom doesn't make someone *scientifically correct.*


QuoteQuote:
I believe I have answered the accusation that we argue from ignorance. You haven't responded to that.
You've still posed no theory that can account for the body of evidence without being contradicted by observable evidence.

So, yes, it's still an argument from ignorance, you're simply trying to 'prove'
We can't know.'

That's what that is.


QuoteQuote:
This, ofcourse, is a non sequitur. No matter how flattering you might think creationism is, that doesn't make it false. The veracity of an idea is not dependant one whether or not it flatters.
Also, one has to wonder how flattering it is, admitting that our understanding is limited? I never understand this line of argumentation, should I be flattered
In other words you don't have to admit any other human knows more than you do, you can just claim to speak for 'God' who is the only possible understander.





QuoteQuote:
think this is probably getting to the core of you're problem with Christianity...

Do you see Christianity epitomised at this huge cold authority wanting to oppress human freedom, or else? And that Christians walk around making people feel unrighteous by their standards and trying to pursuade everybody?
Please would you mind expanding on this a little more. I'm interesting in hearing how people view Christianity.
My problems with Christianity do not bear on whether or not you have a theory that works.

Frankly, one of them is you can sit there and call yourselves the source of all compassion while demanding people who told you we're sick and can't concentrate defend all of science while you try going after our religions too.

Actually, you don't make me feel 'unrighteous.' Quite the contrary. Especially when you *patronize* everyone else, as though 'Oh, you secretly think we're righteous,'

Bullfeathers. Blithe, aggressive, harmful, willful ignorance and arrogance, that's what I see, not 'righteousness'

You're so 'wrongteous' about so much, it'd be impolite to say.

And that ain't so pleasant a feeling to have raised, no, especially not when I'm in a crabby way and concentration is limited. You bombard people with questions and then whine if they aren't answered to completion by someone who's sick and doesn't have medicine. You think that makes *me* feel 'unrighteous?' Are you serious?

More like it makes me feel *self*-righteous, and there's more than enough of that going around these days before I even get here. So how about not with that.



Frankly, yes, you do pursue people and expect the entire world... even physics, never mind biology, to rearrange itself so you can call others 'sinners' and whatever other Godsforsaken 'war' you're getting off on this week.



QuoteQuote:
Kind regards and I hope you'll be feeling better soon. Would you mind if we Christians here prayed for you?
There's always hooks, frankly: Hold off on expecting you have consent, I'm not here for your entertainment. you think people are around for you to pray to convert or something. I don't mind sincere well wishes. But, frankly, you don't sound like someone I'd trust. So don't expect 'consent.' Especially if you're doing your usual 'pray for conversion' deals. That's just rude.

Anyway, do forgive me if I'm overly-crabby. Kind of goes with the territory of this at the very moment. But still.

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-31-2010 at 07:42 AM.
05-31-2010, 07:51 AM   #236
Site Supporter
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
Mr Kitty enjoyed your long winded rant Ratlady, and asked it I could take him back to the Vet for more cracked ribs. He is very old (and wise) and anything that gives him a good belly laugh is greatly appreciated!
He particularly liked this part....
QuoteQuote:
Listen, dude. You're lucky you get any response at all right now. You're lucky you get any of my limited concentration span at all just now, never mind a right to be 'disappointed.'
He said if that responder is "Lucky", he hopes he never sees anyone that is Unlucky!
Best Regards!
05-31-2010, 08:01 AM   #237
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,559
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
Mr Kitty enjoyed your long winded rant Ratlady, and asked it I could take him back to the Vet for more cracked ribs. He is very old (and wise) and anything that gives him a good belly laugh is greatly appreciated!
He particularly liked this part....


He said if that responder is "Lucky", he hopes he never sees anyone that is Unlucky!
Best Regards!
Incidentally Jeves: if you're looking for some reasons why it's not some self-congratulatory feeling of reality-overriding 'comparative unrighteousness' that makes some kinds of Christians unpopular? Particularly when you pull this crap around *science,* *history,* *the future of the world and civilization,* and *other people's lives,* dude?

Ad hominem attacks displaced onto books and talking animals to avoid admitting you're a gang of aggressively-ignorant so-and-sos with control issues who think spirituality is nothing but belief in some matter of insistent *semantics?*....?

Could be getting warmer there, if no closer to you understanding the scale of spacetime and matter.

See, Jeves, you're actually 'atheist' in my world: you believe only in books and words, and poor excuses for rationalism they are at that. My Gods aren't afraid of the world being known as we can know and my world is more alive than you're willing to give her credit for. You aren't arguing for there being a spirit to the world, but rather that it's all under humanlike control by dictat. That's not life, nor reason, nor spirit. Just verbal 'idolatry,' so to speak.

You're the disbelievers, here, however superstitious you may be about it.

Also, Rupert, the post to you was quite brief. Jeves was 'disappointed' that I didn't type more to the machine-gun questions previous. So the post to him addressed a lot of what he said to me that time. Took a while going bac trying to correct arthritic typing, too, Rupert. Don't be a dick.

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-31-2010 at 08:12 AM.
05-31-2010, 08:20 AM   #238
Site Supporter
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
Ratlady, out of the kindness of your heart.......assuming you have just a little, and out of respect for little animals...you're not an animal abuser, are you?.......please let Mr Kitty heal before you offer up more rubbish like "spacetime and matter". If there was anything sensible in your continued rant, Mr Kitty couldn't find it...but he did find another rib cracking belly laugh!

Christians continue to be the target of your atacks, as always, but "My Gods aren't afraid of the world being known as we can know and my world is more alive than you're willing to give her credit for" seems perfectly logical to you? What happened to your "Rock God".......lost favor? Just wondering?
Regards!
05-31-2010, 08:51 AM   #239
New Member
JeyesFluid's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 14
Hi RatMagicLady,

QuoteQuote:
In large measure. And years without proper medicine took their toll. It's never simple.
Again, sorry to hear. If you're not up to this discussion, please let me know and I'll gladly wait till you're feeling better.

QuoteQuote:
No, I'm not an atheist. But 'Science' is not an 'atheist prophecy.' You attack both science and atheism as if they're all the same thing.
Please show me where I've done this? I'm simply trying to find out what exactly you believe.

QuoteQuote:
Listen, dude. You're lucky you get any response at all right now. You're lucky you get any of my limited concentration span at all just now, never mind a right to be 'disappointed.'
Well perhaps then you should let me know when you'll feel up to properly responding. I'd rather wait for a decent response.

QuoteQuote:
You actually haven't shown why you assert evolution is 'unfalsifiable,' when you keep trying to claim certain little cases *do* falsify it, though they've all been debunked.
When a discovery is made that goes against the core theory of evolution, auxiliary theories are postulated to explain (away) the exceptions. Each time an auxilliary theory is added to the core theory, the whole becomes more and more inclusive up to a point where core + aux. theories become unfalsifiable. This happens because many aren't willing to ever question the core theory.

QuoteQuote:
QuoteQuote:
Between the main theory and its auxilliary theories, nothing cannot be explain or explained away.
That makes it a robust theory, not 'unfalsifiable'
Are you clear on the terms here?
A robust theory typically doesn't have contradictory premises, which is the point you've missed while being patronising.

Let me explain:
If I come up with a theory that states, "Everything is either an orange or not an orange". Such a theory is robust in that it fits reality perfectly, it cannot be proven wrong, but since it predicts nothing, as a theory it is useless. It becomes a dogmatism or religion if you will.

Now take evolution. Darwin predicted that a lack of transitional forms would falsify evolution. That's exactly what happened, but instead of the theory being abandonded because of the paucity of evidence, auxilliary theories such as saltationism and soft-bodied pre-cambrians etc. have been postulated to explain (away) the fossil record. So whether you find a progression of species in a certain direction or not, it's all good.

Another one:
If evolution were true, related species would be similar and unrelated species will be dissimilar, atleast that's what Darwin believed before the discovery- and mapping of DNA made things a bit more complicated.
In nature we see supposedly related species that are similar and also different, as well as supposedly unrelated species that are similar and different. Homoplasies (convergent evolution) and saltationism is meant to explain these phenomena (away), but that has made the whole theory quite plastic.


So:
  • Evolution (with its auxilliary theories) predict that related species will be similar.
  • Evolution (with its auxilliary theories) predict that related species will be different.
  • Evolution (with its auxilliary theories) predict that related species will be similar.
  • Evolution (with its auxilliary theories) predict that related species will be different.
What exactly does it actually predict then?

Let me give you a real world example of this happening:
Whales were said to be descended from mesonychids (similar to wolves) because of certain structural similarities. We were all told of the vast 'body of evidence' supporting this and that it's all 'rock solid' and 'undenyable'.
Recently, though, molecular geneticists showed that whales are actually more related to hippos and pigs.

So now the entire 'vast body of evidence' for whales being related to mesonuchids has been shown to be false, but is the core theory ever questioned? Nope.
It was all simply written off as homoplasies. Unrelated species that happen to look similar. Evolution can do anything, it seems!

QuoteQuote:
I don't *expect* any will be found at this point, any more than the theory of gravitation will be 'falsified,' at least not to be replaced by something that does not fit all the observations, all of a sudden.
I have to agree with David Berlinski: It's amazing how often evolution is said to be just as real as gravity, but you won't often hear physicists saying gravity is as real as evolution

The difference is ofcourse that I can go into a lab and test gravity or in my backyard, we have yet to see mutation and random selection actually increasing the amount of information in a species' genome, which is what evolution requires.

QuoteQuote:
The difference here is that no matter how much ID you read about, that's all it is, an argument from ignorance, usually with misconstrued and cooked-up 'evidence' that simply does not make a scientific case.
I guess I'll have to take your word for it, since you haven't actually substantiated any of this.

QuoteQuote:
In scientific terms, Pretty much. The only way you could possibly believe *that* is to think a), everyone else in the world is lying, including about technology working, or b) Everything was poofed into existence to *appear* exactly as it appears, 'old universe' and all.
I see you've taken the time to familiarise yourself with what we believe.
Yeah, we don't believe in technology at all, I'm typing this on an abacus, and I believe "*poof*" is the exact scientific term we use in our literature.

QuoteQuote:
Actually I didn't tell you *my* way of seeing things, you were attacing *science,* and I was speaking on behalf of science.
I'm not at all attacking science (I love science) but I am opposed to philosophical materialism masquerading as science.

QuoteQuote:
You see, to you it's simply a matter of 'whose experts to believe in. Attack their character.'
I can see things which refute *young Earth* Creationism handily in my own backyard.
(And the darn fruit flies around here, heh. There's your evolution right there.
Explain...

QuoteQuote:
Every single person in the world isn't obligated to do research papers for every single Christian that comes along and claims they can't look it up themselves.
So I should just go and read stuff out there until I become an evolutionist?

I'm starting to think you've got nothing...

QuoteQuote:
You've still posed no theory that can account for the body of evidence without being contradicted by observable evidence.
That sentence is rather silly.

If a theory can account for the body of evidence then same theory would by implication not be contradicted by the body of evidence, don't you think?

You're just saying stuff now. It's quite obvious, actually.

QuoteQuote:
Frankly, one of them is you can sit there and call yourselves the source of all copmpassion while demanding people who told you we're sick and can't concentrate defend all of science while you try going after our religions too.
Shees, I was just asking out of curiosity what religion you were?!
You're hell bent on making me out to be the bad guy, aren't you? Why is that?

Let me know when you're feeling better, perhaps then you have more than glib remarks and accusations.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 09:07 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
Incidentally Jeves: if you're looking for some reasons why it's not some self-congratulatory feeling of reality-overriding 'comparative unrighteousness' that makes some kinds of Christians unpopular? Particularly when you pull this crap around *science,* *history,* *the future of the world and civilization,* and *other people's lives,* dude?

Ad hominem attacks displaced onto books and talking animals to avoid admitting you're a gang of aggressively-ignorant so-and-sos with control issues who think spirituality is nothing but belief in some matter of insistent *semantics?*....?

Could be getting warmer there, if no closer to you understanding the scale of spacetime and matter.

See, Jeves, you're actually 'atheist' in my world: you believe only in books and words, and poor excuses for rationalism they are at that. My Gods aren't afraid of the world being known as we can know and my world is more alive than you're willing to give her credit for. You aren't arguing for there being a spirit to the world, but rather that it's all under humanlike control by dictat. That's not life, nor reason, nor spirit. Just verbal 'idolatry,' so to speak.

You're the disbelievers, here, however superstitious you may be about it.

Also, Rupert, the post to you was quite brief. Jeves was 'disappointed' that I didn't type more to the machine-gun questions previous. So the post to him addressed a lot of what he said to me that time. Took a while going bac trying to correct arthritic typing, too, Rupert. Don't be a dick.
Dear RatMagicLady,

Do you seriously think that using belittling terms like 'dude', misspelling my alias and calling Christians like me all sorts of things and reducing my belief to "only books and words" etc. will actually weaken my beliefs and hurt me? I'm not writing for my own ego's sake, so attacking it is useless. Everybody knows what it means when somebody suddenly gets nasty in a discussion like this. To me, it is nothing but encouraging.

Perhaps you'll be less cranky tomorrow, yes?

Last edited by JeyesFluid; 05-31-2010 at 09:13 AM.
05-31-2010, 09:31 AM   #240
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,559
QuoteOriginally posted by JeyesFluid Quote
Hi RatMagicLady,


Again, sorry to hear. If you're not up to this discussion, please let me know and I'll gladly wait till you're feeling better.

Please show me where I've done this? I'm simply trying to find out what exactly you believe.
Why does that bear on what you claim about Hitchens as some 'atheist' who should be taken to discredit evolutionary science' even if he was the biggest rotter on the planet, which he's not. A bore sometimes, but you guys and atheists been arguing for so long I'm sure it must be great sport. Proving little.


QuoteQuote:
Well perhaps then you should let me know when you'll feel up to properly responding. I'd rather wait for a decent response.
Frankly, you can't see what you're given, you just demand more.

What you got was perfectly good, if a bit clumsy, and you ignored it.


QuoteQuote:
When a discovery is made that goes against the core theory of evolution, auxiliary theories are postulated to explain (away) the exceptions.
Actually, there have been no such discoveries.

The unexplained does not mean science is a failed *prophecy,* is the problem, don't you see?

The fact that all your 'counterexamples' actually don't say what they are claimed to say and have in fact been throughly explained over and over again, don't change the fact that continuing to argue from ignorance does not constitute a valid theory.


QuoteQuote:
Each time an auxilliary theory is added to the core theory, the whole becomes more and more inclusive up to a point where core + aux. theories become unfalsifiable. This happens because many aren't willing to ever question the core theory.
Actually, it happens because that's how science learns. You want to not-learn. You want to defend an authority. with literalist semantics about your own authorities.

There can be a certain ossification, yes. But that doesn't mean that whatever you come up with has merit.

QuoteQuote:
A robust theory typically doesn't have contradictory premises, which is the point you've missed while being patronising.
Actually, there's no contradiction but what you bring with you.



QuoteQuote:
Let me explain:
If I come up with a theory that states, "Everything is either an orange or not an orange". Such a theory is robust in that it fits reality perfectly, it cannot be proven wrong, but since it predicts nothing, as a theory it is useless. It becomes a dogmatism or religion if you will.
Err, no, you think it's all a semantic game is your problem.

ID, like your orange example, is like a metaphor about a Platonic ideal calling itself 'Higher Truth' before even looking at reality.



QuoteQuote:
Now take evolution. Darwin predicted that a lack of transitional forms would falsify evolution. That's exactly what happened,
No, it's not what happened. 'Transitional forms' are everywhere, but *Darwin's* unrefined theory didn't really much incorporate evolutionary bottlenecks or what at the time seemed like 'catastrophism,' which wasn't the whole story either, cause they din't have the whole scale of time and instance worked out yet.


Plenty exist. But Darwin's not a 'prophet.' Evolutionary science has itself evolved a long way since then. Some of his *assertions* have been disproven/refined, certainly, but he's *not a prophet.* It's *supposed* to work that way.




QuoteQuote:
but instead of the theory being abandonded because of the paucity of evidence,
See, this is why you get it wrong. You're thinking theology, here, and orthodoxy at that, *not science,* dude.


QuoteQuote:
auxilliary theories such as saltationism and soft-bodied pre-cambrians etc. have been postulated to explain (away) the fossil record. So whether you find a progression of species in a certain direction or not, it's all good.
Again you assume direction and then wonder why evolution does not supply 'direction.' Retroactively.

This is not scientific thinking, Jeyes.

It's trying to translate book-literalism to 'scienceyness' and crying 'foul!' when it doesn't work.

QuoteQuote:
Another one:
If evolution were true, related species would be similar and unrelated species will be dissimilar, atleast that's what Darwin believed before the discovery- and mapping of DNA made things a bit more complicated.
Darwin wasn't a prophet. Reality: We share about 99 percent of genes with chimps and bonoboes. That doesn't argue *against* 'evolution,' ... the opposite, actually.



QuoteQuote:
In nature we see supposedly related species that are similar and also different, as well as supposedly unrelated species that are similar and different. Homoplasies (convergent evolution) and saltationism is meant to explain these phenomena (away), but that has made the whole theory quite plastic.
This is not evolution's problem. Aquatic mammals and fishes, say, still have to deal with the same *water,* for instance, ... they don't exist to *refute* your Bible any more than they exist to mystify you into believing it.
QuoteQuote:
:LIST]
[[*]Evolution (with its auxilliary theories) predict that related species will be similar.
And most are. Particularly when you get to genotypical and thingslike sleletatl analysis.



QuoteQuote:
[*]Evolution (with its auxilliary theories) predict that related species will be different.
And many are, when you look to phenotypes.


QuoteQuote:
What exactly does it actually predict then?

More than simplistic semantics? Dude?

QuoteQuote:
Let me give you a real world example of this happening:
Whales were said to be descended from mesonychids (similar to wolves) because of certain structural similarities. We were all told of the vast 'body of evidence' supporting this and that it's all 'rock solid' and 'undenyable'.
Recently, though, molecular geneticists showed that whales are actually more related to hippos and pigs.

That doesn't make the body of evidence go away or become trash.

Unless you'd like us to say the same of your Bible because the 'definition of marriage' is no longer "Rape+ten shekels?"



QuoteQuote:
So now the entire 'vast body of evidence' for whales being related to mesonuchids has been shown to be false, but is the core theory ever questioned? Nope.

You may question it, but you haven't proposed a workable alternative that *better* fits the body of evidence.


QuoteQuote:
It was all simply written off as homoplasies. Unrelated species that happen to look similar. Evolution can do anything, it seems!
All exposures are the same, look, I heard someone used Program and it didn't work! Nikon is True Polaroid!




QuoteQuote:
I have to agree with David Berlinski: It's amazing how often evolution is said to be just as real as gravity, but you won't often hear physicists saying gravity is as real as evolution

It's not considered polite. Nyuck, nyuck.


QuoteQuote:
I guess I'll have to take your word for it, since you haven't actually substantiated any of this.
I shouldn't bloody *have* to, man? If you can't read science and see it, all I can try and do is try and help translate.


QuoteQuote:
I see you've taken the time to familiarise yourself with what we believe.
Under duress. Yeah. In and out.

QuoteQuote:
Yeah, we don't believe in technology at all, I'm typing this on an abacus, and I believe "*poof*" is the exact scientific term we use in our literature.

If the universe were Biblical, not only would these things be forbidden, dude, they would *not function.*




QuoteQuote:
I'm not at all attacking science (I love science) but I am opposed to philosophical materialism masquerading as science.
More fallacy. I'm not a materialist.

Science is *materialist when it makes assertions about material. That's what it's *for,* genius. If it's not materialist, UR doing it wrong. You're the only one with a faith threatened by it. *


More in a bit.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 12:35 PM ----------

QuoteQuote:
Explain...
So I should just go and read stuff out there until I become an evolutionist?

If that's what you know reading the evidence would make you, then, yes.




QuoteQuote:
If a theory can account for the body of evidence then same theory would by implication not be contradicted by the body of evidence, don't you think?
Well, yes. That's the *point.* Genius.

Attacking someone else does not mean your weak-ass dogma actually bears on reality.

QuoteQuote:
Shees, I was just asking out of curiosity what religion you were?!
You're hell bent on making me out to be the bad guy, aren't you? Why is that?
Actually, I'm just seeing if you can at all defend your position against a cripple when you can't even be bothered to find out who you're attacking all ad hominem, despite all the hints. . *You shouldn't have to know my religion to have this discussion, dude.* Another thing science is *for.*

I repeat: Pardon the caps:

*YOU SHOULDN"T HAVE TO KNOW MY RELIGION TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION DUDE,*


And the fact that you can't seem to go without, (or without accusing me of atheism) is *exactly* why it ain't science you're talking, boys.

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-31-2010 at 09:44 AM.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
algorithm, evolution, ideas, mechanism, model, population, science, solution, solutions, theory
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Macro My macro evolution: a series EdMaximus Post Your Photos! 7 11-12-2009 02:39 PM
Evolution (in lenses) bdery Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 04-24-2009 12:13 AM
Evolution spyglass Post Your Photos! 6 03-27-2008 10:26 AM
K20D - Evolution or Revolution Katsura Pentax News and Rumors 7 01-26-2008 03:35 PM
Pentax Evolution benjikan Pentax DSLR Discussion 54 02-08-2007 11:19 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:35 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top