[Rupert]

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.

This is a exactly the sort of thing that drives Mr Kitty insane......for eggheads to conclude that whales descended from wolves is just so absurd that it can't even bring up a belly laugh. Do you reckon these "Scientists" ever thought to take a look at a hippo or pig alongside a wolf before they made their brilliant deduction? These guys smoke something, and it is not medicinal, is it?
Regards!

[Ratmagiclady]

This is a exactly the sort of thing that drives Mr Kitty insane......for eggheads to conclude that whales descended from wolves is just so absurd that it can't even bring up a belly laugh. Do you reckon these "Scientists" ever thought to take a look at a hippo or pig alongside a wolf before they made their brilliant deduction? These guys smoke something, and it is not medicinal, is it?
Regards!

Just scrolling it off, eh, Rupert?

Allow me to repeat, then, for Jeyes.

You should not need to know my religion to discuss science with me.

And that's why what you ID/Creationism people are talking ain't science.

Science is a useful tool to keep everyone's sh** together when atheism (and monotheism, for that matter) get the, umm, err, circumstantial runs.

[Rupert]

Just scrolling it off, eh, Rupert?

Allow me to repeat, then, for Jeyes.

You should not need to know my religion to discuss science with me.

And that's why what you ID/Creationism people are talking ain't science.

Science is a useful tool to keep everyone's sh** together when atheism (and monotheism, for that matter) get the, umm, err, circumstantial runs.

Well Ratlady, if you are ever out on the trail through the Woods going to Grandma's House and you mistake a wolf for a big old whale, I suspect you will get a case of the "runs" yourself, and they won't be circumstantial!
Regards!

[Ratmagiclady]

[/COLOR]

Well Ratlady, if you are ever out on the trail through the Woods going to Grandma's House and you mistake a wolf for a big old whale, I suspect you will get a case of the "runs" yourself, and they won't be circumstantial!
Regards!

Heh, heh, heh. Ah, Rupert, you've strayed out of your own myths and into mine. Had a little red riding hood of my own, once, you know.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 01:42 PM ----------

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?

Maybe.

But not if you think that you 'being encouraged' to be anti-scientific' is different any other day or whatever state you find me, or anyone else in, Jeyer.

Yes, you have offered no alternate theory that accounts for the evidence.

I'm not such a fool as to think you represent anyone who holds themselves to such standards.

All *you* need to do to get your cookie is feel like you have 'defended your faith,' by 'attacking' our ability to study, know, and reason.

But neither you nor any ID pundit nor 'Creation scientist' has added *datum one* to the store of human knowledge, sad to say.

It's all a staged drama between those who believe human intelligence is the only God and those who believe the only God is human intelligence.

Neither tells us much about the world, of itself.

One yields useful data and robust working theories. Without claiming I'm supernaturally deserving of lynching on several neurotic counts before I even open my mouth about observable reality.

There are many wonderful truths in this Lady's world.

But one of RML's little adopted rules to live by is, 'Truth is cheap. Information costs.'
And one of my little photographic rules to live by is "Nothing is Ediot-proof."

Politely-said, nothing is caption-proof.

Neither ID nor 'Creation Science' has yet come up with datum one of solid information.

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-31-2010 at 10:48 AM.

[JeyesFluid]

Hi RatMagicLady,

You should not need to know my religion to discuss science with me.

Why is it when people start losing an argument, they get stuck on some totally irrelevant side issue?

You're pushing this cart uphill, RatMagicLady. None of my arguments so far involved atheism or even mentioned it. Neither did they involve your religion or require you to be of a certain religion as you seem to be suggesting. My question about your religion was purely to try to get to know who I'm talking to. Carrying on with this and making it into something it isn't, reeks of desperation.

As for your previous post, there are some points amongst all the vitriol and handwaving that I'd like to respond to tomorrow.

Enjoy the rest of your day and take it easy.

[Rupert]

Hi RatMagicLady,


Why is it when people start losing an argument, they get stuck on some totally irrelevant side issue?

You're pushing this cart uphill, RatMagicLady. None of my arguments so far involved atheism or even mentioned it. Neither did they involve your religion or require you to be of a certain religion as you seem to be suggesting. My question about your religion was purely to try to get to know who I'm talking to. Carrying on with this and making it into something it isn't, reeks of desperation.

As for your previous post, there are some points amongst all the vitriol and handwaving that I'd like to respond to tomorrow.

Enjoy the rest of your day and take it easy.

LOL! You are new here! You see, every subject under the sun involves Fundies, Christians, or LGBT's when the Ratlady responds. It can be about almost anything and she will head in that direction...just as George will always head to Obama Bashing in most any topic posted. We just live with it and go on....it never changes and is just taken as standard operating procedure here. Don't take it personal, it isn't, it is just the knee jerk reaction of those with a one track mind.
Best Regards!

[Ratmagiclady]

Hi RatMagicLady,


Why is it when people start losing an argument, they get stuck on some totally irrelevant side issue?

REally, you've made an argument , yet?

You're pushing this cart uphill, RatMagicLady. None of my arguments so far involved atheism or even mentioned it.

Actually you treated it as part of the same argument.

And 'disappointment.'

Neither did they involve your religion or require you to be of a certain religion as you seem to be suggesting.

Since trying to discredit me as 'atheistic' for not believing attacking Dawkins made you more 'righteous' ... has no bearing on the argument you've yet to grace us with at all...

Why'd you ask?

As if it wouldn't be clear..

My question about your religion was purely to try to get to know who I'm talking to. Carrying on with this and making it into something it isn't, reeks of desperation.

Desperate what?

You're the one who tried to drag my religion into things, after using as part of your argument that I must be a 'new Atheists...'

But you still have as yet not made a scientific case for anything, yourself.

As for your previous post, there are some points amongst all the vitriol and handwaving that I'd like to respond to tomorrow.

Enjoy the rest of your day and take it easy.

Doing my best.

Speaking of handwaving, you have yet to propose a theory with any positive assertions whatsoever. Only insisted that somewhere in there there is one which some are martyred over somehow and therefore must be correct about.

I don't suppose you understand what *science,* never mind the *scientific method* ...Is? Before you heat up the stakes of heresy?

And, yes, I will patronize you, because you are both not in pain, not in poverty, claim to re[present all power in this society and can't seem to think science even here on the Pentax forums is fair, and still whine like you are being oppressed for not having carte blanche to claim right of high justice, middle, and low over any given person like me, or you'll whine your 'authoritayu' is so fragile.

Boo. F'n hoo.


Do you have a theory?

Meanwhile if you want to discuss whether or not the consciousness in the multiverse and ourselves is an emergent or inherent phenomenon, Well, *wink* No hurry. Actually. Just try not to oppress anyone meanwhile. Holy dude.

Cause, speaking of homologous structures, you embarrass me on similar brain architecture.

How bout this, from the other end of things:

"What the world looks like is what it looks like. Your soul is your own, belief ain't so damn important, you're not alone, but we need as much smarts as we can get right now, sport, so, focus on any love you can muster. We're in a spot of shit atm. More of the same won't help."

You are incorrect. You are likely to *be* incorrect. Don't spend what you have of brains trying to direct your energies at *me,* show some *heart.* Show some *brains.* Show some *guts* and stop acting like 'God' is some kind of F'n pop quiz and somehow RML is your enemy for some Godforsaken stupid rationale.

You can have your Apocalypse any old day.. It's never as tidy as your type think, I assure you.

If you think maybe there's some hope here, though, Jeyer. Bear with us. Direct your indignance to those who lead you *easily,* not those Rush tells you you'll get yappy points for yapping at.

You'll only get angrier and angrier and it's always some queer kid or brown kid or whatever kid that pays the price for that, and you don't wanna hear me singing 'Little Bunny Frou-frou, ' at you in some dark alley, cause then *you'll* be losing intestinal containment and we don't need to go there. :P

You know who's had more than their share of forbearance?

While you still advocate for hurting more people? For *no good reason save cause you say so?*

You know who?

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-31-2010 at 11:40 AM.

[jeffkrol]

a) We have historical eyewitness evidence, from the Creator himself. You may not accept it as proof, but it's certainly evidence.

Actually without "faith" that is strictly hearsay (not heresy)

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.

Something made everything does not preclude evolution. Actually I find a "God" that started a plan and have it "evolve" on its own merits is more "wondrous" then a slam bam thank you man creation of a species...
That we can only envision an either or at this time is more a reflection on our own limited understanding...
On a lighter note I see a wonderful evolutionary picture of dinosaurs begetting chickens.......
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/554notes1.html

The protein fragments in the T. rex fossil appear to most closely match amino acid sequences found in collagen of present-day chickens, lending support to the idea that birds and dinosaurs are evolutionarily related. "Most people believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but that's based on the 'architecture' of the bones," Asara said. "This finding allows us the ability to say that they really are related because their sequences are related."

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.

Every religion has a creation mythos.. teaching everyone would be impossible and really left to the parents or private concerns. Teaching creationism alongside the secular theories at it's root level (ie "something" created matter/energy) is fine but once you inject things like "the true God" you run into major problems of a cultural bias and it becomes more divisive then unifying in the global context....

[Ratmagiclady]

Every religion has a creation mythos.. teaching everyone would be impossible and really left to the parents or private concerns. Teaching creationism alongside the secular theories at it's root level (ie "something" created matter/energy) is fine but once you inject things like "the true God" you run into major problems of a cultural bias and it becomes more divisive then unifying in the global context....

Atheists and Christians, both, should get over saying that with such blithe authority. Like it's important if someone isn't claiming a certain assumed authority based on a certain type of creation=ownership thought-structure in the first place.

It's all about the Judeo-Christian atheists-v-Judeo-Christian-islamics- arguments of course, but it really isn't actually the confines of the world you realize?

I mean, sure, my religion has Creation-myths.. I could sing you five or six different ones.

Who taught you there should be a crisis about this?
What of it?

[Rupert]

You guys make a strong case....with your Lizards, Ardis, and whales from wolves, I can't see where anyone would doubt your credibility. Crisis? When you present such evidence as this,why should we be in crisis mode? Of course, I am not a skilled and highly intelligent Atheist, but I won't be caught on that trail to Granny's by a wolf I thought was a whale.....
Regards!

[Ratmagiclady]

You guys make a strong case....with your Lizards, Ardis, and whales from wolves, I can't see where anyone would doubt your credibility. Crisis? When you present such evidence as this,why should we be in crisis mode? Of course, I am not a skilled and highly intelligent Atheist, but I won't be caught on that trail to Granny's by a wolf I thought was a whale.....
Regards!

Follow the yellow brick road, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

By the Gods, I promise you needn't fear sharp teef so much as your own sociopathic narcissism, vicarious sadism and denial.


Oh, ye of little faith.

Someone wants you to throw 'faggots' on the flames as the vicarious sacrifices to your jealous god queer people always were.... Can't you see it's.. Not real? Not even spiritual?

Someone handed you a book and told you rationalizations were a substitute for your soul.

They aren't, Rupert.

Soul has to live and look and think and this argument won't count for shite if your delays get us all croaked.

How bout.

I know you have it partially worked out, Rupert, I don't know why it is you're all lodged up on hating the likes of me and non-Christians, but you know *darn* well none of the rest of that package works, right? Why cling to that last bit of BS? It's just in your way. Probably in the way of the actual stuff of importance to Christians, really. Cause you're a real arsehole about this, while claiming you'd give a poor person the shirt off your back.
As long as they weren't queer or non-christian at which point they're 'enemy' right? You can't even greet *me* consistently, can you?

If you want *cheerful tolerance,* then wait till we're out of a state where the state government didn't claim our rights as simple American citizens were *optional* particularly when it came to not being straight and civil rights law, Rupert.

You're scared of losing some abstract authority... You know what I'm scared of?

Things that happen to you when you're not an adult American citizen.

Happening to someone I love here (or me, again) cause they declared we're not adult American citizens down here. All over some biullshit religious authority they gotta talk nonsense around. No matter how many times the *phobes* get caught in lies.

You know how scared *I* gotta live with being, , even while sick and barely able to type, while you justify the next holy rapist SOB I gotta introduce to his own windpipe, while people like you whine how Christians are 'oppressed' if they can't say my dear one and I are threats to children and unholy and needing death? In *America?* And you whine about 'ID' not being given equal time in f'n schools? When it's not even thought through any better than the average lynching or queer bashing?


No, Rupert.

No. Maybe when we can get back to sovereign U.S. territory, you can go ahead and ream everything America stands for, but, *no.* This is BS you talk.

You know how much *actual real fear* queer folks live through in this country for your Godsforsaken vanity and worshipping at the altar of your own threatened masculinity?

[Rupert]

Ratlady, you have fallen off the edge here, get a grip! This was a thread about evolution/creationists, lizards, Ardis, wolves and whales. How this relates to "Queers" I don't comprehend, but apparently you do. As I have reminded you many times, not every word written on this Forum is a slap at LGBT's, and most have nothing to do with such. Most here tolerate your obsession with this topic, but it does get old and it is disruptive of the flow.
Regards!

[Rupert]

when I was spitting out the dust of the Twin towers

Just wondering Ratlady, can you clarify that statement? Were you there "spitting out the dust" or is this another story like the one where the Fundies "stole your daughter"....then didn't....then you didn't actually have a daughter....then you actually abandoned the daughter you didn't actually have......You are a very confusing person Ratlady....and apparently a very confused person too. Let me know when you get it all straight......
Regards!

I see that your post regarding spitting out the dust of the Twin Towers has disappeared Ratlady.....don't you know that you can't just delete a post and make it vanish ...it is still right here on this Forum just lurking on a server waiting for your denial. Not to mention that I have a really large hard drive, ......I think you found that out once before?

[JeyesFluid]

Hi RatMagicLady,

Having a better day today than yesterday, I hope?

As I said yesterday, I'd like to respond to some of the points you've made yesterday.

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

But Darwin's not a 'prophet.'

Some of his *assertions* have been disproven/refined, certainly, but he's *not a prophet.*

Darwin wasn't a prophet.

I find it odd that you are this clueless with regard to the philosophy of science, while claiming to be a spokesperson for all that is science.

Nobody mentioned 'prophesy' here except you. I suppose knocking down strawmen are much easier than properly addressing the points.

Prediction, is what one would expect to observe given a certain theory, it is that very aspect that make a theory falsifiable or not.

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.

One wonders how abandoning a 'scientific' theory because of a lack of evidence has anything to do with theology?

Again you assume direction and then wonder why evolution does not supply 'direction.' Retroactively.

So evolution is directionless, then. I fully agree, which is actually yet another argument against the falsifiability of evolution. So if your dates don't match up well with regard to the geologic column, you can postulate reverse-evolution for a while and then some more positive-evolution. Anything's possible afterall.

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

When scientists argue from ignorance: i.e. just-so claiming that the missing multitute of pre-cambrian ancestors 'must have' had soft bodies, and somebody points it out, then the problem is book literalism on the side of those objecting?!

That is the most spectacularly stupid thing I've heard.

I'd like to point out this next bit of dishonesty on your part.

I made my case that evolution predicts, similarities and differences in related and unrelated species, therefore predicting nothing.

How did you respond to that...?
...By taking two of the four subpoints of the argument and treating them each as their own individual statement and writing a little comment by each, thereby not addressing the argument at all.

As can be seen below:

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.

Evolution (with its auxilliary theories) predict that related species will be different.

And many are, when you look to phenotypes.

The point was that evolution has become so plastic so that it can explain anything. Now, affirming that it does by saying "And many are", doesn't refute my point, it affirms it.

Oh dear!

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.

Is this how you respond to bad evidence? By simply ignoring it and saying, "That doesn't make the body of evidence go away?"

So in effect you're saying, "Ok fine, but that not all the evidence, there's more"

I'm afraid the devil's in the details. Elephant hurling is easy, because no matter how many gross errors, assumtions and downright hoaxes are exposed as has been shown, you can always place your hope on 'the body of evidence' out there.
That is evolutionary dogmatism at its finest.

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. *

First of all I didn't say you were materialist, so no fallacy (but kudos for the attempt).

I said what you claim to be science masquerades as materialism.

Then, oddly enough, despite claiming that my statement is fallacious, you say 'Science is *materialist*...that's what it's for', which confirms that you do actually hold an idea of science which is based on assumptions of materialism.

Not sure whether to disagree or not, eh?

Now ofcourse the claim that Science is for materialism is a purely philosophical one and not scientific one. Science is the study of reality, and reality is not merely material.

Precluding a Creator from science and then stating that creation is unscientific, is a circular idea based on the philosphy of materialism, not on science.

This position is self defeating, because if only material reality can be *scientific* then what of logic and mathematics, which while being quite real, is immaterial. In fact science is founded upon maths and logic.

Speaking of handwaving, you have yet to propose a theory with any positive assertions whatsoever.

You would actually make an excellent case study in logical fallacies. No fallacy is beneath you it seems.

If you care to glance to the top of the page you'll notice the topic is 'science and evolution' and not 'young earth creationism'.

You originally made the positive claim that science is falsifiable and I've been showing you that although science must be falsifiable, the theory of evolution isn't, which actually makes it unscientific.

*That* is what we've been discussing! Changing the subject to theories of creationism isn't going to get you off the hook, because we're not talking about that.

Hopefully your subsequent responses will be a bit more thought out than these.

Best wishes.

---------- Post added 06-01-2010 at 05:28 AM ----------

Rupert,

LOL! You are new here! You see, every subject under the sun involves Fundies, Christians, or LGBT's when the Ratlady responds.

LGBT's...the ranting makes sense now...

This is a exactly the sort of thing that drives Mr Kitty insane......for eggheads to conclude that whales descended from wolves is just so absurd that it can't even bring up a belly laugh.

Oh then you're gonna love this.

Ever heard of 'Pakicetus'?

That is:

'Paki' for Pakistani and,

'Cetus' for Cetacean, or whale.

Behold, the 'whale from Pakistan'....

*drum roll*

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/113/302480866_14768c2748_o.jpg

And then some people want to call this science.

Oh, but it gets ever sorrier than that.

Have a look at this picture -> http://thebibleistheotherside.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/pakicetus1.gif

The image of the skull in the bottom left is what Dr. Philip Gingerich discovered when he decided, "This must be a walking whale".
Notice that it's the darkened pieces of the skull that was actually (as in real science) discovered.

From that, the true heros of evolution, namely graphic designers, created the artists impression top left.

Then sadly for Dr. Gingerich, a more complete skeleton was found, topright.

And now the fantasy is over and that fast running rat-looking thing, is "The whale from Pakistan".

How utterly pathetic, what passes for science these days.

[Rupert]

That wolf story is hilarious, it even beats the Lizard! These guys are true "Scientists", amazed and highly impressed by their own ignorance!

Don't expect a reply any time soon from the Ratlady...it appears that she has taken a "bad spell" due to a lot of dust of the Twin Towers collapse, and is having a relapse. This is not unusual, the Ratlady often has "bad spells"........like when "the Fundies "stole her daughter"....then didn't....then she didn't actually have a daughter....then she actually abandoned the daughter she didn't actually have....."
You will find that if things are not going the Ratlady's way, she will just throw in a "Heartbtreaking Story" to soften you up and gain the sympathy of those that she has yet to fool, hoping to gain a sympathetic ally. Truth often gets in her way, but only if someone catches her.......
Regards!