Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > The Bathroom Wall

Pages: (666) < ... 378 379 380 381 382 [383] 384 385 386 387 388 ... >

rossum Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,06:51    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2009,19:47) I could be wrong.  It's possible that there is no God and that all life accidentally appeared through sheer luck and coincidence. I'm open to that possibility, but it's going to take a heckuva convincing case to make me switch to that position. Why take such an either-or position?  An omnipotent God can make things happen any way He wants to.  If God wants something to happen by a miracle, then it happens by a miracle.  If God wants something to happen by natural laws, then it happens by natural laws.  If God wants something to happen by luck and coincidence, then it happens by luck and coincidence. rossum -------------- The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

Ideaforager Posts: 16 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,07:15    Quote rossum: Why take such an either-or position?  An omnipotent God can make things happen any way He wants to.  If God wants something to happen by a miracle, then it happens by a miracle.  If God wants something to happen by natural laws, then it happens by natural laws.  If God wants something to happen by luck and coincidence, then it happens by luck and coincidence. Obviously, those are not the tenets of his particular religion.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,07:16    Daniels god is not powerful enough to make things through sheer luck and coincidence you see. Daniel saw this in a dream. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,07:46    Daniel As others have pointed out, your choices of "goddidit" or "sheer luck and coincidences" bespeaks a cartoon-character knowledge about evolutionary theory. Do you read any of those papers that you cite, or just cruise them for quotes to mine? As others have not pointed out, but I will, you seem to be ignoring the questions in this comment. I know you are ignoring oldman's messages because you can't address his questions; I feel honored to be included in his company. But those questions aren't going away, and neither am I. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,08:18    Egad! Thanks to an brilliant satiric essay by Sam Harris, I now understand why Daniel is so sanguine about his logical problems here. This also explains FtK and her inability to grasp the concept that if you lose the logical argument, you lose the argument. Harris quotes Lisa Randall thusly Quote Empirically-based logic-derived science and faith are entirely different methods for trying to approach truth. You can derive a contradiction only if your rules are logic. If you believe in revelatory truth you've abandoned the rules. There is no contradiction to be had. Read the whole essay, it's definitely worth it! -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

EyeNoU Posts: 115 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,08:27    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 07 2009,04:58) Quote (khan @ Feb. 07 2009,01:48)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2009,20:43) Louis, I know that you called for a moratorium on such advice, but I'd like to share two simple rules: 1.  Hold your kid.  Don't be afraid to show affection.  Do your best to make your child always feel safe and loved. 2.  Minimize distractions.  Do your best to give your child your undivided attention. All the rest are details. Looking back over my handling of two, now 'twenty-somethings' (one who's given us two granddaughters already!), my biggest regret is that I didn't do these two simple things a lot more than I did. Why would anyone take advice from a lying piece of shit? Well it IS good advice, no matter the source, and that's the important thing. Anyway, I'm horribly affectionate, my little lad is likely to suffer from an overabundance of attention and love rather than the opposite. ;-) Since the little lad is also likely to go to boarding school he'll be appropriately toughened up. I'm relatively optimistic. I imagine that will change..... Anyway, a good reason NOT to take Daniel's, or indeed any parent's, advice is because (as is painfully clear in Daniel's comment) some people try to live their life through their kids and in their dotage project their regrets onto others. It's a mistake I know about from personal experience and, whatever other mistakes I am guaranteed to make, it is one I am on guard against! Louis Congratulations, Louis. I assume you will post pictures in the future.........

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,09:01    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2009,09:18) Egad! Thanks to an brilliant satiric essay by Sam Harris, I now understand why Daniel is so sanguine about his logical problems here. This also explains FtK and her inability to grasp the concept that if you lose the logical argument, you lose the argument. Harris quotes Lisa Randall thusly Quote Empirically-based logic-derived science and faith are entirely different methods for trying to approach truth. You can derive a contradiction only if your rules are logic. If you believe in revelatory truth you've abandoned the rules. There is no contradiction to be had. Read the whole essay, it's definitely worth it! That was excellent. Took me a bit to shift my thinking. -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,09:16    Quote (Quack @ Feb. 07 2009,05:06)     Quote I could be wrong.  It's possible that there is no God and that all life accidentally appeared through sheer luck and coincidence. I'm open to that possibility, but it's going to take a heckuva convincing case to make me switch to that position. That's a creationist’s narrow-minded view. May this layman suggest that the world is not ruled by "sheer luck and coincidence" whatever that is supposed to mean but rather works according to what is commonly referred to as natural laws. To qoute Robert B. Laughlin again:         Quote Nature is regulated not only by a microscopic rule base but by powerful and general principles of organization. Some of these principles are known, but the vast majority are not. New are being discovered all the time. At higher levels of sophistication the cause-and-effect relationships are harder to document, but there is no evidence that the hierarchical descent of law found in the primitive world is superseded by anything else. Thus if a simple physical phenomenon can become effectively independent of the more fundamental laws from which it descends, so can we. I am carbon. But I need not have been. I have a meaning transcending the atoms from which I am made. I may be wrong but I believe Daniel needs a huge dose of general science that he is not prepared to take. He will have to live with both his doubts and his convictions. They go hand in hand. A creationist always lives with his/her doubts - conscious doubts not of his/her beliefs (those are repressed) but of his/her enormous disbelief in what is real, and in what is possible in the real world. Hence the oft-said comment: "It take more faith to believe in evolution than in creationism," etc. (Ugh. I don't believe in evolution. It's not a faith.) The faith of which these people speak is really faith in themselves that they don't have. If you are unfulfilled in your life or career, and think of your individual life as spoiled or meaningless, and view yourself as merely acted upon, rather than as an active agent in the world, you are naturally going to extend that worldview to everything else around you. Thus either god made everything or it's just atoms randomly colliding, lightning hitting a mud puddle, etc., without any understanding of, and curiosity about, the organizing principles of atoms or polymers or whatnot. What can they do? It takes a certain amount of curiosity to study science; it also takes a certain amount of confidence that you yourself create your own life's meaning for yourself and can express this meaning for others, through your work, through your writing and through your individual contributions to the world's knowledge. It also requires that you give the world a little credit. How can you do that if you just view it as dead matter needing magic to awaken it? Creationists don't want to know that the atoms are organizing themselves according to known principles. They don't want to know that we will eventually understand abiogenesis. That would require them to think of themselves as similarly inherently active, capable of things they cannot imagine - and if I've learned anything from getting to where I am from where I came from, the thing that seems to scare people out of their wits is contemplating their true potential. Someone once told me, "I wouldn't know how to act if the world's like that." I told her, "You'd learn how to act on your feet, according to circumstances, by doing it. We learn by making mistakes." People don't want to think on their feet and learn from mistakes. They don't want to make mistakes, ever - their world might fall apart then. They want commandments, not ethics; laws, not postulates; rules, not possibilities; Purpose, not individual purpose. Me? I've always been the opposite. Creationists like to portray us as following in lockstep, but I hate being told what to do and what to think, and if anything characterized my life it's my high tolerance for uncertainty and risk. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,10:35    Not that I never feel scared, mind you. I'm about to write and submit my first peer-reviewed paper.     -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,13:53    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 06 2009,18:05)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2009,20:32) The fact that I don't know all the current evidence (do you?), forces me to respond the way I did.  I'm always open to the possibility that I could be wrong about anything. By the same token you'll agree with the following: "I have no reason - at this present time - to doubt that the earth orbits the sun. But I don't know all the current evidence, so I could be wrong." I think the earth's orbit is a bit more established than common descent (which must posit numerous genomic duplications and genomic transfers between unrelated organisms), so no, the two are not equivalent statements. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,13:59    Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 06 2009,18:26)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2009,19:26) On the contrary, the TSP proves that optimization - via random generation and selection - can be impractical when the number of variables rise.   Huh? I get the opposite message. As the system gets more complicated it becomes completely impractical to assess all possible alternatives. With the TSP, for example, given just 30 places to visit it is not reasonable to evaluate all possible 4,420,880,996,869,850,977,271,808,000,000 routes. One alternative that does work is to start with a random route, then repeatedly make changes followed by selection. BTW What do you mean by 'optimization'? I am using it to mean the finding of a good solution, but not necessarily the minimum length solution. I think this is how the word is generally used in this context. By "optimization" I mean finding the shortest overall route - the "optimum" route. I apologize if I've misused the term. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,14:31    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2009,14:53) I think the earth's orbit is a bit more established than common descent (which must posit numerous genomic duplications and genomic transfers between unrelated organisms), so no, the two are not equivalent statements. Is it, on the whole, your belief that all extant terrestrial organisms are related by universal common descent? Do you, for example, believe that reasonable doubt may be sustained regarding the relationship, by way of a common ancestor, between human beings, chimpanzees and bonobos? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,14:43    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 07 2009,03:02) Daniel, Until you get these caricatures of what evolutionary biology is out of your head you will never learn a single thing. The opposite of "god governed" development is NOT "sheer luck and coincidence". Evolutionary biology is NOT "sheer luck and coincidence". And also, whatever my personal philosophical reservations about this position, there are a huge number of people that accept evolutionary biology as the best explanation of the diversity and development of life on this planet AND who believe in god. The two, again despite my philosophical misgivings, appear not to be mutually exclusive for some people. No one is asking you to give up your faith. All anyone is asking is for you to give up your intellectually dishonest misunderstandings of current science. Louis Edited for if/of typo Thanks for the clarification Louis. I know that the two are not mutually exclusive (though some of the comments on this board would seem to indicate that some of my opponents believe otherwise). I know it's possible that God exists but has taken a "hands off" approach and is merely letting life play itself out. The evidence, and personal experience, leads me to believe, however, that God is more involved than that. As has been pointed out repeatedly, I could be wrong. As for unguided evolution not being "sheer luck and coincidence", I know that it is often said that selection takes the "luck" out of the equation.  As I understand it however, (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong), all potential solutions (pre-selection) are generated randomly and then the best solutions are sometimes selected.  So, in real life, without the random generation of a potential solution (pure luck and coincidence), and fortuitous selection (which also may involve some luck as well) evolution does not work.  That's a lot of luck Louis!  I agree though that it's not only luck that's involved.  Perhaps I should have said "mostly luck and coincidence". -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Ideaforager Posts: 16 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,14:50    Quote Daniel: Perhaps I should have said "mostly luck and coincidence". It appears to me, probably because I don't understand statistics as well as I should, to be "mostly luck and coincidence". Better?

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,14:55    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2009,05:46) Daniel I know you are ignoring oldman's messages because you can't address his questions; I feel honored to be included in his company. But those questions aren't going away, and neither am I. I am not ignoring oldman because I can't answer his questions, I'm ignoring him because it is futile to do so. Theoretical conversation: Me: "the sky is blue." oldman:  "Which sky Daniel?" There are lots of "skies" in the universe - which one are you talking about?  Do you think that our sky is the only one that's out there?  That's very self-centered of you Daniel!  BTW, how old is the earth..." Me: "I meant the sky on earth oldman." oldman: "Blue to who?  To humans?  What about the other trillions of species that have occupied this earth?  Are you so self-centered that you can only consider your own perspective?" Me: "forget it". oldman: "I knew your views could not stand up to scrutiny Daniel.  Thanks for admitting defeat.  I am the victor.  Daniel cannot answer my questions..." -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,15:20    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2009,13:53)   Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 06 2009,18:05)       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2009,20:32) The fact that I don't know all the current evidence (do you?), forces me to respond the way I did.  I'm always open to the possibility that I could be wrong about anything. By the same token you'll agree with the following: "I have no reason - at this present time - to doubt that the earth orbits the sun. But I don't know all the current evidence, so I could be wrong." I think the earth's orbit is a bit more established than common descent (which must posit numerous genomic duplications and genomic transfers between unrelated organisms), so no, the two are not equivalent statements. You're using words denoting concepts -- neither of which you seem to grasp at all. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,15:25    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2009,14:55)     Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2009,05:46) Daniel I know you are ignoring oldman's messages because you can't address his questions; I feel honored to be included in his company. But those questions aren't going away, and neither am I. I am not ignoring oldman because I can't answer his questions, I'm ignoring him because it is futile to do so. Theoretical conversation: Me: "the sky is blue a particular hue that only I and the other anointed can perceive ." oldman:  "Which sky Daniel?" There are lots of "skies" in the universe - which one are you talking about?  Do you think that our sky is the only one that's out there?  That's very self-centered of you Daniel!  BTW, how old is the earth..." Me: "I meant the sky on my earth oldman." oldman: "It is Blue to most humans on THIS earth, Daniel, so What about the other trillions millions of species that have occupied this earth?  Are you so self-centered that you can only consider your own perspective?" Me: "forget it -- my world is unreachable except if you close your eyes and click your heels thrice ". oldman: "I knew your views could not stand up to scrutiny Daniel.  Thanks for admitting defeat.  I am the victor.  Daniel cannot answer my questions..." Fixed it for you. No charge. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,15:41    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2009,15:55) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2009,05:46) Daniel I know you are ignoring oldman's messages because you can't address his questions; I feel honored to be included in his company. But those questions aren't going away, and neither am I. I am not ignoring oldman because I can't answer his questions, I'm ignoring him because it is futile to do so. What I notice most about this response it that it evades Albatrossity's question yet again. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,15:48    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 07 2009,15:41) What I notice most about this response it that it evades Albatrossity's question yet again. Yeah, I noticed that too. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,15:59    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2009,14:55)   Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2009,05:46) Daniel I know you are ignoring oldman's messages because you can't address his questions; I feel honored to be included in his company. But those questions aren't going away, and neither am I. I am not ignoring oldman because I can't answer his questions, I'm ignoring him because it is futile to do so. Theoretical conversation: Me: "the sky is blue." oldman:  "Which sky Daniel?" There are lots of "skies" in the universe - which one are you talking about?  Do you think that our sky is the only one that's out there?  That's very self-centered of you Daniel!  BTW, how old is the earth..." Me: "I meant the sky on earth oldman." oldman: "Blue to who?  To humans?  What about the other trillions of species that have occupied this earth?  Are you so self-centered that you can only consider your own perspective?" Me: "forget it". oldman: "I knew your views could not stand up to scrutiny Daniel.  Thanks for admitting defeat.  I am the victor.  Daniel cannot answer my questions..." Good post Daniel. I know where you're coming from. I've had the same problem with someone else I will not name but he sounds like a reciprocating engine: If I say, "The cylinder should be at the top.", he says, " Actually, you are wrong.  It should be at the bottom." If I say, " The cylinder should be at the bottom." he answers, " Actually, you are wrong.  It should be at the top." **************************** Story # 310 on my website: OUT OF THE BLUE Joan and I were in the lounge at La Cita one day casually talking softly together.  I said something like, “Tuesday’s the 10th” or “Monday’s the 15th”, I don’t recall, but I do remember someone across the room loudly making the same comment.  It was almost like an echo, and it got my attention.  This has occurred so many times that I think, if I tested God by asking, “God, what color is the sky?”, something or someone would appear out of the blue. It did..... G.O.D. appeared on a blue background. *(When I typed it in on a search.)              Two weeks after I wrote the above, George Strait won the Country Music Award ‘Album of the Year’ for his song ‘Out of the Clear Blue Sky’. Zero *my remark now. edit/add Actually, I was wrong. It should read: 'Out of the Blue Clear Sky' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Clear_Sky -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,16:20    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 07 2009,15:25) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2009,14:55)       Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2009,05:46) Daniel I know you are ignoring oldman's messages because you can't address his questions; I feel honored to be included in his company. But those questions aren't going away, and neither am I. I am not ignoring oldman because I can't answer his questions, I'm ignoring him because it is futile to do so. Theoretical conversation: Me: "the sky is blue a particular hue that only I and the other anointed can perceive ." oldman:  "Which sky Daniel?" There are lots of "skies" in the universe - which one are you talking about?  Do you think that our sky is the only one that's out there?  That's very self-centered of you Daniel!  BTW, how old is the earth..." Me: "I meant the sky on my earth oldman." oldman: "It is Blue to most humans on THIS earth, Daniel, so What about the other trillions millions of species that have occupied this earth?  Are you so self-centered that you can only consider your own perspective?" Me: "forget it -- my world is unreachable except if you close your eyes and click your heels thrice ". oldman: "I knew your views could not stand up to scrutiny Daniel.  Thanks for admitting defeat.  I am the victor.  Daniel cannot answer my questions..." Fixed it for you. No charge. Little OT on my part, but it is quite interesting to see your correction about the "particular hue". I have often pondered myself about this whole color concept. I do personaly perceive blue as a particular hue. And I call it "blue" because my social developement led me to think of this hue as blue. But am I the only one to classify this particular hue as "blue"? What of daltonians? Does each and every individual, not only in the animal reign, but also within the same species, perceive this hue the same way? Maybe someone will see the sky in a totaly different hue (such as red for exemple), but call it blue because of his social developement... Do our different tastes for colors come from that? And deriving from that rather simplish opinion, doesn't our cognitive developement force some pre-conceived ideas upon us? If so, what would actualy exclude the judeo-christian "god" from such pre-conceived ideas? If this post makes no sense whatsoever, please feel  free to ignore it. And, it IS an OT after all XD -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,16:42    "deep greens and blues are the colors I choose" --James Taylor -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

Tony M Nyphot Posts: 491 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,18:20    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 04 2009,10:05) On a serious note, speaking of grandparenthood, or rather in this case parenthood, I am going to be a father. Late to the party as usual (I was at an earlier one...), but I wish to extend my congrats as well.       Quote Any parenting tips will be gratefully received and of course ignored as advice generally is by everyone, we'll just have to make mistakes like everyone else does. My only advice is to remember that "motion magic" got you into this in the first place and it can help in the most trying of times. When he cries...pick him up and walk in large circles, preferably through alternating light and dark areas. Won't got to sleep...pick him up and sway. Even in good times...pick him up and dance around. Motion is your friend. Just don't do this. -------------- "I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK "You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

Tony M Nyphot Posts: 491 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,18:26    Maybe evolution-a-mists and tardidiots are both right. Or both wrong, depending on your world view, of course. From here. -------------- "I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK "You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

Tony M Nyphot Posts: 491 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,18:50    Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 06 2009,18:45) Interesting interview with Judge Jones in PLoS Genetics. Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading that. I do think that creation-IDism proponents will quote mine this interview to prove that evolution indeed has communist roots.   Quote Jones: For decades afterwards, evolution was not substantially taught or taught at all. Gitschier: In Tennessee or anywhere? Jones: Anywhere. But by the '50s in the US, with Sputnik and the Cold War, there was a belief that we were falling drastically behind in science education and in other things, and you began to see a much more dedicated science component of education. [ETA: Oops...wrong thread...anyway to move it?] -------------- "I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK "You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,20:54    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2009,20:43) Quote (Louis @ Feb. 07 2009,03:02) Daniel, Until you get these caricatures of what evolutionary biology is out of your head you will never learn a single thing. The opposite of "god governed" development is NOT "sheer luck and coincidence". Evolutionary biology is NOT "sheer luck and coincidence". And also, whatever my personal philosophical reservations about this position, there are a huge number of people that accept evolutionary biology as the best explanation of the diversity and development of life on this planet AND who believe in god. The two, again despite my philosophical misgivings, appear not to be mutually exclusive for some people. No one is asking you to give up your faith. All anyone is asking is for you to give up your intellectually dishonest misunderstandings of current science. Louis Edited for if/of typo Thanks for the clarification Louis. I know that the two are not mutually exclusive (though some of the comments on this board would seem to indicate that some of my opponents believe otherwise). I know it's possible that God exists but has taken a "hands off" approach and is merely letting life play itself out. The evidence, and personal experience, leads me to believe, however, that God is more involved than that. As has been pointed out repeatedly, I could be wrong. As for unguided evolution not being "sheer luck and coincidence", I know that it is often said that selection takes the "luck" out of the equation.  As I understand it however, (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong), all potential solutions (pre-selection) are generated randomly and then the best solutions are sometimes selected.  So, in real life, without the random generation of a potential solution (pure luck and coincidence), and fortuitous selection (which also may involve some luck as well) evolution does not work.  That's a lot of luck Louis!  I agree though that it's not only luck that's involved.  Perhaps I should have said "mostly luck and coincidence". And correct you I will: Random mutation (for example) =/= luck and coincidence. "Potential solutions" (a poor term horribly loaded with foresight etc, and definitely part of your problem) are not simply explored perfectly randomly, there are distributions of "potential solutions" from given precursors. Even those precursors, and their precursors etc, are still subject to standard chemistry and physics. So no Daniel, it absolutely ISN'T pure luck and coincidence, it's very unlike it. Learn what random is. The word you are looking for is not "luck and coincidence" but "random", in the strict mathematical sense of the word, and with a weather eye out for real wet and dirty biological systems interacting with their environment. Selection also doesn't necessarily give the "best solution", it gives the most fit, i.e. immediately least bad. That is not always the optimum solution (implied by "best"). You also ignore drift and other phenomena in your handwave. It's a very qualified "solution" which cannot arbitrarily be separated from its context. So AGAIN Daniel, your understanding is not accurate, and as has been pointed out about 8273481729598 times now you are inventing a spurious caricature of evolutionary biology. As has been pointed out 34567839876542928 times now you are wasting your time leaping into the primary literature when you should be reading up on the basics you demonstrably don't understand. As you persist in pissing about with straw men and caricatures it's no wonder you deem it impossible for order and complexity to arise naturally, and it's no wonder you go over and over the same ground time and again refusing to correct your misunderstandings. It's not that you merely could be wrong, you are wrong and are trying very very hard to refuse to understand why. Hence, like I've been saying since the very start GO BACK TO BASICS! Learn to walk before you try to run. Basic philosophy, basic biology, hell even some basic maths, will clear this up for you. This is not something you can reliably get on any message board in the universe, you need to do the graft yourself. I'm not even touching your "evidence" proves god crap, especially when you've admitted it doesn't already. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,20:54    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2009,21:48) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 07 2009,15:41) What I notice most about this response it that it evades Albatrossity's question yet again. Yeah, I noticed that too. I've never noticed it. Oh wait, yes I have. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,20:59    Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 08 2009,00:20) Quote (Louis @ Feb. 04 2009,10:05) On a serious note, speaking of grandparenthood, or rather in this case parenthood, I am going to be a father. Late to the party as usual (I was at an earlier one...), but I wish to extend my congrats as well.       Quote Any parenting tips will be gratefully received and of course ignored as advice generally is by everyone, we'll just have to make mistakes like everyone else does. My only advice is to remember that "motion magic" got you into this in the first place and it can help in the most trying of times. When he cries...pick him up and walk in large circles, preferably through alternating light and dark areas. Won't got to sleep...pick him up and sway. Even in good times...pick him up and dance around. Motion is your friend. Just don't do this. Cheers Tony. Whaddya mean don't kick the baby? But they're about the same size as a rugby ball......oh wait....you mean spin pass the baby instead. Good idea. Run with the baby instead of endless territory eroding kicking tennis resulting in more expansive exciting parenting with good use of the back three and an exciting spectator experience. Does it show that I a) watched the opening matches of the 6 Nations today and b) was disappointed by England's dull and dismal (yet winning) performance versus Italy? Louis -------------- Bye.

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,21:06    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 07 2009,21:59) Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 08 2009,00:20) Quote (Louis @ Feb. 04 2009,10:05) On a serious note, speaking of grandparenthood, or rather in this case parenthood, I am going to be a father. Late to the party as usual (I was at an earlier one...), but I wish to extend my congrats as well.         Quote Any parenting tips will be gratefully received and of course ignored as advice generally is by everyone, we'll just have to make mistakes like everyone else does. My only advice is to remember that "motion magic" got you into this in the first place and it can help in the most trying of times. When he cries...pick him up and walk in large circles, preferably through alternating light and dark areas. Won't got to sleep...pick him up and sway. Even in good times...pick him up and dance around. Motion is your friend. Just don't do this. Cheers Tony. Whaddya mean don't kick the baby? But they're about the same size as a rugby ball......oh wait....you mean spin pass the baby instead. Good idea. Run with the baby instead of endless territory eroding kicking tennis resulting in more expansive exciting parenting with good use of the back three and an exciting spectator experience. Does it show that I a) watched the opening matches of the 6 Nations today and b) was disappointed by England's dull and dismal (yet winning) performance versus Italy? Louis Many years ago I watched my sister's offspring while sister was away doing USNavy reserve stuff. I understand the impulse to beat them (neither of us did). -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,21:12    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 07 2009,20:54) As you persist in pissing about with straw men and caricatures it's no wonder you deem it impossible for order and complexity to arise naturally, and it's no wonder you go over and over the same ground time and again refusing to correct your misunderstandings. It's not that you merely could be wrong, you are wrong and are trying very very hard to refuse to understand why. Hence, like I've been saying since the very start GO BACK TO BASICS! Learn to walk before you try to run. Basic philosophy, basic biology, hell even some basic maths, will clear this up for you. This is not something you can reliably get on any message board in the universe, you need to do the graft yourself. I'm not even touching your "evidence" proves god crap, especially when you've admitted it doesn't already. Louis Ya know... it might even be worthwhile if Daniel could even spend a little time researching what he considers "primary literature".... the bible! The damn thing is just chock full of inconsistencies, errors and out and out BAD ideas.  Perhaps Damiel, you might want to take the bronze age goat-herders to task?   I think they might be more your style, and Louis does make a pretty good point about getting abck to the basics for you. -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Pages: (666) < ... 378 379 380 381 382 [383] 384 385 386 387 388 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard