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) < ... 321 322 323 324 325 [326] 327 328 329 330 331 ... >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,11:43    Not sure why Dan bothers to type. He could just cut and paste a link to whatever creationist claim he wants to regurgitate. Quote Claim CA211: Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory. Source: Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 6-7. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,11:45    Quote Is your believe in your god so shallow that you require physical "evidence" instead of faith? Of course not.  He doesn't give a good happy damn about evidence. he is only playing ontological games. Preaching to the choir.  Reality is not his forte'. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,11:46    Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 03 2008,11:43) Not sure why Dan bothers to type. He could just cut and paste a link to whatever creationist claim he wants to regurgitate. Quote Claim CA211: Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory. Source: Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 6-7. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html I suspect that is exactly what he is doing, although with less flair than one would typically expect from a flaming troll. Less Bullshit, daniel, more Flair. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,11:54    Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 03 2008,11:43) Not sure why Dan bothers to type. He could just cut and paste a link to whatever creationist claim he wants to regurgitate.   Quote Claim CA211: Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory. Source: Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 6-7. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html Any comment Daniel? Or will you just ignore this like you ignore so much of reality? Quote   1.  There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:          * a static fossil record;          * true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;          * a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;          * observations of organisms being created.   2. This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified. -------------- 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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,12:01    Quote Therefore no observation can empirically confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis of natural selection. What about two genetically isolated populations consistently accumulating exactly the same useful mutations over time? What about a population accumulating only useful mutations, but not having any that aren't useful?

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,12:10    tons of evidence supporting the functioning of natural selection in nature exist.  I doubt seriously Daniel disputes that. What I fancy he disputes is that this is relevant to the 'big questions' that he imagines himself tackling.  How did we get here, where are we going, how can we live for jesus every day, etc. goalpost shifting, in other words. natural selection, per se, is not the root cause of all evolution.  it sure as hell works.  it also sure as hell doesn't seem to be operating all the time (and it sure as hell does leave a genetic signature, if Daniel were honest he would have looked this up.  Tard:  try looking for QTL and strength of selection).   it is a mistake to conflate 'natural selection' with 'evolution' as the terms are sometimes independent.   but at the root daniel is just trying to prove god's existence.  rather shittily too, I might add. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,12:24    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 03 2008,12:00)     Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 02 2008,17:34)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 02 2008,20:07) Well for starters, science will once again be free to explore all options.  No longer shackled by a limiting materialist ideology, science will be able to look into every possibility.  Many of you forget, but science worked before atheism took over, and atheism (and it's more presentable cousin "materialism") are not necessary ingredients for science but are instead an artificial constraint upon research. To sustain this argument you need a response to this: "Any observation can be reconciled with the actions of an all powerful supernatural intelligence. Therefore no observation can empirically confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis of supernatural design." I still don't see one. Bill, it is also apparent that any observation can be reconciled with the actions of natural selection. Therefore no observation can empirically confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis of natural selection. Natural Selection = Atheism's God Experimental studies such as Lenski's flatly contradict your assertion. But I still don't see your response to my objection, Daniel. -------------- 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

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,12:37    To be fair, Daniel didn't say that evolution is unfalsifiable (not this time), he said that Natural Selection is unfalsifiable. Setting that aside, the formulation "Natural Selection = Atheism's God" makes no sense.  Naturalism, empiricism, philosophical materialism, etc. have been branded (erroneously) as atheistic religious convictions, but Natural Selection? What's next? Population Genetics = Atheism's God Nested Hierarchies = Atheism's God -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,13:01    (Checks to make sure this is the BW) Daniel Smith's God    =    TARD

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,14:34    Chocolate = Atheism's God* Chocolate makes the medicine go down, Daniel. *Would make a great t-shirt, BTW. -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,19:34    on another thread it was said: Quote Heddle: Quote Why would your friend go into biological Calvinism (whatever that is) or any sort of Calvinism when starting from the most anti-Calvinistic position possible? (Calvin would not have agreed, to say the least, that children are predisposed to believe in God, or are innocent and pure, etc. He believed in infant baptism--you do know what the water signifies?) Or were you the biological Calvinist? To clarify my point-- I was under the impression that Calvinism entailed predestination, that the fate of any given soul is sealed from birth or even prior to it.  If I'm wrong feel free to correct me.  By "biological Calvinism," I was using shorthand for my interlocutor's conjecture about a predisposition for faith/belief that might actually be genetically encoded (by god, natch, thus creating a sort of predestination by divine fiat).   Shrug.  The whole Calvinism thing seems a mystery to me.  I guess you still have to believe all the doctrine, etc., but you could still wind up getting screwed over (from what I understand).  I can see how it solves certain theological dilemmas that other denominations wrestle with, but it also seems to do so by making god an even bigger dick in some situations. Have you read the bible? The god it describes is a raging asshole space monster.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,19:52    Seriously. It wouldn't surprise me if the Galactic Police Force showed up one day and said "People of Earth: Sorry we were so late. Staffing issues, you know. Anyway, we have reason to believe that a notorious criminal named Yahweh the Genocidal passed through here a few thousand years ago, set himself up as a local god using advanced technology, and murdered a whole lot of you just for kicks. He does this on the more rural planets, we're afraid, so we're trying to track him down. Did any of you see which way he went?"

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2008,19:58    EDIT: deleted post How about them new pterosaurs? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,11:09    Quote (mitschlag @ Dec. 03 2008,10:37) To be fair, Daniel didn't say that evolution is unfalsifiable (not this time), he said that Natural Selection is unfalsifiable. Setting that aside, the formulation "Natural Selection = Atheism's God" makes no sense.  Naturalism, empiricism, philosophical materialism, etc. have been branded (erroneously) as atheistic religious convictions, but Natural Selection? What's next? Population Genetics = Atheism's God Nested Hierarchies = Atheism's God No, natural selection is the creative agent most often cited by atheists.  It is the reason (according to them) that most things work so well and it is also the reason some things don't work so well.  It is the 'all and all' for atheists.  It is a God replacement. -------------- "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

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,11:11    So, Daniel, just how is that the most successful individuals don't manage to breed more often? Does God get personally involved every time something has sex, to make sure no genes that might provide an advantage get passed on? -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,11:17    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 04 2008,11:09) Quote (mitschlag @ Dec. 03 2008,10:37) To be fair, Daniel didn't say that evolution is unfalsifiable (not this time), he said that Natural Selection is unfalsifiable. Setting that aside, the formulation "Natural Selection = Atheism's God" makes no sense.  Naturalism, empiricism, philosophical materialism, etc. have been branded (erroneously) as atheistic religious convictions, but Natural Selection? What's next? Population Genetics = Atheism's God Nested Hierarchies = Atheism's God No, natural selection is the creative agent most often cited by atheists.  It is the reason (according to them) that most things work so well and it is also the reason some things don't work so well.  It is the 'all and all' for atheists.  It is a God replacement. for anyone out there who still thinks Vmartin G.O.P. Daniel knows what he is talking about and/or has the tiniest shred of honesty or desire to 'know' anything, let this put those doubts to rest. Daniel go away.  You pollute our only forum for dick jokes and poking fun at Carlson's mom.   Although i suppose you are the dick joke now.   This sort of bullshit is better served at forums with your intellectual equals.  Try UD or Rapture Ready. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,11:32    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 04 2008,11:09) No, natural selection is the creative agent most often cited by atheists. And by theists who understand reality. This conflation of science and theology is really tiresome, Daniel. It may be true that your belief system requires you to erect strawmen and tilt at them, but other belief systems allow you to accept reality and marvel at it without having to invoke a meddling deity.  Maybe you could look into one of those... -------------- 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

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,11:33    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2008,11:17) Daniel go away.  You pollute our only forum for dick jokes and poking fun at Carlson's mom.   Listen, numbnuts,  my mom has never been a topic of discussion here.  The major topics here are: 1. My equiphilia 2. Louis' mom and his penchant for buggery. 3. Arden's cross-dressing and his penchant for buggery. 4. Richard Hughes (Designer rest his soul) man-crush on Heddle and his penchant for buggery (RTH, not Heddle). 5. Stevestory's various addictions and his penchant for buggery. 6. Your inbred banjo-playing survivalism, love-hate relationship with capitalization, and penchant for buggery. Less common, but still approved, topics include: 7. Alan Fox's man-crush on JAD. 8. Lou FCD transgender fantasies and how much junk he was able to stuff into that little red cocktail dress. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,11:43    Quote 1. My equiphilia that's what i was talking about! a horse is a horse of course of course! -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,12:00    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2008,11:43) Quote 1. My equiphilia that's what i was talking about! a horse is a horse of course of course! Better.  We are sciency type folk here, so accuracy is important. BTW, I've been meaning to ask you how this year's holiday specials are over at Cousin Jed's Camo and Ammo Depot?  Or are you still not talking to your cousin since he left your bed in favor of his sisters? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,12:13    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 04 2008,12:09) No, natural selection is the creative agent most often cited by atheists.  It is the reason (according to them) that most things work so well and it is also the reason some things don't work so well.  It is the 'all and all' for atheists.  It is a God replacement. Physics is bullshit too. They use physics to explain one plane flying and the next one crashing. What a crock. -------------- 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,12:20    Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 04 2008,12:00) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2008,11:43)   Quote 1. My equiphilia that's what i was talking about! a horse is a horse of course of course! Better.  We are sciency type folk here, so accuracy is important. BTW, I've been meaning to ask you how this year's holiday specials are over at Cousin Jed's Camo and Ammo Depot?  Or are you still not talking to your cousin since he left your bed in favor of his sisters? thanksgiving was great.  everyone fucked everyone and then we all shot our guns at some blue herons that live in granny's fish pond. and then we all had our way with your mom horse.  everyone said they can't wait for christmas, something about eggnog and some sheep bothering.  i imagine you are the last to know. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,12:25    Quote No, natural selection is the creative agent most often cited by atheists.  It is the reason (according to them) that most things work so well and it is also the reason some things don't work so well. No, IDiot, natural selection is (the non-agent reason) why certain things evolve to work well enough (mostly, where gradual change is possible), and its limitations explain why life isn't like anything that is designed (that is, rationality, planning, and purpose are missing from non-engineered life), why important leaps that are facile for intelligence are not seen during the course of evolution. It's nothing like your idiotic notion that anything goes.  The importance of "bad design" is not even so much that life is not "well-designed," but that "bad designs" are explicable through the limitations of natural selection.  "Bad design" is inexplicable via creationism, because great intelligence would not (insofar as our observation and experience informs us) make the evolutionary errors predictable by our knowledge of the limitations of natural selection. It isn't like your fantasy of a god, which is no explanation for why anything is either good or bad.  It specifically tells us that much is impossible (these being what we don't see in life), while "parallel" modifications of complexity are well within its possibilities (which we see, and even adapt to our uses with genetic algorithms).  And what do we find?  Life coming out fairly well "designed" where gradual modifications are possible, while poor "design" is evident where intelligent leaps would be needed to overcome the limitations of natural selection. It's meaningless to say "things work so well" in such a context.  They work within their environments so that organisms survive and reproduce.  Organs and organisms are not optimized, they are subject to the limitations of evolution, including those of natural selection.   Only if natural selection were an agent would it even make sense to say "things work so well" or that they do not "work so well"--at least in a science discussion.  This is why these matters come up primarily with respect to ID, because evolutionarily-expected results are ridiculous to ascribe to an agent even where they result in "good design," and are even more pathetic when they are ascribed in the case of "poor designs." Glen D -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,12:30    glen i hope you can kick the troll around for a while.  i thought we broke him, he just started babbling about natural selection = atheism and empirically equivalent fantasies. I'm going to get back to the basics.   HAR HAR THIS IS CARLSON ON TEH RANCH -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,12:52    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2008,12:20) thanksgiving was great.  everyone fucked everyone and then we all shot our guns at some blue herons that live in granny's fish pond. Indeed. It was a regular Norman Rockwell holiday, wasn't it? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,13:08    ROFLMAO that is fabulous.  makes 1927 posts worthwhile, right'ar. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,13:55    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 04 2008,10:20) thanksgiving was great.  everyone fucked everyone and then we all shot our guns at some blue herons that live in granny's fish pond. ATBC Grand Unification continues apace. Having already established that Louis is FTK, today we find that Erasmus is also FTK.  Therefore* Louis is Erasmus. So which one of you comedians is Dr Dr Dembski? *Logic: I haz it. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,15:36    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 04 2008,11:09) No, natural selection is the creative agent most often cited by atheists.  It is the reason (according to them) that most things work so well and it is also the reason some things don't work so well.  It is the 'all and all' for atheists.  It is a God replacement. No, doofus, it's the "creative agent" most cited by evolutionary scientists. You're no atheist, but I know atheists, and none of them are evolutionary scientists.   -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,15:55    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 04 2008,11:32) This conflation of science and theology is really tiresome, Daniel. It may be true that your belief system requires you to erect strawmen and tilt at them, but other belief systems allow you to accept reality and marvel at it without having to invoke a meddling deity.  Maybe you could look into one of those... Thank God the theologians know better. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2008,16:27    -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Pages: (666) < ... 321 322 323 324 325 [326] 327 328 329 330 331 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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