RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: FTK Research Thread, let's clear this up once and for all< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,02:04   

Okay, since I blew the joke Blipey set up for me, here's my chance to set things right.

You may recall that 'last spring', our favorite wife and concerned mother from Topeka wrote this:

 
Quote

Posted: April 02 2007,14:59
(That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.

Nor have I ever seen the sarcasm, ridicule and habitual poking fun of others who hold difference scientific perspectives or religious ideals at any of the aforementioned places where scientific issues are usually addressed.  

In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...


[my boldfacing]

Now, I've asked FTK more times than I can remember now just what ferkakte peer-reviewed papers she's read and I've been ignored every time. Not even an "oh shut up Arden", or an "I don't have to tell you anything!" or even an "I already told you!" Deafening silence.

So, I figured if this question gets its own thread, with no other distracting questions, it SHOULD be easier to get an answer.

So, FTK? Please to give us list now?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,08:08   

(sound of crickets chirping)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,08:28   

No, I'm not going to "make a list".  I gave you a whole freaking thread from kcfs to pan through in which many people posted various peer-reviewed papers to support their position.  I read most of what was posted.

Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?  

I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point.  

You wade through all the crap at kcfs, I'm certainly not going to spend my time doing that.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,08:54   

Quote
Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?  


Ftk, my initial urge for a response to this quote was to call dibs on using it in my sig.  I thought that might be a little mean, so instead I'll ask whether you want a constructive answer.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,09:02   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,09:28)
Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?

Personally, I don't care.  It's hard to believe you've read any peer-reviewed papers 'cause you're so freakin ignorant of the subjects on which you pontificate.  Maybe you read 'em, but if you did you learned nothing.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,10:06   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,08:28)
Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?  

I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point.

heh.

My reason for wanting you to "list them" is as follows.

Lets assume for a moment you are arguing a point such as "the earth is 10,000 years old". Somebody shows you a peer-reviewed paper that lays out the case for an old earth.

Your reaction would be to dispute that the paper is correct, however your only mechanism to do that (as a self-confessed ignoramus) would simply be to declare that it's not correct because it's incompatible with your special book.

That, FTK, is comedy gold.

So, I guess at some point somebody will have to dig in that forum and find a paper you dispute. Then we can have a nice old fireside chat about it here, and your reasons for disbelieving it will be marshmallows to roast on the fire. Yum Yum.

--------------
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

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,10:11   

Guys, the point is not the journals but the language contained in them...

wait a minute, why am I wasting my breath.

Nevermind, carry on.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,10:11   

Quote (JonF @ June 10 2007,09:02)
 It's hard to believe you've read any peer-reviewed papers 'cause you're so freakin ignorant of the subjects on which you pontificate.  Maybe you read 'em, but if you did you learned nothing.

Perhaps there were too many big words, and not enough "thou shalt nots".

Or perhaps, like the apocryphal Muslims who burned the Library of Alexandria, FTK figures that either a scientific paper opposes the Bible, in which case it is evil, or it supports the Bible, in which case it is superfluous.

Fundies are all alike, no matter what stripe they are.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,10:15   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,08:28)
Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers

Um, maybe because you're utterly totally absolutely one-thousand-percent pig-ignorant about every single scientific topic that you presume to yammer about . . . . ?

After all, anyone who can't make up their mind whether the earth is billions of years old, or just thousands of years old, never got past seventh-grade earth science, much less understood any peer-reviewed geological papers.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,10:16   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,08:28)
I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means

No shit.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,10:19   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,08:28)
No, I'm not going to "make a list".  I gave you a whole freaking thread from kcfs to pan through in which many people posted various peer-reviewed papers to support their position.  I read most of what was posted.

Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?  

I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point.  

You wade through all the crap at kcfs, I'm certainly not going to spend my time doing that.

I do not believe that you have read (with comprehension) peer-reviewed scientific papers.

The language is too obscure for a lay-person to have a clue what they are reading.

Your writing style gives away the position that you are not trained in any biology related science (just like me).

The reason people "care" is that you made a claim to have read "peer reviewed papers" in a way that implied that you could understand them and be capable of criticising them.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,10:49   

****ATTENTION: THE FOLLOWING IS NOT INTENDED TO BE MEAN AT ALL****

FTK,

Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.

That is not an insult. AFAIK (and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong) you didn't do a science degree (which is the bare minimum, not the be all and end all) and are not a working scientist.

Confession of geekdom time: As a 13 year old kid, I subscribed to Nature. I begged my parents to pay for a subscription for my birthday and they were kind enough to do so. I read as much of it as I could, but let's be blunt, I didn't understand a great deal. I still have those old Natures from the 80's and early 90's and NOW go back and read and understand them. Sure I picked up a few interesting things and I learned a lot, but the vast majority of it was way over my head.

I'm not comparing you to my 13 year old self in any other sense than this: without the basic knowledge, why should you expect to pick up a journal and NOT find many things way above your head? This doesn't mean you won't get some stuff, any intelligent, interested adult should be able to.

A formal education is just ONE path to knowledge and ability in science, this is true. There are many gifted amateurs who have not got letters after their name (and many blithering idiots WITH letters after there name) and who understand, make contributions and do good science. These individuals are a tiny minority though, and those that do make the public eye as it were are justifiably famous for their efforts.

The VAST majority of people who are knowledgeable about science have actually done some in a formal sense. That's not an indoctrination programme (science doesn't proceed by indoctrination, in fact indoctrination is the antithesis of science) it's a humble appreciation of the simple fact that there is a lot of very technical stuff to learn and tricky mechanisms and methods to master.

Peer reviewed papers. In my office at home I have two identical bookshelves which measure 1.5m wide by 2m tall. They are full of science books. Not popular science books (different shelves. I have a lot of books!), not just textbooks from my undergrad days (although just over half of one is textbooks), but technical books summarising fields of research. I've read the lot and made notes, all at least twice, most more. I have two 4 drawer filing cabinets full to over flowing with printed out papers, articles, reviews, communications etc all from the primary literature, I bought a third cabinet this weekend to put the over flow in. All papers are catalogued and in a database on my home PC. I have over 20 GB of PDF files (something I have recently started doing instead of print out, although I prefer to read things on paper) each file in an individual article (some contain fancy graphics! So it sounds larger than it is. It's not all pure text!) stored on this PC and it is growing at an alarming rate. All read, all catalogued. I personally subscribe to four journals, it costs me about £2k a year and these along with my old teen Nature subscription occupies another large book case.  In a month I'll need to buy another. My wife does go spastic at the amount of books etc I have. This is just the stuff I have AT HOME. You don't even want to know what I have at work (smaller amounts of books, at least equal amounts of journals). I set aside as a combination of my personal time and some work time between 10 and 12 hours per week in which I read the primary chemistry literature. Some journals are published once a week, some once a fortnight, some once a month etc. I read roughly 25 journals regularly and at least 10 of those are weekly. Any articles I like I keep and catalogue for reference.

I don't say this to show off or intimidate you. I say this merely to give you an idea of what a decade of being a professional scientist involves in terms of papers read. "I've read peer reviewed journals" to me is like saying "I breath". It's not really that exciting. Of course anyone interested in science reads journals, the question is do you understand what you're reading. Without an understanding of the basics  the majority of any journal, or even any article is very likely to whistle straight past you. Not every time, but a lot of the time.

So whilst it's great fun to bloviate on blogs and message boards it's not really a substitute for actual knowledge or actual talent or actual research or actual work....which reminds me, my new Angewante Chemie It Ed came on Friday and I haven't read it yet!.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
PennyBright



Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,10:52   

Quote

Posted: April 02 2007,14:59
(That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.



I wonder if this doesn't tell us something interesting about the way creationists "read" debates like this one.

FtK seems to have no concern at all for the content of the papers she has supposedly read -  only for the character of that writing vs the character of the discussion here.  IE, what her emotive response to it is.

Do you think maybe that's *really* the only difference she can tell between this kind of debate and a formal scientific paper?    That kind of serious category error would certainly explain why so many creationists fall for the dreck that they do.  

It would make sense -- that which feels good to read (makes the creationist feel smart, right, confirmed, etc)  would be acceptable, while that which feels bad (makes the creationist feel ill-educated, insulted, uncomfortable, etc) would be rejected.   And writings with little to no emotive power - such as most scientific papers -- would be glossed over,  as FtK is doing here.  Lacking content the creationist reader knows how to process,  they would simply be ignored.

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,10:57   

Penny,

Bingo.

Louis

P.S. Great sig.

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,11:06   

Quote (PennyBright @ June 10 2007,10:52)
 
Quote

Posted: April 02 2007,14:59
(That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.



I wonder if this doesn't tell us something interesting about the way creationists "read" debates like this one.

FtK seems to have no concern at all for the content of the papers she has supposedly read -  only for the character of that writing vs the character of the discussion here.  IE, what her emotive response to it is.

Do you think maybe that's *really* the only difference she can tell between this kind of debate and a formal scientific paper?    That kind of serious category error would certainly explain why so many creationists fall for the dreck that they do.  

It would make sense -- that which feels good to read (makes the creationist feel smart, right, confirmed, etc)  would be acceptable, while that which feels bad (makes the creationist feel ill-educated, insulted, uncomfortable, etc) would be rejected.   And writings with little to no emotive power - such as most scientific papers -- would be glossed over,  as FtK is doing here.  Lacking content the creationist reader knows how to process,  they would simply be ignored.

Right now I am trying to read Roger Penrose"The Road to Reality". Damned if I can fathom it. Meant to be Pop-Science but I am scuppered.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,11:26   

Quote
Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.


Why indeed.  What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?  Are you all tone deaf (or I guess blind, in this case).  

Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?  What was I supposed to do when they were posted to support the topic being discuss?  Ignore the link and move on?  Cripes, you people are unbelieveable.  I can't honestly say that I didn't understand a word of what I read.  That would be lying.

Of course I'd be better off starting with the basics, but shoot, I've been reading the basics in these forums for almost 3 years now.  I'm find that I already understand much of the stuff I'm reading in Dave's textbook because I've been involved in this debate for so long.  

I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.  I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,11:33   

Quote
No, I'm not going to "make a list".  I gave you a whole freaking thread from kcfs to pan through in which many people posted various peer-reviewed papers to support their position.  I read most of what was posted.


You can't name even one?

   
Quote
Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers


We don't really need to give an explicit answer to this question, do we?

   
Quote
I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point.  


So, basically, your answer this time is a combination of "I don't have to tell you", with a dash of "I've already explained that elsewhere".

Okay, I think I can see three possible explanations here, all of them pretty grim:

a) you have 'read' articles, but you didn't understand most of them, mentally rejected them, and they made so little of an impression on you, you really can't name any of them.

b) you know perfectly well what articles you read, but you don't want to explain them or explain why you disagree with them.

c) you simply haven't read any peer-reviewed articles.


You know, Christians like yourself make a much better impression on the public when they're actually, you know, honest.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,11:36   

Stephen,

You seem to be quite certain that I am being deceived and that you, after several discussions here, have finally seen the light.  When did this occur and what was it that brought you to reality?

Are there old threads I can read where you initially supported ID?  Where are the threads that document your conversion.  I'd be curious to see what the heck brought out of "delusion" and into reality.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
PennyBright



Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,11:39   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 10 2007,11:06)
Right now I am trying to read Roger Penrose"The Road to Reality". Damned if I can fathom it. Meant to be Pop-Science but I am scuppered.

Ouch.  Better you then me.  I've been banging my brain against Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos for about two years now, trying to make sense of it.

Louis - thanks!  I'm fond of Shakespeare,  even reputedly.  ;)

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,11:46   

Arden, this will make you happy...and set you up to rip me even further.

I'd have to pick A.  I read them at the time because they were posted to coorespond with something being discussed.  I certainly don't remember the titles or authors of any of them.

Let's make this even easier for you.  I am a simple layperson who does not work in any field of science.  I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically, and why ID cannot find a home in which it can be discussed without a fight.  The science room is obviously out, and the churches aren't going to touch the subject with a ten foot pool except to say that, yes, a designer exists.  

sigh...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,11:48   

Quote
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.  I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.


Then perhaps you should actually take a class.  You may recall that someone once told you (I hope) that class was for attending and learning things.  Class is for asking questions.  Class is for participation, for comprehension.  Things that directly bear on education and, yes, what is best for the kids.

You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others).  I don't hold out much hope that you will.  I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.

This place will still be here after it closes, I want you to prove me wrong.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,11:48   

From Ftk:

Quote
I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?


If we make the very generous assumption that you have indeed read any original peer-reviewed literature, then this statement is about as clear an indication as any that you understood none of it.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:00   

Blipey, I really try my best to ignore you because it's obviously impossible to reason with, but then there was this:

Quote
You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others).  I don't hold out much hope that you will.  I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.


WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THE OTHER THREAD IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH KSUDAVE?  He's a friggin biology professor for God's sake, and I HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS.  Some other buy named "Woodbine" is over there with responses minus the ridicule as well.  If I could stop myself from getting sidetracked by the crap that goes on here, I could focus on asking them more questions.

What is wrong with you, Blipey?  Seriously...did mama drop you on your head as a baby?  You are one angry, pentup little fellow.  Calm yourself, and have some fun for a while.  Goodness sakes.

[I know I sound mean, and that is not good.  I don't like myself when I act that way.  So, I love you Blipey, I just wish you would take a chill pill.  Got any?  Now would be a good time to indulge.]

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:01   

Quote
I love you Blipey


Uh oh. Do Richard and Lenny know? :O

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:03   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.  I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.

Honestly, if you can find ANYTHING in a college-level intro textbook that is "speculation", and not clearly labeled as speculation, then you get a gold star. Saying it is true doesn't make it true. And if you want to read speculation, I have a copy of "Pandas", as well as a copy of the Bob Jones University textbooks "Biology for Christian Schools". Please give us an example of any unwarranted speculation in Campbell, Reese and Simon, and I'll easily match you one-for-one from Pandas or the other books. Thanks.

Furthermore, given that there are literally hundreds of scientific papers backing up every single sentence in an intro-level college biology texttbook, how, exactly, do you expect the authors to give all the evidence for the things that you label "speculation"? In what other college-level intro textbooks do the authors provide all of the evidence for their sentences?

Finally, intro-level college biology textbooks must cover a lot of material, and there is really no way to cover any topic in any detail. That's why it's an introductory book, BTW. If you want the detail, you take other classes with other more specialized textbooks. Then you take other classes which use (and critique) the primary literature on which this is all based. Then you will understand the sheer silliness of your criticisms of this introductory level textbook. It has nothing to do with the bar and social life expectations of college freshmen; it has a lot to do with the reality of science, and how it is done, and how it is taught.

--------------
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

   
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:07   

Ftk:

Your response came up as I worked on mine.  Thank you for making the concession you didn't understand what you read.  It's a step.

Where we are now is dealing with a question Steve posed on your old thread:

Quote
The general question is, 'how do you get someone who doesn't know the first thing about science, to understand that a particular pseudoscience they like isn't science?'. FtK proves on a daily basis that we haven't found the answer to that question.


Since you don't understand how science works, you are unfortunately incapable of making a competent comparison between ID and science.  Do you realize this?  Again, I appreciate the fact that you concede gaps in your knowledge.  Do you concede this point as well?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:16   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 10 2007,11:06)
Right now I am trying to read Roger Penrose"The Road to Reality". Damned if I can fathom it. Meant to be Pop-Science but I am scuppered.

yeah, same. I'm going to damm well learn all the math I need to complete that book.

--------------
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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:19   

FTK,

Blind? Or perhaps didn't know because I haven't read that post. I DO miss things and I certainly don't read every post. Ahhh the paranoid tendency to see hostility and persecution where none exists (even when a disclaimer is used!), it smells so....pathetic. But this:

Quote
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly. I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.


And this

Quote
I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically, and why ID cannot find a home in which it can be discussed without a fight.


Are not going unremarked upon.

1) No evolutionary biology is not speculation. You've been sold a lie if that's what you believe. It is also not taught dogmatically, there is no dogma to teach.

What IS taught is the best set of explanations we have based on the best facts we have. Sorry if your beliefs conflict with reality to such and extent that you have to deny the facts.

IDC is NOT science, never has been, never will be. The data simply does not support it at all. IDC is demonstrably old wine in new bottles. Antique ideas about teleology in nature that weren't very good when they were invented and are contradicted by every single thing we know about the universe. The reason IDC is not taught as some alternative to evolutionary biology is because it is not an alternative to evolutionary biology, it is wishful thinking coloured with jargon words to make it sound sciencey to the rubes who buy Dembski et al's books. It's a con. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over it.

You pride yourself on an open mind (something for which no evidence can yet be found) then do what any good scholar would do...go and find out. Ask a prof at a local uni, phone them up, email them, ask for a reading list. You'll find hundreds of people willing to help. Pay an impoverished post grad a tutorial fee ($20 or whatever it is, it will be small) for an hour's tutorial on things you don't understand (they'll be so flattered you could probably get it for free!). Instead of wringing your hands and crying "why why why how" and "it's all speculation" (when it so isn't) go an find out. Take the time you waste on line and actually go and use it productively.

A college textbook will have references in it, GET THEM. I cannot stress this enough. When you get those references look at the references section of them and get THOSE references. Keep going until you can't go any further. It takes time, it costs money, it takes a lot of effort. We call it "researching the primary literature" and it's a good idea to do this BEFORE you even get to do basic research.

I say all this but then:

2) You think all college students are like you? Mindlessly parroting facts to get back to the bar and to obtain a passing grade? You think this is how science works? Oh purleeez! It's the "Don't think, accept" attitude that typifies poor (read: non-existent) scholarship. I positively HATED this trite drivel when at school and university and yes I regularly blasted people who espoused it. This is the antithesis of the scientific endeavour, the opposite of research and the very epitome of shoddy anti-intellectual, incurious, shallow, "cargo-cult" style pseudo thought. It's the most contemptible thing I have seen you express, and sister, that says a lot given the crap you spout.

You will never, can never understand even the basics of science with an attitude to scholarship like this. Oh sure, you can parrot things back to people but that does not constitute either learning, thought, understanding or scholarship. The opposite is true: Don't accept, THINK.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:26   

Some time back, on the KCFS forum, I asked FtK a relatively simple question.  It had to do with radiometric dating, which she doesn't  trust, or rejects outright. I wanted to know why she poo-pooed radiometric dating, but accepted uncritically all of the rest of nuclear physics.  I mean, she accepts that hydrogen bombs explode as predicted, and x-ray machines work as predicted, and any number of other commonplace manifestations of predictions in nuclear physics, but radiometric dating is no good.

She used her famous "I'm too busy but I'll get back to you" dodge, and said that her husband thought it was a case of comparing apples with oranges, but never gave an answer. How about it, FtK?  You've had a year or so to think about it now.  Why do you reject only the areas of science that conflict with your religious opinions, but accept the same science when there's no conflict (in your mind, at least)?

Edit: typo

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:29   

FTK,

Atomic Models
Which of the models (or propose another) would you approve of teaching to children?
Go visit the original page - it's got more info.

They taught me this one


My point is that under your proposed model of the way things should be, we should be teaching the controversy (i.e all of them) and letting the kids decide for themselves. Right?

(edit: not that i'd be particularly against that, it would have made my science lessons more interesting)

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:34   

Quote
It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation


Hmm, speculation v's fact. Interesting.

Do you have any specific examples of rampant speculation? Like, something to back up your so far empty words? Or not? Just wondering.

--------------
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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:36   

I'm going to add my voice to the call for which bits of a college biology textbook are speculation.

Come on FTK, actually back up one of your assertions or simply admit that you can't. I don't mind which.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:57   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,12:00)
Blipey, I really try my best to ignore you because it's obviously impossible to reason with, but then there was this:

 
Quote
You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others).  I don't hold out much hope that you will.  I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.


WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THE OTHER THREAD IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH KSUDAVE?  He's a friggin biology professor for God's sake, and I HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS.  Some other buy named "Woodbine" is over there with responses minus the ridicule as well.  If I could stop myself from getting sidetracked by the crap that goes on here, I could focus on asking them more questions.

What is wrong with you, Blipey?  Seriously...did mama drop you on your head as a baby?  You are one angry, pentup little fellow.  Calm yourself, and have some fun for a while.  Goodness sakes.

[I know I sound mean, and that is not good.  I don't like myself when I act that way.  So, I love you Blipey, I just wish you would take a chill pill.  Got any?  Now would be a good time to indulge.]

I would applaud you for asking questions of KSUDave.  I do actually think that is a great idea and I learn things by reading his posts.  However, IMO, you don't actually ask him questions with the intent of learning anything from him (I may be wring, that's just my read on the matter.).

You miss the point of what he says repeatedly.  I don't say this because I think you're stupid or that I want to be particularly mean to you.  I say it because it is quite apparent from your posts that you lack the basic understanding of what science IS that would allow you follow what he says.

He gave a great comparison of what observational science is compared to what predictive science is.  And you followed that up with a long comment listing OBSERVATIONAL things that creationists can do.  You didn't see the difference between poking around in a thing and using knowledge ABOUT that thing to proposal novel ideas.

My problem with you is not that you don't know what science is.  My problem is two-fold:

1.  You aren't interested in knowing what science is (because it conflicts with your world-view?).

2.  You pretend to know what science is.  Yes, I've read the comments recently where you admit that you don't understand the literature and whatnot.  This is belied, however, by the number of posts in which you pontificate on things you know nothing about.  If you really admit that you don't know what you're talking about on biological issues, why is it that you think you should be able to make education policy regarding biology?

edit:  the "you" in the last sentence is the collective "you".

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,13:07   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 10 2007,19:29)
My point is that under your proposed model of the way things should be, we should be teaching the controversy (i.e all of them) and letting the kids decide for themselves. Right?

(edit: not that i'd be particularly against that, it would have made my science lessons more interesting)

OMITSDNDI,

[anal retentive science geek voice]

But the different models have different physical consequences and the De Broglie atom has been shown by myriad experiments to be the more accurate representation of nature.

[/anal retentive science geek voice]

What? Did I miss the point? ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
PennyBright



Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,13:12   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)


Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?


Because you are making claims like this.

 
Quote
 It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  


In order to make such a claim, you need to *understand the science*.   Which means you need to have read those papers, and be able to discuss intelligently what you think is wrong with them.

You need to be able to explain why you believe it's "speculation".

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,13:12   

Quote (Louis @ June 10 2007,13:07)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 10 2007,19:29)
My point is that under your proposed model of the way things should be, we should be teaching the controversy (i.e all of them) and letting the kids decide for themselves. Right?

(edit: not that i'd be particularly against that, it would have made my science lessons more interesting)

OMITSDNDI,

[anal retentive science geek voice]

But the different models have different physical consequences and the De Broglie atom has been shown by myriad experiments to be the more accurate representation of nature.

[/anal retentive science geek voice]

What? Did I miss the point? ;-)

Louis

ah, but you've gotta keep your options open right?
Later experiments could overturn the De Broglie atom model and we could be back to the billard ball model in no time. I mean, the earth could be 10,000 or could be millions of years old, right FTK? We should not discount one or teh other right?
:p

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,13:14   

Quote (PennyBright @ June 10 2007,13:12)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)


Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?


Because you are making claims like this.

 
Quote
 It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  


In order to make such a claim, you need to *understand the science*.   Which means you need to have read those papers, and be able to discuss intelligently what you think is wrong with them.

You need to be able to explain why you believe it's "speculation".

precisely.

FTK, put up or shut up.

Except, don't shut up, it's far too funny!

--------------
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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,13:49   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:36)
Stephen,

You seem to be quite certain that I am being deceived and that you, after several discussions here, have finally seen the light.  When did this occur and what was it that brought you to reality?

Are there old threads I can read where you initially supported ID?  Where are the threads that document your conversion.  I'd be curious to see what the heck brought out of "delusion" and into reality.

To be fair ftk,
My conversion was not on this blog but "Pandas Thumb". But it wasn't really a conversion. I just "followed the evidence".

The thing is that there are no simplistic answers here. You just get a shed load of convergent evidence. All of which are backed up by arguments with evidence/explanations. It is much cooler than arguments from authority.

Guess what. If you can actually provide contrarian evidence, people would actually listen.

You would need actual evidence though.




BTW. You have definately been decieved. Somebody has lied to you.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,13:53   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 10 2007,12:16)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 10 2007,11:06)
Right now I am trying to read Roger Penrose"The Road to Reality". Damned if I can fathom it. Meant to be Pop-Science but I am scuppered.

yeah, same. I'm going to damm well learn all the math I need to complete that book.

Good for you! I will probably just give up. I haven't got the time to learn. Too damned hard for me.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,14:35   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
Quote
Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.


Why indeed.  What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?  Are you all tone deaf (or I guess blind, in this case).  

Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?  What was I supposed to do when they were posted to support the topic being discuss?  Ignore the link and move on?  Cripes, you people are unbelieveable.  I can't honestly say that I didn't understand a word of what I read.  That would be lying.

Of course I'd be better off starting with the basics, but shoot, I've been reading the basics in these forums for almost 3 years now.  I'm find that I already understand much of the stuff I'm reading in Dave's textbook because I've been involved in this debate for so long.  

I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.  I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.

Oh, puh-leeze.

FTK, why the hell should anyone, anyone at all whatsoever, give a damn what an uneducated housewife like YOU thinks about science?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,14:37   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:46)
Arden, this will make you happy...and set you up to rip me even further.

My, my, FTK --- does your massive martyr complex NEVER take a vacation?


(yawn)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,14:39   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:46)
 I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically

For the same reason that "the earth is round and revolves around the sun" is taught  . . . uh . . . "so dogmatically".

Sorry if that offends your religious opinions.

Perhaps you  . . . well . . .  need better religious opinions. Ones that don't actually deny reality.  

Any non-fundie church should be able to help you with that.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,14:44   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,12:00)
WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THE OTHER THREAD IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH KSUDAVE?  He's a friggin biology professor for God's sake, and I HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS.  Some other buy named "Woodbine" is over there with responses minus the ridicule as well.  If I could stop myself from getting sidetracked by the crap that goes on here, I could focus on asking them more questions.

What is wrong with you, Blipey?  Seriously...did mama drop you on your head as a baby?  You are one angry, pentup little fellow.  Calm yourself, and have some fun for a while.  Goodness sakes.

[I know I sound mean, and that is not good.  I don't like myself when I act that way.  So, I love you Blipey, I just wish you would take a chill pill.  Got any?  Now would be a good time to indulge.]

Uh-oh, getting a little miffed, FTK?  Finger itching to reach for that Banninator Button again, FTK? Don't like lots of people asking you questions that you don't want to hear, FTK?  

Gonna go storming out all in a huff (again), FTK?


"Boo hoo hoo, you're all MEAN to me!!!!!!!!  Sniffle, sob"

Grow up and deal with it.  Stop being such a goddamn whiney crybaby.  Or else go away, shut yourself up into a cloister somewhere, and don't venture out into the real world again.


Your massive martyr complex is old and boring.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,14:44   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 10 2007,12:01)
Quote
I love you Blipey


Uh oh. Do Richard and Lenny know? :O

I don't mind sharing.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
PennyBright



Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,14:52   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 10 2007,14:35)
Oh, puh-leeze.

FTK, why the hell should anyone, anyone at all whatsoever, give a damn what an uneducated housewife like YOU thinks about science?

Hey now!   Let's not go insulting uneducated housewives.

FtK's problem is not about being educated -- it's about being educable.

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,15:27   

Quote (skeptic @ June 10 2007,10:11)
Guys, the point is not the journals but the language contained in them...

wait a minute, why am I wasting my breath.

Nevermind, carry on.

i continually wonder the same thing.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,15:53   

Quote
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?


you mean the one you said was far too basic for you?

denial...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,18:44   

Blipey wrote:

Quote
He gave a great comparison of what observational science is compared to what predictive science is. And you followed that up with a long comment listing OBSERVATIONAL things that creationists can do. You didn't see the difference between poking around in a thing and using knowledge ABOUT that thing to proposal novel ideas.


Okay, let’s try this again...I’ll ask Blipey this time...

1.  An evolutionist predicts a “novel idea” due to the notion of common ~descent~, whereas the creationist  predicts a “novel idea” due to common ~design~.

2.  Long before Darwin, both creationists and evolutionists were aware that organisms share similiarities, though they disagree as to why that is.  We also know that before Darwin, similiarities were already being classified, and there would be no reason why those classifications wouldn’t have continued to be updated as further research took place.

Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?  The taxol example doesn’t make sense to me, and that may just be because I’m dense (have a ball with that one Lenny - make sure to post at least 15 separate comments to cover your response).  Or it could be that I don’t understand how evolution can predict which tree to tap without having researched and classified the trees by their similiarities and grouped them as such.  I don't know why one wouldn't try to group them with other trees that they share the most common traits with unless they believed that the similarities were due to common descent.  That's just a matter of organization and classification.

Can an evolutionist, due to his beliefs about common descent, look into a crystal ball and predict exactly which tree is needed and use this knowledge to propose novel ideas without researching and classifying all the trees first?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,19:08   

Quote
2.  Long before Darwin, both creationists and evolutionists were aware that organisms share similiarities,


"evolutionists" long before darwin, you say?

do tell.

please, let's compare the various theories these evolutionists proposed in comparison to boilerplate creationist "theory", long before Darwin.

you start.

show me one comparison, pre-darwin, between a creationist representation and an evolutionary representation.

then we can walk through them step by step; see what the differences are.

good luck.

I suppose you might want to start by defining what the ehll you mean by "evolutionist" before you begin.

OTOH, that might curtail this discussion quite rapidly.

Quote
Can an evolutionist, due to his beliefs about common descent,


that's just it.  a scientist doesn't work from a belief structure, but outwards from the actual evidence.

you're never gonna get that, are you?

*sigh*

and yet we will continue to try and explain it to you, over and over and over....

have YOU ever asked yourself why that is, when it's so blatantly obvious it's a complete waste of time for someone such as yourself?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,19:16   

I subscribe to Science.  (yea, me!)

I read nine peer-reviewed papers this week, two of which dealt with evolution.  On average I read about 5 peer-reviewed papers a week.

Now, before FtK jumps all over me with congratulations on my scholarship, I would say to her that the US Post Office will deliver Science to your mailbox every week.  Without fail.

So, plunk down your 90 bucks American and join the club!

Put out or shut up.  (Now, that didn't sound right.)

  
Henry J



Posts: 4818
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,19:20   

Here's my 2 cents:

Nested hierarchy.

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4908
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,19:29   

Two things:

1. FtK, do you assert that no transitional fossil sequences exist? This is a simple yes-or-no question. I'm posing it again here since it seems to have been overlooked in the other thread.

2.

Quote

Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?


All possible configurations of reality are compatible with the conjecture that a capricious, omnipotent entity wanted it that way. So there is no point is asking for evolutionary science to provide an explanation that is not available to a creationist; the "Omphalos" option covers all possibilities. But that is also precisely why evolutionary science is science, and antievolution isn't. Evolutionary science is constrained by the evidence; antievolution is not.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,19:33   

Quote
FtK, do you assert that no transitional fossil sequences exist? This is a simple yes-or-no question. I'm posing it again here since it seems to have been overlooked in the other thread.


This is a classic example of the kind of question that FTK will probably dodge. You can try making a thread solely about this question in order to force some kind of answer.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,20:05   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,19:44)
1.  An evolutionist predicts a &#8220;novel idea&#8221; due to the notion of common ~descent~, whereas the creationist  predicts a &#8220;novel idea&#8221; due to common ~design~.

Several examples of the former have been given; nobody, including you, has come up with an example of the latter. That's because nobody can predict what an omnipotent Being, with capabilities and understandings far beyond ours, would do.

 
Quote
Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?  The taxol example doesn&#8217;t make sense to me

Several examples have been given. The fact that you don't understand them is your problem; you need far more education in the basics.  I'm sure many people would be glad to help if you showed some indication of honest desire to learn.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,21:47   

Hey FTK, dolphins and fish live in the same environment, and don't have the same genes.

Why not?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,21:48   

Speaking of "common design", FTK:  Chimps and humans share 98% of their DNA and a "common design".

Humans are, according to creationists, designed in the image of God.

Does that mean, therefore, that God is 98% chimpanzee?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,22:53   

Quote (Louis @ June 10 2007,08:49)
****ATTENTION: THE FOLLOWING IS NOT INTENDED TO BE MEAN AT ALL****

FTK,

Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.

Here's the thing. By most people's standards, I am almost completely uneducated. I.e., I have a diploma from an American high school. I took three science classes in four years of high school (biology, chemistry, and physics—I couldn't fit a science class into my weird freshman year schedule). I took a science class in seventh and eighth grade—a basic biology course and a basic physical science course. That's it in terms of formal education in the sciences.

And I suck at math.

Nevertheless, I have had a life-long fascination with the sciences. I'm interested primarily in physics, astronomy, and cosmology, but after dealing with creationist cranks for the last two years or so, I've also become much more interested in geology, biology, genetics, zoology, paleontology, physical anthropology, and cladistics.

I've read a lot of popular scientific works over the years. I've read (twice, beginning to end) A Brief History of Time. I have Peeble's Principles of Physical Cosmology, and have read it, but the damned thing is bristling with mathematical formulae, my understanding of which is slightly better than a cocker spaniel's. I've read most of Dawkins' books on zoology and evolution other than The Selfish Gene (it's on my list). I've read Michio Kaku, Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, and, of course, On the Origin of Species. I've subscribed to Scientific American since 1978, when I was a sophomore in high school (and the cover story was about Benoit Mandelbrot and fractal geometry).

I can't pretend to have understood more than a fraction of this stuff. And this is the popular literature. I probably couldn't understand more than 5% of the actual peer-reviewed primary literature even in the fields I'm currently most interested in, e.g., cladistics, physical anthropology, zoology, and paleontology.

Therefore, when people (young-earth creationists) try to impress me with the claim that they've read peer-reviewed papers, but know nothing about nested hierarchies, radiometric dating techniques and the calibration methods thereof, undirected mutation and natural selection, common descent with modification, or express doubt about the evidence for an earth billions of years old, I laugh at them and make fun of them.

There is simply no way anyone who has even the most nodding acquaintance with fields as diverse as geology, astronomy, zoology, paleontology, or physics could possibly doubt that the universe is tens of billions of years old, that the earth is billions of years old, that life has existed for billions of years, that all organisms that have ever lived are related by common descent with modification from one or a small number of common ancestors, and that biodiversity is entirely accounted for by relatively simple and reasonably well-understood mechanisms of evolution. There is simply no room for reasonable doubt on any of these matters, no matter how much creationists like to pretend otherwise.

A claim to have read primary literature, when one displays yawning gaps in knowledge, preposterously incorrect beliefs about what the standard theories even say, and doubts scientific findings that have been confirmed over and over again by hundreds of thousands of research papers is nothing but an ill-supported appeal to authority.

If you've read them, but haven't understood them, you're worse off than someone like me, who hasn't read them, but at least gets the fundamental concepts.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:07   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,09:46)
Let's make this even easier for you.  I am a simple layperson who does not work in any field of science.  I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically, and why ID cannot find a home in which it can be discussed without a fight.

Here's why, FTK. I want you to think long and hard about this, because it will really give you an idea of why ID is making no headway in the scientific community.

ID basically stands for the proposition that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and therefore evolution at some level (somewhere from special creation of every organism that has ever lived, to merely a nudge by the divine finger every once in a while, to a nebulous front-loading argument where a designer—come on, we all know it's the Christian god—just sort of got the ball rolling), must have been driven by God some unnamed Intelligent Designer.

Now, here's your assignment: I want you to try to imagine an observation or series of observations that would falsify—i.e., make it extremely unlikely to be true—Intelligent Design "theory."

While not the last word in "demarcation criteria"—separating science from non-science—falsification is an important criterion. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, it's a pretty safe bet that it ain't science. And I've never heard a single ID advocate ever come up with an example of an observation or series of observations that would definitively falsify ID.

(hint: a statement on the level of "proof that evolution happens" won't cut it. First, that's not an observation, and second, unguided evolution will not falsify ID. Think about it a bit and you'll see why.)

Now, if you need any help with this, I'll give an example of an observation or series of observations that would falsify the Theory of Evolution, or at minimum its most central precept: common descent with modification of all life from one or a small number of common ancestors. Hell, I can give you a whole bunch of them.

But if you cannot, despite wracking your brains for two weeks, come up with an observation that would falsify Intelligent Design, don't feel bad. No one else, proponent or opponent of ID, has been able to come up with one either.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:23   

Hey, Eric, welcome back!

Done filleting AFDave for the time being?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:40   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 10 2007,21:23)
Hey, Eric, welcome back!

Done filleting AFDave for the time being?

Dave's been AFK since yesterday (I think BWE scared the crap out of him in his formal debate on dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating), so I got bored.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:46   

have you seen Deadman return?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:51   

AFDave, it seems, has migrated to IIDB.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:54   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,21:46)
have you seen Deadman return?

I think he's too disgusted with the moderation at the Dawkins site. And although I'm still there (I'm really too mild-mannered to show up on the mods' radar), I have to agree with him.

Compared to what in my opinion is the superb job of moderation Stevestory does here, the moderation at the Dawkins site is a joke. We recently were told that accusations, even supported by evidence, were off-limits. So even if AirFarceDave, everyone's favorite pet tardiste, makes clearly false statements, it's off-limits to call him on them, even if you support your claims of dishonesty with evidence.

Goofy.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,00:00   

Quote
Goofy.

yup.

I'm a bit worried about Deadman, though.

nobody seems to have heard from him in a few weeks now.

post back if you see him post anywhere, so we at least know he's still around and about.

he might have gotten busy getting ready to make the jump to NZ, but something seems not quite right.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,05:57   

Quote (PennyBright @ June 10 2007,21:52)
FtK's problem is not about being educated -- it's about being educable.

Penny,

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

Ok you have won another prize. This is right on the money again. I'm running out of cheques!

Louis

P.S. FTK that isn't nasty btw, being educable speaks as much to attitude (i.e. something over which one has some control) as much as ability (less so).

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,06:03   

The moderation at RDF is goofy indeed. I'm having a "conversation" with one of their admins by email at the moment after I worked spectacularly hard to get banned. The conversation thus far has consisted of him agreeing with me and then merely repeating the same claims that he's just agreed are false. Apparently the RDF are not part of this universe, their physics and logic are different.

I'm really conflicted about it as it happens because I want to believe that I am dealing with a sane and honest and intelligent human being who is merely mistaken. Sad thing is I think I'm wrong about at least one of those.

Louis

P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

--------------
Bye.

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,11:55   

Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,05:57)
 
Quote (PennyBright @ June 10 2007,21:52)
FtK's problem is not about being educated -- it's about being educable.

Penny,

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

Ok you have won another prize. This is right on the money again. I'm running out of cheques!

Louis

P.S. FTK that isn't nasty btw, being educable speaks as much to attitude (i.e. something over which one has some control) as much as ability (less so).

Well spoken, Penny and Louis

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,12:47   

Excellent.  I will try to answer your questions, Ftk.  Now, I am no biologist, just an actor, but I'm going to explain this in my own words, without linking to anything.  You should try this once in a while--I'm not poking at you, here.  But if you write posts and comments in your own words and actually address the issues you'll find two things happen:

1.  Your brain engages and you start to think critically about the issues.

2.  You reveal your level of understanding of the issues.  At this point, other people can step in and help you more easily because they know the specifics of where to start.  This will now be seen as the more knowledgeable people here correct my following comment.

[QUOTE]Okay, let’s try this again...I’ll ask Blipey this time...

Quote
2.  Long before Darwin, both creationists and evolutionists were aware that organisms share similiarities, though they disagree as to why that is.  We also know that before Darwin, similiarities were already being classified, and there would be no reason why those classifications wouldn’t have continued to be updated as further research took place.


As Icky said above, there were no evolutionists before Darwin.  Biology at this point was mostly classification, observational.  Anyone can observe and write down findings.  An easy way to see the differences of even this observational science is to take a look at how species have been grouped over the years.  As evolutionary biologists continued to do research and as the science of genetics has  grown, species have been reclassified.  The question is could creationists have done this reclassification?

Well, I say probably so, but would they have even tried?  In the classic creationist label of "kinds" we see a limitation of how creationists look at the world.  Your example of  "environmental similarities" shows this.  As Lenny has asked, why do fish and dolphins have different genes if they both are ocean-going creatures that look very similar?  A creationist who observes these similarities has no reason to continue to pursue knowledge of these species as regards their lineage.  If he does quit looking, he stops on the wrong answer.

Now, an evolutionist, working from common descent, notices that there are similarities between whales and hippos (not something that is apparent at first thought, perhaps).  Continuing to research this, they find morphological similarities between the two that add credence to CD.

Quote
Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?


The key here is understanding of the classification system--the why.  A creationist can say with confidence that "these things are similar, I have looked at them".  Now he asks why.  His answer is that the Designer made them that way.  Now, did the designer:

1.  use similar parts to make their bodies look the same, but their organs are arranged differently?
2.  use similar parts to make their immune systems work similarly, but their body plans are completely dissimilar?
3.  come up with a completely new way to provide a similar function?  what is the Designer's goal--the same parts?  the same ends?  how do we know?

The theory of common design requires us to know what the purpose of the Designer is.  This is something that IDers say cannot be done.  If it cannot be done, how can we possibly use the theory of common design?  If the Designer is unknown and unknowable, the theory of common design is useless from the get-go.

Now, the theory of common descent allows us to structure the plethora of living things into a knowable order.  Using this knowable order we can predict traits, proteins, and abilities that things in this order may have by comparing them to other things that have a common ancestor.

A common design theory doesn't let us know what the commonality might be.  We simply can't know before hand, unless we steal the blueprints from the designer.  We only know what the similarity is AFTER finding it.

A common descent theory allows us to say "hey, we might find this sort of thing here, because other things that are close to it in the hierarchy also have it.  We predict what we might find BEFORE looking for it, by an educated guess, not blind guessing.

Quote
Can an evolutionist, due to his beliefs about common descent, look into a crystal ball and predict exactly which tree is needed and use this knowledge to propose novel ideas without researching and classifying all the trees first?


Yes.  Sometimes he will be wrong, but he has a much better chance of being right than a creationist operating from a notion of common design.  By looking up the hierarchy, he can make educated guesses as to what he will find as he works his way down the hierachy--BEFORE observing the trees.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,12:55   

Quote (blipey @ June 11 2007,12:47)
As Icky said above, there were no evolutionists before Darwin.  Biology at this point was mostly classification, observational.  Anyone can observe and write down findings.  An easy way to see the differences of even this observational science is to take a look at how species have been grouped over the years.  As evolutionary biologists continued to do research and as the science of genetics has  grown, species have been reclassified.  The question is could creationists have done this reclassification?

Well, I say probably so, but would they have even tried?  In the classic creationist label of "kinds" we see a limitation of how creationists look at the world.  Your example of  "environmental similarities" shows this.  As Lenny has asked, why do fish and dolphins have different genes if they both are ocean-going creatures that look very similar?  A creationist who observes these similarities has no reason to continue to pursue knowledge of these species as regards their lineage.  If he does quit looking, he stops on the wrong answer.

As supplemental reading associated with this particular thought, you might look at a previous ATBC thread that featured a sporadic and short lived appearance by a bona fide Fellow of the Discovery Institute.  I present to you, Cornelius Hunter.

--------------
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!)

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,13:17   

Quote
As Icky said above, there were no evolutionists before Darwin.


actually, Lamarck could be considered someone who produced theories to explain evolution.

rather I was more interested in seeing what she thought an "evolutionist" actually was, and to see where she thought theories to explain evolution existed LONG before Darwin.

secondarily, even these theories that existed shortly before and during Darwin are FAR different than the proposals of creationists.

thirdly, I was hoping she would actually see that the proposals of creationists have NOT changed since "Long before Darwin", and why that is so.

The reason i bother to explain this is that it's extremely unlikely she would have ever bothered to explore her own statement for veracity anyway.

uneducable, indeed.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,19:52   

My $.02:

This is a link to an easy to read, easy to understand basic evolution site developed at Berkeley.

I like to look at pictures, so this is perfect for me, and it may even help others that are interested in learing how evo really works.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

Once we get past the basics, then we can go on to a more meaningful discussion of why ID is NOT science.

--------------
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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,19:56   

yeah, the paleo guys at Berkeley started that a few years after I left.

lots of good resources there.

I think PT also provides a link to that site, under the "evolution resources" tab.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4908
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,20:44   

The Berkeley UCMP "Understanding Evolution" site was developed with NCSE as a consulting partner.

I think the UCMP is/was being sued over that. I'll have to ask someone how that is going.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,20:48   

What's the suit about?

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,20:54   

ditto steve's question.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4908
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,21:04   

Somebody didn't like that the UCMP site, produced with NSF funding, put the fact that there are a lot of Christian believers who have no problem with evolutionary science within the site. They were claiming this violated the constitution on establishment grounds.

About the last word on the topic was that there was a dismissal in 2006, and I seem to recall that the plaintiff said she would appeal that ruling. I don't know about more recent activity.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,21:08   

Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,06:03)
The moderation at RDF is goofy indeed. I'm having a "conversation" with one of their admins by email at the moment after I worked spectacularly hard to get banned. The conversation thus far has consisted of him agreeing with me and then merely repeating the same claims that he's just agreed are false. Apparently the RDF are not part of this universe, their physics and logic are different.

I'm really conflicted about it as it happens because I want to believe that I am dealing with a sane and honest and intelligent human being who is merely mistaken. Sad thing is I think I'm wrong about at least one of those.

Louis

P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

Oh, boy. Tell me about it. I've been commenting there for the past few months, and it's got to the stage where I've pretty much had enough.

The final straw was this thread by Bodhi:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16655

RD.net calls itself a "clear-thinking oasis", but not only do they allow people like Bodhi to post brainless drivel, but the moderators threaten anyone who understandably ridicules such tard with a ban!

They allow certifiable morons to shit in the water source and defile the coconuts, rather than telling them to disappear back into the desert. Some oasis.


Although I don't comment here very often, I do read the threads most days, and I have to say, Wes and Steve's moderation is damned good.

And not only is this a great oasis of reasoned thought, but also of great humour. Keep it up guys. It's very much appreciated.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,21:17   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 11 2007,21:04)
Somebody didn't like that the UCMP site, produced with NSF funding, put the fact that there are a lot of Christian believers who have no problem with evolutionary science within the site. They were claiming this violated the constitution on establishment grounds.

About the last word on the topic was that there was a dismissal in 2006, and I seem to recall that the plaintiff said she would appeal that ruling. I don't know about more recent activity.

ah!

the way your first post was worded, for some reason i was thinking NCSE was suing for copyright infringement or something.

just more nutters suing berkeley then.

meh, nothing new there.

what would be really funny, is if those suing under the establishment clause asked the ACLU to help them.

heh.

but of course, since it clearly has nothing to do with the establishment clause, the ACLU would have refused.

but then, those filing suit likely knew that before they even filed it.

just being morons wanting to prove a non-existent point, most likely.

oh, wait, I just had an evil thought...

they should contact Larry Farfromsane to be on their legal team!

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,21:46   

Quote (ericmurphy @ June 11 2007,00:54)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,21:46)
have you seen Deadman return?

I think he's too disgusted with the moderation at the Dawkins site. And although I'm still there (I'm really too mild-mannered to show up on the mods' radar), I have to agree with him.

Compared to what in my opinion is the superb job of moderation Stevestory does here, the moderation at the Dawkins site is a joke. We recently were told that accusations, even supported by evidence, were off-limits. So even if AirFarceDave, everyone's favorite pet tardiste, makes clearly false statements, it's off-limits to call him on them, even if you support your claims of dishonesty with evidence.

Goofy.

I have a much easier job than they do. I only have to be consistent with myself. That's hard enough. They have to be consistent with other moderators, which is much harder.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,21:48   

Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2007,01:46   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,22:00)
 
Quote
Goofy.

yup.

I'm a bit worried about Deadman, though.

nobody seems to have heard from him in a few weeks now.

post back if you see him post anywhere, so we at least know he's still around and about.

He posted tonight on one of Dave's many threads. So he's still alive, and evidently was busy on some writing project.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2007,02:14   

thanks eric,

i'll try a bit harder to reach him.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,08:52   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.

I feel obligated to remind FtK that I, and several other folks, have asked her to provide an example of unwarranted speculation (i.e. speculation that is not labeled as such) in that textbook. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but so far she has ignored it. So I am asking again. Please back up this statement with some evidence, or retract it.

thanks in advance

--------------
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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,11:26   

Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,21:48)
Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.

Quick, someone patent "Singularity beer"

"Stringest beer in the universe" - DT.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,11:44   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 13 2007,08:52)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.

I feel obligated to remind FtK that I, and several other folks, have asked her to provide an example of unwarranted speculation (i.e. speculation that is not labeled as such) in that textbook. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but so far she has ignored it. So I am asking again. Please back up this statement with some evidence, or retract it.

thanks in advance

seconded. FTK has repeated this claim so often that not to back it up is, well, just not on, ok?

--------------
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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,11:51   

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 13 2007,11:26)
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,21:48)
Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.

Quick, someone patent "Singularity beer"

"Stringest beer in the universe" - DT.

How about this for a marketing campaign?

High Gravity Beer - Strongest Beer in the Universe.  Way Stronger than Strong Nuclear Beer!!

--------------
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!)

  
JohnW



Posts: 2840
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,11:58   

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 13 2007,11:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 13 2007,11:26)
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,21:48)
 
Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.

Quick, someone patent "Singularity beer"

"Stringest beer in the universe" - DT.

How about this for a marketing campaign?

High Gravity Beer - Strongest Beer in the Universe.  Way Stronger than Strong Nuclear Beer!!

Black Hole Beer: Get it down, and you'll never get it up.

--------------
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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,13:29   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 13 2007,08:52)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.

I feel obligated to remind FtK that I, and several other folks, have asked her to provide an example of unwarranted speculation (i.e. speculation that is not labeled as such) in that textbook. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but so far she has ignored it. So I am asking again. Please back up this statement with some evidence, or retract it.

thanks in advance

not only that, but she has that "basic" biology text that you sent her to pour through.

of course, she'll never bother to even open it because it's "beneath" her level of knowledge.

I do hope that folks are at least beginning to realize why I keep recommending she seek therapy.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,13:40   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 13 2007,14:29)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 13 2007,08:52)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.

I feel obligated to remind FtK that I, and several other folks, have asked her to provide an example of unwarranted speculation (i.e. speculation that is not labeled as such) in that textbook. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but so far she has ignored it. So I am asking again. Please back up this statement with some evidence, or retract it.

thanks in advance

not only that, but she has that "basic" biology text that you sent her to pour through.

of course, she'll never bother to even open it because it's "beneath" her level of knowledge.

I do hope that folks are at least beginning to realize why I keep recommending she seek therapy.

I remember once offering to send a creationist an old College Biology 101 textbook of mine, so he would at least switch from utterly ignorant wrong arguments to slightly informed wrong arguments. His response? "Why should I spend time reading that stuff when I can already refute all the science?"


   
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,13:48   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 10 2007,19:49)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:36)
Stephen,

You seem to be quite certain that I am being deceived and that you, after several discussions here, have finally seen the light.  When did this occur and what was it that brought you to reality?

Are there old threads I can read where you initially supported ID?  Where are the threads that document your conversion.  I'd be curious to see what the heck brought out of "delusion" and into reality.

To be fair ftk,
My conversion was not on this blog but "Pandas Thumb". But it wasn't really a conversion. I just "followed the evidence".

The thing is that there are no simplistic answers here. You just get a shed load of convergent evidence. All of which are backed up by arguments with evidence/explanations. It is much cooler than arguments from authority.

Guess what. If you can actually provide contrarian evidence, people would actually listen.

You would need actual evidence though.




BTW. You have definately been decieved. Somebody has lied to you.

Hi Steven,
just thought I'd pick up on your point and say ditto (though for me it was simply talk origins and a few good posts on a discussion forum that did it).

Again, it was just following the evidence. There was no assumption on my part: like all of a sudden I was going to just assume that we evolved instead (wow look, it too fits!!!). My assumption already was that we were specially created yadayada...

But the evidence, well that was pretty strong. Overwhelming in-fact. Damn those chromosomes!

Rather than a conversion, it would probably be right to call it a "lifting of weight". It was a wow moment for sure.

Afterwards I think it took me about three days to have a meaningful conversation about anything (I probably spent the meantime racing the world's best F1 cars playing GP2).

Glad you had a mind for the opening. Thus begins an enlightenment.

Cheers
Spags

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,14:09   

Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 13 2007,13:48)
Hi Steven,
just thought I'd pick up on your point and say ditto (though for me it was simply talk origins and a few good posts on a discussion forum that did it).

Again, it was just following the evidence. There was no assumption on my part: like all of a sudden I was going to just assume that we evolved instead (wow look, it too fits!!!). My assumption already was that we were specially created yadayada...

But the evidence, well that was pretty strong. Overwhelming in-fact. Damn those chromosomes!

Rather than a conversion, it would probably be right to call it a "lifting of weight". It was a wow moment for sure.

Afterwards I think it took me about three days to have a meaningful conversation about anything (I probably spent the meantime racing the world's best F1 cars playing GP2).

Glad you had a mind for the opening. Thus begins an enlightenment.

Cheers
Spags

Hello Spags and welcome to AtBc,

Ref. changing sides: For me the worst bit was realising that I had swallowed lies hook line and sinker. That was rather humiliating.

I hope that you enjoy your time here.

Dawkins site is very dissapointing. I find it hard to believe that he is aware of how bad it is. His books are way too enlightening for that to seem credible.

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,14:13   

JohnW:
Quote
Black Hole Beer: Get it down, and you'll never get it up.


Once you go Black, you ain't comin' back...

Hey, spags!  Hope we'll be seeing you again in a week or two over at dawkins.net!

I must say that your adieu post--er, you know, the one that "invited" your ban--was articulation at its most pointed!  The Dawkins' mods should've been requesting permission to use your verbiage as an example of creative insult...!

  
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,14:16   

Having a wrong idea and admitting you were wrong is a mild embarrassment, and it passes. Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea long after everyone else knows it's wrong.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,14:58   

Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2007,12:16)
Having a wrong idea and admitting you were wrong is a mild embarrassment, and it passes. Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea long after everyone else knows it's wrong.

Welcome to AFDave's world!

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,14:59   

Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2007,14:16)
Having a wrong idea and admitting you were wrong is a mild embarrassment, and it passes. Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea long after everyone else knows it's wrong.

Can you please sign up at UD and get this post put up over there.  Please hurry....

--------------
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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4818
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,15:06   

Re "Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea"

Maybe they should go to a store and get some of that Cling-Free stuff...

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,17:46   

I was just noticing how far this thread was from the top.  For the life of me, I can't figure out what would cause that.  Hmmm.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,17:50   

FTK presents me with a dilemma. As a near eternal optimist I hope and long for her to actually make some sense.

As a realist, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion this ain't going to happen. What worries me is that fact genuinely saddens me. {sigh}

Oh well.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,17:54   

Quote (Louis @ June 15 2007,17:50)
FTK presents me with a dilemma. As a near eternal optimist I hope and long for her to actually make some sense.

As a realist, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion this ain't going to happen. What worries me is that fact genuinely saddens me. {sigh}

Oh well.

Louis

meh, it's become such a common occurrence, it doesn't really bother me much any more.

I'd be happy at the converse, though, as that would be truly UNexpected.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,18:05   

Unexpected, sure I agree. It would be fun though.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2007,17:38   

Hi again Stephen, thanks for the welcome.

Yeah, the joy of realising how badly i'd been duped. For me that came far later on the science in total - the Gulo/Genetic Plagiarism article did it in a way which allowed me to bypass the full science battle: up to then it had been a "could be evo/ could be creo" kind of thing in my mind with me coming down on the creo side. I think I still held to theism for a few years after.

If I think about it the true vaccuity of YEC only really became apparent to me with AFDave's advent at RD. Until then I'd just gone with the "well we evolved, no big deal" thought.

Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2007,20:16)
Having a wrong idea and admitting you were wrong is a mild embarrassment, and it passes. Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea long after everyone else knows it's wrong.
Couldn't agree less. If you're right you're right, even if everyone else thinks you're wrong, that just proves you're right. For example, when 146 out of 148 people say they're not convinced by your argument one iota, then the likeliest scenario and most parsimonious explanation has to be that they're wrong. Right? or am i missing something. I mean, all those competent creationist scientists can't all be wrong can they? After all, as christians they're commited to Teh Truthiness.

Cheers
Spags

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2007,20:01   

hey spags-

quick question (ok, maybe not so quick):

long running argument over appeasment vs. confrontation  everywhere (ok, maybe just the science blogs) these days.

what were your reactions to the various presentations?

did you find the fact-oriented in your face approach to be convincing?

or the more, well we won't cut out the religion, but here is something to make you think, kinda, angle?

know what I'm talking about?

kind of the Brayton vs. PZ approach.  or maybe the Matzke vs. PZ approach, depending on where you stand.

I'm going to guess that since you appreciate the likes of Deadman and BWE, you're probably in the "in your face style" camp?

oh, and check the post by Nick on the front page of PT that he made for one of the resident creationists.

do you think Nick was right that this kind of presentation of the 'appearance of age' argument means the person is a few months away from "deconversion"?

not to offend, but you're a valuable data point in an ongoing argument over the best strategic approach to this issue, and a relatively rare data point at that.

would you mind if i picked your brains a bit on this issue in the future?

thanks

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2007,20:44   

Yes, - Welcome Spags, and do tell.  I'll put some more coffee on.  Or fix you a drink, whatever.

--------------
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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2007,21:19   

Quote
For me that came far later on the science in total - the Gulo/Genetic Plagiarism article did it


I know I should know the answer to this question, but what article? Have a link?

Quote
If I think about it the true vaccuity of YEC only really became apparent to me with AFDave's advent at RD. Until then I'd just gone with the "well we evolved, no big deal" thought.


Yeah, I've never been able to fathom that mindset whereby creationists seem to get so personally offended by being evolved from apes. It's never bothered me in the slightest. If anything, I think it's kind of cool that we accomplished something that remarkable. But there's a certain type of Christianist that seems to think it's the biggest mortal insult imaginable. The same kind of simple-minded Christianist who thinks nontheists all suffer from some kind of 'moral relativism' that turns them into monsters with no moral compass, I guess.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 4818
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2007,22:39   

Re "seem to get so personally offended by being evolved from apes."

Yeah, I also wonder why and how somebody can think being offensive makes it wrong somehow.

Heck, if they're offended by relationship with apes, what about the (more distant) relationships with some other things, like bats, mice, lizards, frogs, fish, starfish, worms, sponges, fungi, or amoeba. (Listed in order of increasing "distance", unless I goofed.)

Course, being related can be a disadvantage when something else's disease manages to adapt to a new host. (Well, nobody said the conclusions of the ToE were necessarily pleasant.)

Henry

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2007,23:13   

Quote (Henry J @ June 16 2007,22:39)
Course, being related can be a disadvantage when something else's disease manages to adapt to a new host. (Well, nobody said the conclusions of the ToE were necessarily pleasant.)

And you don't have to be all that closely related for that. Influenza originally came from pigs, for example.

But you're right that we're not likely to catch any diseases from, say, horseshoe crabs.

Are we closer to bats than to mice?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 4818
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,00:26   

Re "Are we closer to bats than to mice? "

That's what Tree of Life says. Primates, tree shrews, bats, and flying lemurs are in one of the major divisions. Rabbits, rodents and elephant shrews are in another. (Regular shrews in a third.)

Henry

  
nuytsia



Posts: 131
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,01:10   

Quote (Henry J @ June 17 2007,00:26)
Re "Are we closer to bats than to mice? "

That's what Tree of Life says. Primates, tree shrews, bats, and flying lemurs are in one of the major divisions. Rabbits, rodents and elephant shrews are in another. (Regular shrews in a third.)

Henry

I think this paper (Bininda-Emonds ORP, Cardillo M, Jones KE, MacPhee RDE, Beck RMD, Grenyer R, Price SA, Vos RA, Gittleman JL, Purvis A (2007) The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature 446:507-511.) recently revised all that. Larry Moran and Mike Dunford give overviews on the paper.

Very cool pdf available at the BBC.

Looks like Primates now lie closest to Lagomorphs and Rodents. Unless something newer has turned up? :-)

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1402
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,02:10   

Thanks for links, esp. Sandwalk and comments, Nuytsia

  
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,09:21   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 16 2007,21:19)
 
Quote
For me that came far later on the science in total - the Gulo/Genetic Plagiarism article did it


I know I should know the answer to this question, but what article? Have a link?

Here it is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,09:50   

Quote (ck1 @ June 17 2007,09:21)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 16 2007,21:19)
   
Quote
For me that came far later on the science in total - the Gulo/Genetic Plagiarism article did it


I know I should know the answer to this question, but what article? Have a link?

Here it is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

Yeah, FtK should read that article. If she got all the way through it (which is an assumption I am not willing to make), and if she understood the biology of it (an assumption for which we have abundant contrary evidence), she might have a better idea why her hand-waving rationalizations and Gish-quoting re the icefish globin genes are pooh-poohed here.

It is hard to argue for special creation when confronted with the evidence outlined in that article. How about it, FtK?  Once you get past those other pesky questions about icefish etc., can you read this linked article and tell us your thoughts?

--------------
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

   
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,10:06   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2007,02:01)
hey spags-

quick question (ok, maybe not so quick):

long running argument over appeasment vs. confrontation  everywhere (ok, maybe just the science blogs) these days.

what were your reactions to the various presentations?

Hi Ichthy,
for me it has to be a combination: confront the "movement" of ID/YEC, but each individal on the most appropriate basis. Confronting the YEC individual is only really worth it with the arrogant, thick skulled variety for whom facts/evidence have no relevance. People like AFDave (In my serious opinion) are only really de-convertable by full deprogramming: they have been brainwashed and are under the influence of mind control. For people like him maybe finding the hooks on this subject would be more appropriate, he aint budgin on evo until his eyes are opened to the methods of mind control. The difficulty is getting the person to recognise that they are a victim of this, but it can be done.
Quote


did you find the fact-oriented in your face approach to be convincing?
For me, definitely. There was no way, after reading the Max article that I could get away from it. I came across another article on the flood was well, amazing. It dealt with the maths and physics and I could see that it was impossible for the flood to have happened. Between the two it was evident that a) we iz apes, and b) da bibble is not rite.
Quote

or the more, well we won't cut out the religion, but here is something to make you think, kinda, angle?
Actally that's pretty close to how it happened. I was on an EX-JWs BB and my own "ministry" was in combatting cult mind-control (to me any sect which practiced heavy works based religion was a cult, though as an ex-JW it was my particular avenue). Someone posted links to both articles with very little comment at all. Max's intro hooked me because I had been involved in a plagiarism case at work and knew how we'd caught the perpetrator and proved it (deliberate errors). The argument was poignant to me for that reason.  
Quote

know what I'm talking about?
Yup. I think for me it was the absence of any real commentary which made it easy to click the links. The poster was an Ex-JW with whom i'd had some good discussions and a great laugh, therfore I think I trusted him so didn't really question whether or not to click.
Quote

kind of the Brayton vs. PZ approach.  or maybe the Matzke vs. PZ approach, depending on where you stand.
I need to have a read up on this stuff.
Quote

I'm going to guess that since you appreciate the likes of Deadman and BWE, you're probably in the "in your face style" camp?
In the right circumstances, or when dealing with a particlar breed of fundie it is the only option on fora. Like I say, Dave could be deprogrammed IMHO, it just aint happening while he's in his comfort zone. I think the direct approach is useful at putting people like Dave off balance, which as we see can lead to some choice tard moments. The usefulness here is only to the wider argument, and of course to the cause of humour.
Quote

oh, and check the post by Nick on the front page of PT that he made for one of the resident creationists.
Ok,
Quote

do you think Nick was right that this kind of presentation of the 'appearance of age' argument means the person is a few months away from "deconversion"?
It does carry some weight, since the reaonable deduction is that the person is considering the opposite viewpoint and recognising some validity to it. However, I've heard Dave acknowledge the appearance of age before, yet he's still to make the link.
Quote

not to offend, but you're a valuable data point in an ongoing argument over the best strategic approach to this issue, and a relatively rare data point at that.
No offence taken, I just hope I'm a useful resource.
Quote

would you mind if i picked your brains a bit on this issue in the future?
Go ahead, wire me up and stick a colander on my head.
Quote

thanks

You're welcome ;)

Cheers
Spags

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,10:12   

Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2007,02:44)
Yes, - Welcome Spags, and do tell.  I'll put some more coffee on.  Or fix you a drink, whatever.

Cheers J-Dog, fire away.
Got any 12 yr old Laphroaig? I'll have two fingers with a little jug of distilled water.
Cheers
;)

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,10:59   

Quote
It is hard to argue for special creation when confronted with the evidence outlined in that article. How about it, FtK?  Once you get past those other pesky questions about icefish etc., can you read this linked article and tell us your thoughts?


Let me translate that for you Ftk.  Alby really means "can you read this article and discuss the technical aspects of it and the specific problems you have with it"?

Please don't say things like "Creationists don't..." or "an evolutionary paradigm doesn't allow us..."

Stick to the points made in the paper, please.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,13:17   

Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 17 2007,10:12)
Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2007,02:44)
Yes, - Welcome Spags, and do tell.  I'll put some more coffee on.  Or fix you a drink, whatever.

Cheers J-Dog, fire away.
Got any 12 yr old Laphroaig? I'll have two fingers with a little jug of distilled water.
Cheers
;)

You'll find the scotch pours freely around here.  You may want to check out the libations thread.  Welcome aboard and I don't have any Laphroaig, but I do have: 21 yr Balvenie, 12 yr Madeira-wood Glenmorangie, and a pour or two of Ardbeg resting in my cabinet.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,13:30   

Quote
I need to have a read up on this stuff.


thanks, spags.

I was going to say some, but really it is ALL the longest, most contentious threads on both PT and Pharyngula have essentially revolved around this issue in one form or another.

I'll try to dig up links to a few of them for you to pour through and see what various participants have been saying about the issue for the last few years.  I'll post them here (in this post) for you as I dig them up.

fair warning, some of them get quite nasty (as nasty as an AFDave thread)

:)

oh, and of course yours truly has mixed it up a few times in some of those threads, occasionally even barking loudly.

some of the issue gets touched on in the thread I mentioned that Nick set up for Marc Hausam:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/biblical_inerra.html

but even more of it really gets addressed in the threads about Allan McNeill that appeared on PT a while back.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Henry J



Posts: 4818
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,18:49   

Re "I think this paper (Bininda-Emonds ORP, Cardillo M, Jones KE, MacPhee RDE, Beck RMD, Grenyer R, Price SA, Vos RA, Gittleman JL, Purvis A (2007) The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature 446:507-511.) recently revised all that."

Oh rats. I guess the Tree of Life site was based on best knowledge when it was written, and I reckon keeping a thing that large up to date is likely to be a major (and continuous) effort, but it is annoying to say something based on it and then find out otherwise. So bats and/or primates are shown in the wrong place there? And some months back, Lenny said they had turtles in the wrong place relative to the other orders of reptile (and reptiles are his specialty, iirc).

Henry

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,20:22   

Quote (Henry J @ June 17 2007,16:49)
Oh rats. I guess the Tree of Life site was based on best knowledge when it was written, and I reckon keeping a thing that large up to date is likely to be a major (and continuous) effort, but it is annoying to say something based on it and then find out otherwise. So bats and/or primates are shown in the wrong place there? And some months back, Lenny said they had turtles in the wrong place relative to the other orders of reptile (and reptiles are his specialty, iirc).

Henry

If you stick with the "Consensus Phylogenetic Tree," you're probably safe:




Nothing here is likely to change any time soon. When you get out to crown groups, things get more controversial.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
khan



Posts: 1528
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,20:48   

Is there a time line for that chart?

--------------
"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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,21:34   

What cowards! No mention of slime molds or stromatolites!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,01:16   

Quote (khan @ June 17 2007,18:48)
Is there a time line for that chart?

Not in the article it comes from, although most of those taxa appeared between 1 billion and 100 million years ago. There are a few exceptions (the earliest eukaryotes probably appeared more than a billion years ago), and cetartiodactyls and the hominids more recently than 100 million years ago).

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,01:17   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 17 2007,19:34)
What cowards! No mention of slime molds or stromatolites!

Well, stromatolites are colonies of bacteria, right? And bacteria are there, way over on the left.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,13:15   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2007,19:30)
     
Quote
I need to have a read up on this stuff.


thanks, spags.

I was going to say some, but really it is ALL the longest, most contentious threads on both PT and Pharyngula have essentially revolved around this issue in one form or another.

I'll try to dig up links to a few of them for you to pour through and see what various participants have been saying about the issue for the last few years.  I'll post them here (in this post) for you as I dig them up.
If it seems worth it we could always consider a new thread I suppose... see how it flows for now.      
Quote

fair warning, some of them get quite nasty (as nasty as an AFDave thread)

:)

oh, and of course yours truly has mixed it up a few times in some of those threads, occasionally even barking loudly.
I know the feeling. There are certain problems inherent in the whole forum approach when dealing wth such contentious issues. Generally the believers which come forward onto the fora are of the entrenched variety: those who are most deeply involved in the intricacies of YEC pseudo-science. They have learned the language and applied the mental filters most successfully. They have a calling. Most likely they display a strong RWA  personality (this book is a must read!)  
Quote

some of the issue gets touched on in the thread I mentioned that Nick set up for Marc Hausam:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/biblical_inerra.html
I've started reading it and I've noted the point that a willingness to recognize the "appearance of age" brings the double-think to the fore, and I would agree that there is a greater likelyhood of this person's cognitive dissonance becoming unbearable. If the issue was solely the evidence then the progression would be logical, but there are many other variables at work for the believer; their faith is reinforced and practiced, shepherded and governed through church and family.The deprogramming as to the interpretation of evidence requires alot more IMO, though the acceptance of some validity to the old-earth view is a strong point.    
Quote

but even more of it really gets addressed in the threads about Allan McNeill that appeared on PT a while back.
I'm very interested in McNeill's "ID Course" experiment as his approach was novel AFAIK. What outcomes were there? I'd love to be able to hear from some of those who took part, and what McNeill himself thought of it. I would assume McNeill holds alot of respect for Sanford, so his approach is much more sympathetic/polite from what I've read.

I certainly haven't spent enought time at PT.

As it goes, I'm still learning to think! So thinking about this stuff wasn't really on the radar until AFDave came along. But heck, I've learned some excellent stuff since Dave dragged a few of you lot over there (to RD), so if there's anything I can bring to the table, maybe I oughta.

Cheers
spags

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,14:16   

To get some of what went n at Cornell last summer, you should peruse:

The blog the class (mostly Hannah Maxson, IDEA club officer) kept during the semester.  Some of the class's papers are up as well.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,14:34   

Quote (blipey @ June 18 2007,20:16)
To get some of what went n at Cornell last summer, you should peruse:

The blog the class (mostly Hannah Maxson, IDEA club officer) kept during the semester.  Some of the class's papers are up as well.

Many thanks.

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,14:40   

be careful, though, many of the more "vehement" posts were removed.

again, you should also see the discussion on PT we had with Allen after the course was finished.

I'm still of the opinion that there is NO evidence whatsoever that his approach was anything other than a course in reinforcement for both sides, and served as free advertising for the likes of ID supporters like Hannah.

example of how the course was played on by ID supporters:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/_riding_the_evo.html

Indeed, looking this course is a good representation of the very issue I was asking you about.

take your time, though, there is a LOT there to chew on.

I'm still trying to locate the thread Pim Van Meurs put up aboout the course a few months back that garnered such a long thread.  if somebody else finds it before I do, feel free to post the link.

here's one of the threads:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/_riding_the_evo.html

an I believe this is the one I was thinking of originally:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/our_innate_tend.html

pay close attention to the claims those supporting the course were making as opposed to the actual evidence presented as to the course's efficacy.

oh, and IIRC, this is also a separate thread here on this topic here at ATBC as well (was a few months back).
I'll dredge it up to continue the discussion, if you wish.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,17:09   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 18 2007,20:40)
be careful, though, many of the more "vehement" posts were removed.

again, you should also see the discussion on PT we had with Allen after the course was finished.

I'm still of the opinion that there is NO evidence whatsoever that his approach was anything other than a course in reinforcement for both sides, and served as free advertising for the likes of ID supporters like Hannah.
From what I've seen Hannah is a particularly strong example. She calls "insult" far too often in the face of reasonable questions. I was reading the CSI thread which really had me grinning. At least there's a formula offered (which is later qualified as only part of the overall - still not put forward - algebra)  
Quote

example of how the course was played on by ID supporters:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/_riding_the_evo.html

Indeed, looking this course is a good representation of the very issue I was asking you about.
Bagged to hard drive, will digest.  
Quote


take your time, though, there is a LOT there to chew on.
Will do, alot of other reading going on atm.  
Quote


I'm still trying to locate the thread Pim Van Meurs put up aboout the course a few months back that garnered such a long thread.  if somebody else finds it before I do, feel free to post the link.

here's one of the threads:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/_riding_the_evo.html
Cheers. I think that's the same link as above?
Quote


an I believe this is the one I was thinking of originally:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/our_innate_tend.html
Ok, I'll read that one first.  
Quote


pay close attention to the claims those supporting the course were making as opposed to the actual evidence presented as to the course's efficacy.

oh, and IIRC, this is also a separate thread here on this topic here at ATBC as well (was a few months back).
I'll dredge it up to continue the discussion, if you wish.


Cheers again Ichthy...

alot to digest, I'm trying to follow alot of it but it gets hard to follow one thread of thought because of the huge number of fallacies and diversions which appear from point one in any creo-argument.

I see alot of "symmetry" claims: e.g. the evidence appears to support either view depending on your old-earth versus young-earth presumption. This is where the difficulty comes in: they simply cannot accept that there is no such thing as an "old-earth presumption", although there was once a "young-earth presumption" (which they themselves claim) until such time as the evidence invalidated it. I really think these guys should all be forced to take a basic philosophy course. Learning not to weasel around definitions, how to build a logical progression from a sound premise, in short, identifying logical fallacies, etc. It's done me the world of good.

Another point they really need help with is that in developing a timeline we must work backwards from today, following the evidence in progression back in time. It is not done from assuming some historic event (e.g. creation week) and working from that, which they (through supposed symmetry again) accuse "darwinists" of doing likewise (in order to retro-fit evil-ution).

I agree with your thoughts as to how the McNeill exercise has been used by IDists as just a further validation. This was predicted widely of course, based on the observed desperation of the ID/YEC community for "recognition" of any kind. You could call it a very emotionally insecure "theory".

There's alot to read. I've also downloaded the final papers from the Cornell blog, and will give them some time. I was pleased to see the article on "intentionality" as I think this is a key area in understanding consciousness, but also in understanding evolution of abstraction, pattern recognition and other traits, leading to language and mathematics for example. I would love to see how this can be dovetailed with genetics, and I think some success has already been acheived in relation to primates.

Anyways, thanks for all of that.

I think a preliminary comment would be that getting through to anyone with a cultic viewpoint is always difficult, particularly when they're in prozelytising mode. I recall my own behavours: not listening to an argument other than to home in on some point from which I can hang my next discussion. In short, not listening with a view to comprehension. This is because I already knew the truth.

In order to get out of the mind-control of JWs a large shove came in learning to question the authority of the leaders. Anything which obviously spoke to their character was hard to sidestep, and it tended to stay in the mind, naggingly.

That leads to another point: the more aggressive and mouthy the creo-bot becomes in conversation, the greater the dissonance they are experiencing. It pays to tie them down on one point, keep their feet to the fire, force them to face the dissonance. It's hard to do this in open fora. The formal debate can be a great opportunity to put the weaknesses of open forum out of the way and limit the input to two people. Another way, if only it could be made to work, is to limit the number of participants in a thread.

Either way, deprogramming is the key. It's much more than just having the science wrong. The creo doesn't even know how to think, the science is irrelevant. Trust in the authority of the "ministers" of ID/YEC is a foundation which needs to be worn down too.

In the end it has to come down to brainwashing: deconversion requires deprogramming, not science lessons.

Cheers
Spags

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4908
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,17:38   

Quote

In order to get out of the mind-control of JWs a large shove came in learning to question the authority of the leaders. Anything which obviously spoke to their character was hard to sidestep, and it tended to stay in the mind, naggingly.


Some folks on the IDC advocacy side get het up a bit when I mention that.

See my comment here.

Quote

If you want to drive a wedge between an audience of evangelical Christians and the professionals in the ID movement, you need a third approach: show that the ID advocate on stage with you has been lying to his followers. Show misquote after misquote; demonstrate error after checkable error, and make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves. Evangelicals do want to take Christ’s message to the world, but they also have a deep loathing of liars. Of the three approaches, the last one requires the most preparation and care in delivery.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,17:47   

And that's why Salvador's one of the best IDers from our point of view. But the need to believe creationism runs deep. I was surprised when even the people at Telic Thoughts--the least intellectually challenged of the ID folk--defended Salvador's recent quote mine of Darwin, the one where he chopped "As a child..." off a sentence to keep the reader in the dark.

Showing people the dishonesty of the IDers has worked at least once, though, on David Heddle, and possibly on Robert O'Brien too, but that's less clear, because O'Brien seems afraid to say too much.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,17:53   

Quote
She calls "insult" far too often in the face of reasonable questions


oh my!

thanks for being one of the relatively few sane people who were able to see through Hanah right off the bat.

You might be surprised at how many reasonable folks (Allan included!;) are willing to let folks like Sal lie, over and over again, just because of some seemingly ridiculous need to bring a false sense of civility to the discussion.  (see any similarities, BTW? :) )

I do believe Allan himself has learned much from the aftermath of that, and how they treated him on UD.

at this point, though, I think if this thread has any meaning left, we probably should move further discussion to the thread that was created to actually discuss the course results.

now if i can only find it...

got it; i was a bit confused at first, because i forgot the thread is a continuation of a discussion we started before the course had actually started.  Most of the first page or two was mostly meant as a concerted effort at baiting some of the UDites over to the thread, in case it seems a little odd.  You can safely ignore that.  more substantive posts appear shortly thereafter.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....69;st=0

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,18:34   

Cheers Wes,
I think you hit the nail on the head.

The day I was mentally out of the JWs (though it took a while longer to become physically out) was the day my best friend and I looked at each other and said "they lied to us, the bastards!".

With the Watchtower Society we had reams of their published literature to go from. What we found (or rather, what had been pointed out to us) was how they quotemined their own out-of-print books to hide the true nature of their older teachings (which totally contradicted current belief). It was a "he who controls the present controls the past" example laid bare. Thankfully we had access to the out-of-print library and cross referenced for ourselves.

The creo-bot's trust in the authorities is definitely the key there too. And just like the WTS of JWs, the leaders of the ID cult have also printed themselves into a corner.

Altermeyer's The Authoritarians makes the point that the best way to communicate with the RWA is to find common ground. To them lying is often a bad thing, and it is something we can get a hook onto. Many members of most cults are simply misguided people looking for meaning. Most of these people hold the morality teachings of their religion in very high regard, so any unrefutable evidence of lying and duplicity on the part of their leaders will have a massive impact. Until they lose faith in their teachers they will continue to run back to them whenever the dissonance of worldview-contradicting evidence gets too great.

Note how the likes of AFDave appear to do a reboot occasionally, running off for a battery charge, preceded each and every time by greater and greater irrationality. By attacking the foundation (the ID scamsters) we remove the hiding place. Some (such as Dave) will run to the defence of these authorites, but those that don't get a double whammy; they also see the weasley mealey mouthed party apparatchiks - the Brownshirt zealots - in action.

I remember well the feelings I experienced during a similar time for me. Sitting amongst a JW convention of some 8,000 people in a soccer stadium and seeing a collection of faceless robots, an oppressed throng of bored, miserable people busy convincing themselves how happy they were to be there. The lone, sober, preaching voice on the platform, prescribing and pontificating unquestioned doctrines on life and death. What had, in previous years seemed a joyous, fulfilling weekend of "truth" now looked hollow, and felt painful.

I got up and left the stadium, drove to my friends, and watched the Grand Prix on TV with a beer.

A few days later the "Brownshirts" came to visit. Within one week I was an Ex-JW.

Cheers
Spags

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,18:39   

Sorry Ichthy, we crossed posts...
Ummm what's best from here, ask Steve to do the honours or just pick it up over there.
We've already gone two ways here anyway, the Cornell experience and general cultic IDism.

BTW, you've assumed I'm sane, and as you know, assumption makes an "ass" out of "umption" (and I think umption is an important concept not to be assed with).
:)

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,07:01   

Well, now that I've been standing in the corner for a week for being mean to FTK, let's see how much, uh, science she discussed in my absence . . .

(looks around)

Ahhh.  None.


What a surprise.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,11:03   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)

Quote
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?

Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...
Quote

Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?

I don't really care, but if a person claims to have done something and it is later found out not to have happened, it says a bit about the person's integrity.
Quote
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.


And did you know that 400-level courses on molecular biology or parasitology or immunology use the same introductory texts?  its true!  And grad students?  Same intro level texts.  Its amazing, isn't it...
Quote


I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP. :p

And do you ask the same questions of Walt Brown's assertions?

I know that you do not.  You accept the rants of creationists without question.  Hypocrite.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,11:17   

Quote (slpage @ June 19 2007,11:03)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)

 
Quote
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?

Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...

Umm, ease that back into the holster, okay?  The Dave she is referring to is not DaveScot, but our own Albatrossity2.

--------------
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!)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,12:05   

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 19 2007,11:17)
 
Quote (slpage @ June 19 2007,11:03)
 
     
Quote
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?

Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...

Umm, ease that back into the holster, okay?  The Dave she is referring to is not DaveScot, but our own Albatrossity2.

WHAT! FTK asked Albatrossity to father her child? ? ? ?  :O

Richard's gonna be pissed.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,15:17   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 19 2007,12:05)
WHAT! FTK asked Albatrossity to father her child? ? ? ?  :O

Richard's gonna be pissed.

Fortunately I found a spot with wireless access in Lovell (Wyoming) so that I can address this baseless accusation. It is absolutely untrue; unlike Richard, I have no "designs" re FtK.

I already have chicks of my own.



After today I will be e-incommunicado for several days, camping in the Bighorns (probably yet another source of envy for Richard...). I trust that you all can handle it if FtK does return to address the outstanding questions on this and the other threads.

--------------
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

   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,21:12   

Quote
I trust that you all can handle it if FtK does return to address the outstanding questions on this and the other threads.

You mean she sometimes addresses questions! All I've ever seen has been fluff and avoidance mechanisms. I tend to think of her as like an Afdave without the courage to post what she actually 'thinks' of scientific matters. Yet she keeps coming back for more insults about how she consistently avoids answering. Odd behaviour.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,20:23   

Quote (Richard Simons @ June 19 2007,21:12)
Quote
I trust that you all can handle it if FtK does return to address the outstanding questions on this and the other threads.

You mean she sometimes addresses questions! All I've ever seen has been fluff and avoidance mechanisms. I tend to think of her as like an Afdave without the courage to post what she actually 'thinks' of scientific matters. Yet she keeps coming back for more insults about how she consistently avoids answering. Odd behaviour.

Give the poor woman a chance, will you? It appears that the Pirahna Lady's latest diversionary ploy weekend party has now stretched out to Wednesday, so I'm sure that when the party does finally end, and she has a few days to recuperate, she'll be right back here avoiding questions as usual.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,20:44   

what's so funny is that she seems to be in a catch-22.

she will post blog entry after blog entry indicating how important the issue of materialism in the sciences is.

but won't spend any time to stop blogging and actually try to get a grasp on the actual theories and evidence involved.

then she will tell us that we take it far more seriously than she does, and so sees no need to spend time here.

then she spends time here to tell us how we are all wrong, but can't really say why.

then she goes back to post on her own blog about how important the issue of materialism in science is.

etc., etc.

it's a freaking scary schedule of projection and denial, played out in repeated fashion.

wait, maybe it's not that funny.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,21:25   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 20 2007,20:23)
I'm sure that when the party does finally end, and she has a few days to recuperate, she'll be right back here avoiding questions as usual.

She won't come back now that I'm here again.  I'm mean to her, ya know.

Unless she stamps her foot, whines loudly, and gets her Banninator Button again by proxy . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2007,06:47   

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 19 2007,11:17)
Quote (slpage @ June 19 2007,11:03)
 
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)

   
Quote
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?

Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...

Umm, ease that back into the holster, okay?  The Dave she is referring to is not DaveScot, but our own Albatrossity2.

Oh well jeepers thanks....

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,19:24   

I simply can't let this slide into oblivion, as FtK has SO many questions I'm sure she'll be RARING to answer.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,23:35   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 22 2007,19:24)
I simply can't let this slide into oblivion, as FtK has SO many questions I'm sure she'll be RARING to answer.

I think FtK is trying very hard to ignore us...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,05:24   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 22 2007,23:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 22 2007,19:24)
I simply can't let this slide into oblivion, as FtK has SO many questions I'm sure she'll be RARING to answer.

I think FtK is trying very hard to ignore us...

Of course she is, but if she ever comes back here, she'll always have these questions waiting just so we can remind her what a lying disingenuous person she is.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,09:30   

I'll be back, but I've been reading...lots.  

I started to answer Wes's question, but decided to read through talkorigins section on transitionals (again) before I did, and then I went back to several books I have that clearly point out the numerous issues with missing links.  Then Behe's book came in the mail, and since I know he considers common descent viable, I thought I'd read more about his views on the subject.   I kinda got caught up in his book...it's really quite interesting.

So, I have about 5 books spread out in my bedroom that I keep bouncing back and forth to in the late evening.  

Oh, and my oldest had one heck of a ball game last night.  They are placed first in their league at the moment and the game last night was more exciting than watching the world series.  They won 16-14 in a real nail biter.  

So, I've BEEN BUSY, and haven't had time to put anything together.  Today we're going to the pool, so that pretty much screws my chances of putting anything together today unless I find some time this evening.

Sorry....summers are insane around here, but I plan on posting something about transitionals on my blog and I'll post it here as well.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,10:03   

I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,10:27   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,10:30)
Then Behe's book came in the mail, and since I know he considers common descent viable, I thought I'd read more about his views on the subject.   I kinda got caught up in his book...it's really quite interesting.

There's no need to take all this time, FtK.

Behe only approves of common descent because he has his atheist materialist blinders on, he was brainwashed by those textbooks which don't mention it's pure speculation, and he is afraid of publicly supporting ID out of fear that the methodolistical naturalists will assassinate him and burn down his house.

See, that wasn't hard, was it?

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,10:54   

Okay, Steve, here's the fast answer...

I would say that it is damn hard to believe that we can say "transitionals" should not be questioned, unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types.  Goodness knows, there have been many "transitionals" that have been proven hoaxes or misunderstood.  In regard to common descent, there is so much more to consider than looking at a series of fossils and saying "hey, cool, that proves I was the byproduct of an ancient microbe".  

So, at this point in time, I believe that we are no where near the point of saying that the relatively small amount of "transitionals" we find in the fossil record is "proof" of common descent.  DNA seems to be the key to understanding more about common descent, so I'll wait for further research to answer the millions of questions that are still being asked before I believe that the naturalists creation myth is actually a fact.

Good enough?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,11:00   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.

Ian,

Start with this link.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta go...kids are hollering.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,11:29   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.

Ian,

Start with this link.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Let me guess: Answers in Genesis has all kinds of good evidence, too, if only we have eyes to see. Right?

FtK, you don't see how lazy and dishonest this looks?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,11:32   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.

Ian,

Start with this link.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta go...kids are hollering.

Can't find any.

I find some predictions that it says that evolution makes, and then asserts that they are not true, and I find some predictions of something called hydroplate theory, which I believe is something to do with the flood. Other than that I find no evidence for any predictions, which I find...odd, since they claim predictions have to be made.

Maybe I'm just not looking.

Oh, and by the way, I do not like how you assume that I will instantly dismiss everything without looking, my name is NOT Behe. If someone can produce a good case for ANYTHING then I will listen. I listen to the cases of people who's ideas are diametrically opposed to mine a lot, it's called discussion, but in order to consider these points of view I do require evidence, for which I have seen none even remotely presented for any biblical literalism.

If you showed me a model for the flood that not only expects one or two things that could exist even without the flood, AND deals with how Noah et al weren't boiled alive, or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out I might regard them as being something other than a ridiculous notion dreamed up by people who are afraid of the slightest possibility they could be wrong.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,11:53   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.

Ian,

Start with this link.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta go...kids are hollering.

That Walt Brown cooks up some elaborate, goofy shit.  

But Wesley's question was, "FtK, do you assert that no transitional fossil sequences exist? This is a simple yes-or-no question."

You don't have to immerse yourself in research materials to discover what you already believe.  

Just check a box:

- Yes. I believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.
- No. I don't believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.

Your scramble to research the question is really an admission:

- I really don't know whether they exist or not.

--------------
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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,12:18   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 23 2007,11:53)
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.

Ian,

Start with this link.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta go...kids are hollering.

That Walt Brown cooks up some elaborate, goofy shit.  

But Wesley's question was, "FtK, do you assert that no transitional fossil sequences exist? This is a simple yes-or-no question."

You don't have to immerse yourself in research materials to discover what you already believe.  

Just check a box:

- Yes. I believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.
- No. I don't believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.

Your scramble to research the question is really an admission:

- I really don't know whether they exist or not.

My guess would be that FTK doesn't want to believe in transitional fossils, yet she knows this admission wouldn't fly here, so she's either (a) trying to find some satisfyingly pseudoscientific article to cover some claim like "I still don't think their existence is proven one way or the other", or (b) creating a smoke screen of delaying in hopes that we'll get bored and quit asking her this question.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,13:01   

From the site FTK linked to
http://www.creationscience.com
 
Quote
PREDICTION 1:   Beneath major mountains are large volumes of pooled salt water.50 (Recent discoveries support this prediction, first made in 1980. Salt water appears to be about 10 miles below the Tibetan Plateau, which is bounded on the south by the largest mountain range on earth.)51

 
Quote
PREDICTION 2:   Salty water will be found within cracks in granite, 5-10 miles below the earth’s surface (where surface water should not be able to penetrate).

 
Quote
PREDICTION 3:   The crystalline rock under Gibraltar, the Bosporus and Dardanelles, and the Golden Gate bridge will be found to be eroded into a V-shaped notch. (This prediction concerning the Bosporus and Dardanelles, first published in 1995, was confirmed in 1998.)63

 
Quote
PREDICTION 4:    The Global Positioning System (GPS) measures plate velocities with ever increasing accuracy as data accumulates and equipment improves. Because the earth’s crust is shifting toward equilibrium, today’s plate velocities will be found to be very gradually decreasing.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 5:   Fracture zones and axial and flank rifts will always be along lines of high magnetic intensity.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 6:   The magnetic intensity above hydrothermal vents slowly increases because the rock below, fractured since the flood a few thousand years ago, is cooling.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 7:   A 10-mile-thick granite layer (a hydroplate) will be found a few miles under the western Pacific floor.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 8:   Fossils of land animals, not just shallow-water plant fossils, will be found in and near trenches.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 9:   Precise measurements of the center of the western Pacific floor will show it is rising relative to the center of the earth, because plates are still shifting.

yada yada
 
Quote
PREDICTION 20:   Bubbles in rock ice will be found to contain less air and much more carbon dioxide than normally in ice bubbles formed today.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 21:   Dirt and organic particles in rock ice will closely resemble those in the overlying muck.

 
Quote
PREDICTION 22:   One should not find marine fossils, layered strata, oil, coal seams, or limestone directly beneath undisturbed rock ice or frozen mammoth carcasses.146

 
Quote
PREDICTION 23:   Blind radiocarbon dating of different parts of the same mammoth will continue to give radiocarbon ages that differ by more than statistical variations would reasonably permit. [Page 89 describes blind testing.] Contamination by groundwater will be most easily seen if the samples came from widely separated parts of the mammoth’s body with different water-absorbing characteristics.

...
 
Quote
PREDICTION 39:   Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be older than 100,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests. This prediction, first published in the 6th Edition (1995), p. 157, has now been confirmed.11 (Blind tests are explained on page 89.)

yawn. But 41 is a doozy!
 
Quote
PREDICTION 41:   Bacteria will be found on Mars. Their DNA will be similar to, but not identical with, Earth’s bacteria. Furthermore, isotopes of the carbon in Mars’ methane will show the carbon’s biological origin.


Anyway, this is the same website that brought us
[/URL]
So thanks for that chuckle already!

--------------
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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,13:24   

Quote
You're mind is already set.


Did FTK ever bother to look up the definition of projection?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,13:26   

Quote
I would say that it is damn hard to believe that we can say "transitionals" should not be questioned, unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types.


holy crap.

is she a baraminologist too???

she seems to be regressing.

fascinating.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,15:12   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,13:24)
 
Quote
You're mind is already set.


Did FTK ever bother to look up the definition of projection?

or possessive pronouns for that matter?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4818
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,15:48   

Re "unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types."

Funny, I thought that's what the word "transitional" meant.

Also: of course the transitional status of any given sample should be questioned, and they have been. (to the extent that some claimed transitionals have been thrown out.)

--------

Ian,
Re "or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out"

Picky, picky, picky... :p

--------

oldman...,
How many of those PREDICTIONs would be inconsistent with current understanding of the relevant subjects?

(And should I ask whether they presented actual logic about how their "model" implied that those things should be found?)

Henry

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,17:01   

Quote (Henry J @ June 23 2007,15:48)
Ian,
Re "or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out"

Picky, picky, picky... :p

Oh, I know, I should just take it on faith, right?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,17:27   

Quote
Let me guess: Answers in Genesis has all kinds of good evidence, too, if only we have eyes to see. Right?


AIG has some interesting information to consider just like other creationists and evolutionists.  I'm not sure what you mean by “if only we have eyes to see”.  If you’re referring to having to be a bible believing Christian to see, I have no idea if that is a problem or not.  I’m not big on AIG due to the fact that sometimes I think they are a bit mean and close minded to some things.  In fact, I don’t think any one particular theory is “fact” or much better than the others.  I think the facts probably lie somewhere in the middle.  

     
Quote
FtK, you don't see how lazy and dishonest this looks?
 

Well, sweetie, I’ve tried to explain that I’ve been reading a lot on this subject and wanted to be more explicit with my response, but everyone is so terribly impatient and said that I didn’t need to take so much time.  I still plan to write something up for my blog, but I’m really enjoying just taking my time and reading about a lot of this stuff again.  It’s terribly interesting.

Ian, Oldman listed some of the predictions for you, and I assure you that Walt’s theory offers everything that you had questions about, but it’s quite indepth and if for no other reason than just for kicks, you should consider reading the book.  The entire thing is on line, but the book makes it easier to page back and forth between different topics.  One doesn’t have to agree everything that Brown puts forth, but he certainly makes you think before blindly accepting the conclusions of the ToE.  

     
Quote
If you showed me a model for the flood that not only expects one or two things that could exist even without the flood, AND deals with how Noah et al weren't boiled alive, or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out I might regard them as being something other than a ridiculous notion dreamed up by people who are afraid of the slightest possibility they could be wrong.


As far as being “boiled alive in the flood”, I did call Brown about that once, and he spent quite a bit of time explaining “supercritical water” to me and the experiments he‘s done in regard to SCW.  I took a lot of notes at the time, but I have no clue where they are now.  Here’s a link that touches on the topic.  

As far as ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, etc., I did consider that issue as well and I remember looking into the “problem” and wrote something about it at KCFS eons ago, but again...lost in memory.  I’ll try to find the link if I get the time.  

I’m not a Brown groupie as slpage would have everyone believe.  It’s just that the man is the closest I’ve come to someone who is interested primarily in the science rather than the political shit that goes on in this debate.  He keeps to himself, posts his entire book on-line so people have full access without having to give money to “charlatans”, and he doesn’t spend any time pounding the pavement trying to do away with materialism.  He’s been working 20 years on the scientific issues in this debate, and he’s very interesting to talk to.  I've questioned him several times, and he's always been patient and polite.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,17:52   

Quote
I’m not big on AIG due to the fact that sometimes I think they are a bit mean and close minded to some things.


LOL

damn, you're funny.

you just don't know it.

here, let me help you:

what you just said there, if said by anybody with wit who understood the usage of satire, would be an example of using extreme understatement as satire.

here's another example:

I'm a little shy about liking Fred Phelps because of the mild anti-homosexual positions he takes rarely.



--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:10   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,17:27)
As far as ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, etc., I did consider that issue as well and I remember looking into the “problem” and wrote something about it at KCFS eons ago, but again...lost in memory.  I’ll try to find the link if I get the time.

Now, I don't know if it's just a brit thing, or even just a me thing, but seeing "problem" written in quotes makes it look like you DON'T think the fact these civilisations continued despite being totally underwater and also dead is a problem for the flood.

Even if the rest of it were explainable, the fact that these people didn't die shows clearly the flood could not have covered the earth.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:12   

   
Quote
You don't have to immerse yourself in research materials to discover what you already believe.  

Just check a box:

- Yes. I believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.
- No. I don't believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.


Yes, I believe that transitional fossils do exist at the micro level.  I don't believe that "all fossils are transitionals" as many evolutionists claim.  I don't believe that fossil series can explain how vital organs evolved from one body type to another.  Also, there are soooo many other things to consider in regard to macroevolution.  Just one such example of *many* would be animal instincts, which I believe to be something that defies evolution.

For example, a newborn kangaroo is barely a half inch long and weighs less than a gram, but despite the fact that he lacks the function of his eyes, ear, and hind legs, he immediately makes his way from his mother's womb, across her abdomen and attaches to a nipple inside her pouch.  That's like a newborn baby crawling the length of a football field and finding it's mother's breast in less than three minutes.  How the hell do you explain how this came about through intermediates in situations such as this?  Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.

Yes, I know, I suffer from personal incredulity.  Sigh...nonetheless, at this point in time, I do not believe that we have the empirical evidence to claim that macroevolution is a fact.  It’s based on historical inference and A LOT of speculation.  It seems that it is okay to base ideas on speculation as long as it is in regard to the ToE, but creationist theories are expected to be backed with solid empirical evidence to even be considered.  In my mind, it certainly seems that these common descent stories are every bit as mystical as anything I've ever read in Genesis.

   
Quote
Your scramble to research the question is really an admission:

- I really don't know whether they exist or not.


No, actually it means that I like to read about this stuff, and since I have three new books on these topics, I thought I’d take some time to do so.   But, in a sense, you are correct because, IMHO, I don’t think that any of us really know for sure if transitionals exist which can support common descent to the extent to which scientists claim they can.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:13   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:12)
Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.

THIS is why everyone thinks you are talking bollocks. You cannot say that "seems" is a valid argument.

Incidentally, I don't know what the evidence is for quantum mechanics, so does it therefore not exist?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:16   

Quote
Yes, I believe that transitional fossils do exist at the micro level.


this is nonsensical gibberish.  even you should be able to figure THAT out.

 
Quote
For example, a newborn kangaroo is barely a half inch long and weighs less than a gram, but despite the fact that he lacks the function of his eyes, ear, and hind legs, he immediately makes his way from his mother's womb, across her abdomen and attaches to a nipple inside her pouch.  That's like a newborn baby crawling the length of a football field and finding it's mother's breast in less than three minutes.  How the hell do you explain how this came about through intermediates in situations such as this?


kangaroos got bigger.

how's that?

here's another "amazing" thing for you to chew on:

how did horses manage to lose four toes and end up running on one...

*hint* we already know the answer to that.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:24   

Icky,

You're right, I'm dense.  I don't get your point.  

It's not that I don't think AIG makes some very good points in regard to the scientific issues in this debate.  It's just that they seem to think it's their way or the highway and everyone else is simply and utterly wrong and going to hell.  That reminds me of the attitude that the "scientific community" (ie. NCSE) takes in regard to these issues - excluding the part about hell of course ;).

I'm just saying that I believe the bottom line is that these questions will have to be solved by what we can gather from the empirical science - not what we infer based on blind faith or ridiculous speculation.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:28   

Quote
You're right, I'm dense.  I don't get your point.  


you completely lack a sense of irony.  It's quite remarkable, but not uncommon in creation supporters.

we actually have a thread on a tangent to the issue, regarding sense of humor you might want to gander at.

though it's quite likely you won't get the point of that thread, either.

oh well.

Quote
I'm just saying that I believe the bottom line in these issues will have to be what we can gather from the empirical science - not what we infer based on blind faith or ridiculous speculation.


assuredly for example, you don't see the slightest irony in your statement here.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:28   

I don't know, Icky...I think there is a big difference between losing a few toes and the joey example.  And, of course, we all know that there are endless examples such as that one.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:35   

Quote
.I think there is a big difference between losing a few toes and the joey example


why?

with the roos all you are doing is moving the teat farther away from the birth canal.

with equines, you are entirely changing the structure of the leg and foot. Have you ever even looked at the current equine series to see the changes?  pretty damn drastic.  and yes, there are LOTS of examples of even more drastic changes.  surely you don't think the start of the equine series is equivalent to the finish?

shorter version:

do you think a 2 foot wallaby and a 5 foot red roo look very different from each other?

do you think short-legged horse with 5 toes would strike you as odd?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:51   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,18:35)

Quote
do you think a 2 foot wallaby and a 5 foot red roo look very different from each other?


Relatively speaking, wouldn't the two examples be somewhat similiar?  I'd expect the baby wallaby would be smaller than a joey.  But, maybe not.  Also, we're talking instincts, not changes in structure.  I don't think I'd find it particularly odd for a joey to carry on a mutation that changed the structure of it's leg, for example.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,18:53   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:28)
I don't know, Icky...I think there is a big difference between losing a few toes and the joey example.  And, of course, we all know that there are endless examples such as that one.

But what reason do you have to think that?


Oh, and please adress my post, I know I disappeared, but my computer went very strange, and I had to restart it.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:00   

Quote
I don't think I'd find it particularly odd for a joey to carry on a mutation that changed the structure of it's leg, for example.


so behavior and morphology are quantitatively different in your mind?

somehow a very minor change in behavior, like crawling a tiny bit farther, it a harder thing for evolution to produce than the loss of a couple of toes, the extreme lengthening of metacarpal bones, etc?

you have some mighty odd notions there, kiddo.

 
Quote
I'd expect the baby wallaby would be smaller than a joey.


nope, they aren't (significantly), when first born.  and not surprisingly, it's completely irrelevant to the relative distance each type of joey has to crawl for its first meal.

what I was trying to get you to see what that the physical differences between a wallaby and one of the larger roos is mostly just a matter of size, while the changes between modern equines and their ancestors is gigantic.

what you find incredulous, IOW, is far more easily explained by a simple shift in the size of roos than the differences betwen modern equines and their acestors is, and yet, we have a very good series of fossils tracking the changes between modern and ancestral horses.

which of course leads back to why we find your statement so odd, and ask the same question:

why would you find the increasing travel distance of roo joeys to be more incredible than the change between modern and ancestral equines?

my guess would be that SOMEONE stuck that particular notion in your head.

care to share?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:06   

sigh...Ian, which "post" do you want me to address?  Are you refering to one comment specifically, or I'm I supposed to go back and answer everything?  Sheesh..I don't have all evening to sit here.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:08   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,19:06)
sigh...Ian, which "post" do you want me to address?  Are you refering to one comment specifically, or I'm I supposed to go back and answer everything?  Sheesh..I don't have all evening to sit here.

The one you ignored, where I mention quantum mechanics. You know, the last post I made, the one where, I would assume, most people would look first. Incidentally, why did you sigh? I only asked you once, and I did it in a way that would make Lenny Flank explode if he tried to be that polite, so why react like I'd be spamming you every three seconds demanding a reply? Unless you want the lurkers to think we're harrassing you, building on a martyr complex which I honestly don't see at all, not one little bit.

I don't have all evening either, in fact it's already 1 in the morning over here, so don't be alarmed if I don't sob for you and your hardships with running out of time.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:10   

careful Ian, next you'll be hearing her rendition of "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:12   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:10)
careful Ian, next you'll be hearing her rendition of "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"

Hah, I've had someone on a forum I used to be on who was a FAR better martyr complex than FtK (which I'm not at all implying you have FtK, no siree, not one jot. You wont hear ME saying you have some need to be harshly done by because it feeds both your own psychosis and also your feeling that you are right and we're not only wrong but mean)

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:14   

[quote=Ichthyic,June 23 2007,19:00][/quote]
 
Quote
so behavior and morphology are quantitatively different in your mind?


Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things.

 
Quote
somehow a very minor change in behavior, like crawling a tiny bit farther, it a harder thing for evolution to produce than the loss of a couple of toes, the extreme lengthening of metacarpal bones, etc?


I don't know if it's so much the "crawling a little farther" that is the biggest obstacle to explain.  It's the initial way that the *instinct* started to evolve that puzzles me.  From the beginning, how did this instinct come to be?  

 
Quote
you have some mighty odd notions there, kiddo.


"Kiddo"?  Didn't I read somewhere that you're 43...only one year older than me?  Maybe I have you confused with someone else.  Not that I particularly mind being called kiddo ;) .

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:15   

see, FTK, Ian understands satire.

hmm, I wonder if teaching someone to recognize and appreciate irony and satire is like trying to teach science to a creationist?

meh, a thought for another thread...

sorry, go ahead Ian.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:18   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:15)
see, FTK, Ian understands satire.

hmm, I wonder if teaching someone to recognize and appreciate irony and satire is like trying to teach science to a creationist?

meh, a thought for another thread...

sorry, go ahead Ian.

Well I've been brought up with satire. Satire from Private Eye, from shows such as HAve I Got News For You etc. I learnt it from an early age, and I'm glad, because it sure as hell helps liven up some of the most dry, boring subjects for my degree.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:18   

Quote

Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things.


as both Ian and I keep asking...

why?

based on an entirely instinctive viewpoint on your part?

have you finished reading that basic biology text Alby sent you yet?

do they give the impression that behavior is more or less subject to selection pressures or drift than morphology?

I'd bet not.

Is it more or less remarkable that a newborn joey can find its mother's teat than a newborn puppy?

answer Ian's questions first.

he's both on a deadline and apparently more interested than I am in your answers.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:20   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:18)
Quote

Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things.


as both Ian and I keep asking...

Ah, a long time, main contributor notices me, suddenly I'm the belle of the ball!

(Note to anyone reading who has had major brain surgery go wrong, this is more of what we humans call "humour")

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:30   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,18:13)
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:12)
Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.

THIS is why everyone thinks you are talking bollocks. You cannot say that "seems" is a valid argument.

Incidentally, I don't know what the evidence is for quantum mechanics, so does it therefore not exist?

Yes, Ian, I understand that "seems" is not a valid argument.  I'm merely stating why I have difficulty accepting the ToE as "fact".  I'm not making a scientific statement by any means.

I think your quantum mechanics question is similiar to the standard gravity comment.  And, sure, you have a point, but I think there is much more research that will be done that will answer many of these questions we currently have about common descent with more accuracy.  So, like I've said many times in the past, I'm not locking into the mindset of the "scientific community" without hard empirical evidence, and I'm certainly keeping an open mind in regard to other explanations.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:36   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,19:30)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,18:13)
 
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:12)
Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.

THIS is why everyone thinks you are talking bollocks. You cannot say that "seems" is a valid argument.

Incidentally, I don't know what the evidence is for quantum mechanics, so does it therefore not exist?

Yes, Ian, I understand that "seems" is not a valid argument.  I'm merely stating why I have difficulty accepting the ToE as "fact".  I'm not making a scientific statement by any means.

I think your quantum mechanics question is similiar to the standard gravity comment.  And, sure, you have a point, but I think there is much more research that will be done that will answer many of these questions we currently have about common descent with more accuracy.  So, like I've said many times in the past, I'm not locking into the mindset of the "scientific community" without hard empirical evidence, and I'm certainly keeping an open mind in regard to other explanations.

I may be getting this wrong here, but I THINK you have misunderstood my quantum mechanics comment.

See, I don't personally know about any evidence for it. Not got a clue, physics being most definately not my thing, but I do understand there IS evidence for it, and that it wouldn't be a valid theory otherwise. However, you who seem to gloss over a lot of evidence for evolution by simply stating "I don't know, seems a bit dodgy to me" are clearly NOT listening to the people who have seen, and weighed up the evidence, and think that you have to personally view every single piece of evidence, or the theory falls flat.

In addition to this you seem to want every concievable piece of evidence, even where none exists, and since there isn't every single possible little change between animals in the fossil record, to pluck an example from the air, you think this somehow makes all the nonsense handwaving done by creationists equally valid to evolution.

Keeping an open mind does NOT mean accepting that everything is equally valid, that is called being a fence sitting pig ignorant who tends to hmm and haw like Alain De Botton, and pretend they are really so much better than the closed mided people on either side of the fence, because they've yet to understand that a massive mountain of evidence from practically every field of science is not equal to "I just can't see it".

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:51   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:18)

Quote
Quote

Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things.


as both Ian and I keep asking...

why?


Well, because I believe I somewhat understand mutations and from what I understand and have observed, most seem to be negative to the organism.  But, in rare cases they can be beneficial.  I can see how a mutation could change morphology, but when considering abiogensis (which I know I'm not supposed to think about in regard to the ToE), I have a really hard time with accepting that instincts, or examples of symbiosis, or almost unbelieveable migration patterns, or the evolution of the mind are all a product of evolution.

Isn't it natural to question these issues?  I mean, they seem so much more improbable than examples like the ones I always hear at evolution lectures.  I swear, when I went to listen to Eugenie Scott at KU last year, I felt like I was sitting in a 5th grade science class.  She went on and on about natural selection and white and gray mice.  Same with Sean Carroll's lecture at KU...again, very simple (in my mind) examples of microevolution which seem quite viable, IMO.

Quote
have you finished reading that basic biology text Alby sent you yet?


No, I'm not "finished".  I've been using it as more of a reference book as I work my way through the other two books I've been reading.  

Quote
do they give the impression that behavior is more or less subject to selection pressures or drift than morphology?


I don't know, I'll have to see what the books says about evolution of the mind, instinct, etc. etc.

Quote
Is it more or less remarkable that a newborn joey can find its mother's teat than a newborn puppy?
 

Not terribly, it's just a much longer trip to it's goal.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:55   

Quote
Not terribly, it's just a much longer trip to it's goal.


must i start all over again with the wallaby/roo comparison?  I swear, it's like talking to a five year old, kiddo.

Quote
what I understand and have observed


you've observed mutations, eh?

tell us about it.

   
Quote
but when considering abiogensis (which I know I'm not supposed to think about in regard to the ToE),


they why are you, since it's completely irrelevant to ANY point you are apparently at least trying to make here?

   
Quote
I have a really hard time with accepting that instincts, or examples of symbiosis, or almost unbelieveable migration patterns, or the evolution of the mind are all a product of evolution.


there's that incredulity thing again.

go back to the last thing that I quoted from you that I labeled as ironic.

oh hell, i know you can't remember what you said 5 minutes after you said it, so here:

 
Quote
I'm just saying that I believe the bottom line in these issues will have to be what we can gather from the empirical science - not what we infer based on blind faith or ridiculous speculation.


I bet you STILL don't see the irony.

I'm convinced you never will, which makes this whole excercise more an issue of cruelty on my part as I'm pretty sure at this point the only reason I have for continuing to pose questions to you is to laugh at the continuing irony of your answers.

*yawn*

Ian seems to have a genuine interest, so you can continue on with him.  I concluded months ago that you were hopeless, long before you left off at KCSF.

It's just sating my own sense of humor to continue at this point.

one last thing for you to think about:

 
Quote
...examples of microevolution which seem quite viable, IMO.


add time and stir well.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:12   

Quote
See, I don't personally know about any evidence for it. Not got a clue, physics being most definately not my thing, but I do understand there IS evidence for it, and that it wouldn't be a valid theory otherwise.

However, you who seem to gloss over a lot of evidence for evolution by simply stating "I don't know, seems a bit dodgy to me" are clearly NOT listening to the people who have seen, and weighed up the evidence, and think that you have to personally view every single piece of evidence, or the theory falls flat.


Well, I don't think I gloss over anything and I've truly been listening contently for years to people who have "weighed up the evidence" personally.  I guess I've never been one to bow to authority if they are basing their "evidence" on speculation and just so stories.  I'm skeptical of the tales, and in the same way, I frequently question creation and ID theories.  I've written or called several authors and personally questioned their work.  

Certainly, I'm in no position to draw any conclusions from what they've told me.  But, just like any other person considering these issues, it's my right to question what's thrown in front of me.  I think it's absolutely foolish to accept all the aspects of the ToE as fact at this point in time.

Quote
In addition to this you seem to want every concievable piece of evidence, even where none exists, and since there isn't every single possible little change between animals in the fossil record, to pluck an example from the air, you think this somehow makes all the nonsense handwaving done by creationists equally valid to evolution.


I don't need "every conceivable piece of evidence", I'd just like to see more than what we have currently.  And, I believe that *most* scientists, in general, have absolutely no clue as to what creation science actually entails.  Most of the stuff I see written about creation science is laughable and completely inaccurate.  I think most scientists just listen to the ridiculous rhetoric being spewed from anti-creation groups and disregard creation science without any consideration whatsoever.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:12   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:55)
Ian seems to have a genuine interest, so you can continue on with him.

Well I certainly would like to see some of these fantastical claims she keeps making.

Plus I really, really want the answer to the Egyptians thing. It's a question that I've always wanted to get a reply to.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:15   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:12)
Quote
See, I don't personally know about any evidence for it. Not got a clue, physics being most definately not my thing, but I do understand there IS evidence for it, and that it wouldn't be a valid theory otherwise.

However, you who seem to gloss over a lot of evidence for evolution by simply stating "I don't know, seems a bit dodgy to me" are clearly NOT listening to the people who have seen, and weighed up the evidence, and think that you have to personally view every single piece of evidence, or the theory falls flat.


Well, I don't think I gloss over anything and I've truly been listening contently for years to people who have "weighed up the evidence" personally.  I guess I've never been one to bow to authority if they are basing their "evidence" on speculation and just so stories.  I'm skeptical of the tales, and in the same way, I frequently question creation and ID theories.  I've written or called several authors and personally questioned their work.  

Certainly, I'm in no position to draw any conclusions from what they've told me.  But, just like any other person considering these issues, it's my right to question what's thrown in front of me.  I think it's absolutely foolish to accept all the aspects of the ToE as fact at this point in time.

 
Quote
In addition to this you seem to want every concievable piece of evidence, even where none exists, and since there isn't every single possible little change between animals in the fossil record, to pluck an example from the air, you think this somehow makes all the nonsense handwaving done by creationists equally valid to evolution.


I don't need "every conceivable piece of evidence", I'd just like to see more than what we have currently.  And, I believe that *most* scientists, in general, have absolutely no clue as to what creation science actually entails.  Most of the stuff I see written about creation science is laughable and completely inaccurate.  I think most scientists just listen to the ridiculous rhetoric being spewed from anti-creation groups and disregard creation science without any consideration whatsoever.

1. So how much evidence do you think there is?

2. How do you know there is this amount?

3. How much more is needed?

4. Why do you think you cannot draw a conclusion yet?

4.B. Assuming the above is related to the evidence for creation, explain, at least roughly (remember, I'm no scientist either) what it is.

5. What exactly IS creation science then?

6. What happened to all those Egyptians et al who lived happily under water whilst also dying?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:22   

Well, nice talking with you Icky.   And, yes, I understand the irony of my statement from your point of view.  You believe that creation science is "infered" on "blind faith and ridiculous speculation".

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:25   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:22)
Well, nice talking with you Icky.   And, yes, I understand the irony of my statement from your point of view.  You believe that creation science is "infered" on "blind faith and ridiculous speculation".

Because it does seem to be. Hell, I'm new to this, and still have some small part of me that can be convinced, but it's yet to be touched.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:27   

Good grief, Ian.  I'm not going to sit here for hours and answer all those questions.  I've answered several already.  

And, you were all in a tizzy about boiling water killing all of life on earth, but I haven't heard a peep about the answer I provided for you.  You went right on to another question..and another.  

It doesn't matter how many questions I address, you'll just bring up something else without even giving consideration to the ones I've already answered.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:29   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:27)
Good grief, Ian.  I'm not going to sit here for hours and answer all those questions.  I've answered several already.  

And, you were all in a tizzy about boiling water killing all of life on earth, but I haven't heard a peep about the answer I provided for you.  You went right on to another question..and another.  

It doesn't matter how many questions I address, you'll just bring up something else without even giving consideration to the ones I've already answered.

1. Where did you answer any of them? (bar the water one, which wasn't in that list) You told me you HAD answers, and either couldn't remember them or were going to get them, and then.....

2. I didn't see much evidence, maybe I missed it. I'll give it another go.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:35   

Ian,

You wanted predictions, I gave you predictions.  Read about them thoroughly and give them consideration before jumping right on to something else.

You wanted to know why everything wasn't "boiled" in the flood, and again, I gave you something to consider on the subject.

You could spend hours in regard to just these two issues if you followed all the links and read about each in detail from the site I provided.  

Have a ball.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:36   

Hang about, whilst not on the topic of the boiling water thing, I did look at this: Linky

Now, I may be jumping the gun, but is this supposed to be evidence? If it is, it just amounts to "Ohh...look at the pretty! Therefore:God" Which is neither evidence, nor rational.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:37   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:35)
Ian,

You wanted predictions, I gave you predictions.  Read about them thoroughly and give them consideration before jumping right on to something else.

You wanted to know why everything wasn't "boiled" in the flood, and again, I gave you something to consider on the subject.

You could spend hours in regard to just these two issues if you followed all the links and read about each in detail from the site I provided.  

Have a ball.

Ok, but while I'm reading them, do you mind, and I'm being very civil here, so don't cry persecution on ME, digging up all that stuff on those pesky Egyptians, since that is something I've always wanted answering?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:40   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:12)
I think most scientists just listen to the ridiculous rhetoric being spewed from anti-creation groups and disregard creation science without any consideration whatsoever.

That's because you don't know anything about science or scientists. I don't know anything about Thai food, but I have the good sense not to hang out on Thai food message boards telling Thai chefs they're doing it all wrong.

Scientists get direct contact with loonies such as creationists all the time. Loonies love attention. I'm not even a scientist, and hardly a month goes by that a person who hears I have a physics degree doesn't start telling me where Einstein got it wrong, or what's wrong with string theory, or that they learned a lot of physics from the movie "What the Bleep do we Know?". That last one is pretty much the only thing in the world that can send me into a state of rage.

The funniest example I've encountered, by the way, was, the guy who taught my thermo class told the physics department secretary office to stop forwarding him every moronic free-energy or anti-relativity manifesto mailed to them. "We don't," the secretary office told him. "We distribute them evenly among the whole faculty."

Edited by stevestory on June 23 2007,21:44

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:42   

Ok, I've hit a snag already.

"Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only horizontal (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity."

This is...well, I don't know what the fuck it is, but it isn't evolution.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:43   

"Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates."

This is EVIDENCE to you?!

[In order to not get a lenny flank esque mass of posts, I'll add my next point here as an edit]

Ok, page christ only knows but it's not far, and what do we have here? Abiogenesis? What the hell does that have to do with evolution FtK?

[edit no. 2]

Ok, this is getting really repetative. He keeps making claims, but doesn't support them at all. By his logic, I can show the evidence that black is white.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:59   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:22)
Well, nice talking with you Icky.   And, yes, I understand the irony of my statement from your point of view.  You believe that creation science is "infered" on "blind faith and ridiculous speculation".

heh, but that would mean I was talking about something a creation scientist said, and not what you said now, wouldn't it.

nope. still blind to your own irony, though you at least got a slight bit closer.  

@ Steve:

I hereby claim this thread as evidence in support of the theory on humor discussed in the other thread.

wouldn't you agree?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:03   

I don't know. I got up at 5 am today so I'm a little groggy at the moment. What was the theory? That creationists are humorless?

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:06   

LOL....Ian, sweetie, you've really gotta calm down.  I thought Lenny was the only one around here who freaked on every sentence he confronts.  

Just relax...and if you're really serious about this, you've got to read the whole entire book to get a clue as to where the man is coming from.  I know that is asking a lot, and I don't expect you to ever get through it.  But, Brown is one of the more respected creation scientists out there for many reasons.  His work would be a good starting point if you want to actually call yourself "open minded".

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:09   

Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,21:03)
I don't know. I got up at 5 am today so I'm a little groggy at the moment. What was the theory? That creationists are humorless?

no.

go read the humor thread.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:12   

Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:06)
LOL....Ian, sweetie, you've really gotta calm down.  I thought Lenny was the only one around here who freaked on every sentence he confronts.  

Just relax...and if you're really serious about this, you've got to read the whole entire book to get a clue as to where the man is coming from.  I know that is asking a lot, and I don't expect you to ever get through it.  But, Brown is one of the more respected creation scientists out there for many reasons.  His work would be a good starting point if you want to actually call yourself "open minded".

Numero uno, I am not freaking out. I'm aghast you think any of the first slew of pages contains evidence. I've got to here and frankly, I don't see it getting better.

Numero dos, I think it's pretty clear that he is one of the people who doesn't much like evolution, and thus, he should provide evidence against it. Sadly, I can't see any, and without blowing my own trumpet too much, I'm very good at reading between the lines, and it's still not showing up on my radar.

Numero tres, I am open minded enough to accept any evidence, and so, if the creos start showing some I'll take it in. They will need a lot of it to change my mind about evolution, but if they can provide it, I will change my mind. THIS is being open minded, NOT "Well, someone disagrees with you, so suddenly everything you say needs to be compared on a level field to them".

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:15   

But meesa sleepy.

:(

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:16   

"No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors"

Oh boy, this is really, really wrong.

I mean, this is so wrong it's gone past being simply incorrect, and into a weird other dimension of wrongness.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10404
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:24   

Ian, the Index of Creationist Claims says about a very similar argument, "It is hard to see how even creationists can make this argument..."

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007