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

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis

Pages: (202) < ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... >

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,14:33    I still occasionally check out the pointless attempts to get AFDave to understand even the bases for scientific thinking.  So today I see that he has an idea of how Portuguese arose, one totally divorced from linguistic theory and the evidence that shows, well, how Portuguese arose (I rather suspect that some few written records go way back, as they do for the evolution of the French language). What strikes me is that he resorts to derivation in this case in order to "explain" how Portuguese became what it is.  At least it's the proper way of thinking, however naive, instead of the old "poof, God did it" method.  Were he consistent, he'd be telling us that all evidence of derivation is meaningless, that no language can change, either through horizontal or vertical transfer. So we can use derivation to establish cause in the matter of the Portuguese language?  Good.  Then let's.  Only we'll actually deal with evidence, instead of refitting every bit of evidence into Dave's prejudices.  And we'll do the same with genetic evidence, noting horizontal genetic transfers where these occur, and the abundant evidence for vertical evolution where it appears. English actually did change due to horizontal transfers from the French, though before,during, and after the transfers it evolved more "vertically" (with some horizontal transfers happening throughout its existence). Evolution works both horizontally and vertically, so I'm willing to accept his capitulation to one method of evolution, no matter how strenuous his denial of the one kind that he thinks is verboten.  And he's also capitulated to the fact that derivation can be shown via similarities.  All he'd have to do now is to open his mind, study up to the level of a competent high school biology student, and he'd actually follow the evidence for once, instead of pitifully and ignorantly "explaining away" everything that points to evolution. Only we know that he won't.  There is only one "principle" driving AFDave in this issue, it being that evolution is wrong.  His admission that horizontal evolution can be established via the evidence of similarity is merely accidental, an object lesson to the teachable that denial is futile unless one really likes looking foolish. -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,14:35    Hello, Stevestory You said: Quote Is there a problem with considering "authority" in certain ways? I do not consider C.S Lewis an authority on Morals, nor on the Laws of Man. I would consider Skinner, Kohlberg and even Gilligan, an authority on Morals. I am currently completing an Essay for my Social Science Research Class which looks at validity, credibility and reliability of authoritative sources in relation to research in general. I find it interesting when using a source, how objective that source is. Was C.S Lewis a reliable source, credible and valid? No. A statement such as "in all of us there is a natural desire to reach communion with God". Simplistically, would I go ask a Janitor with no higher education to give me an analysis of Mendel's Genetics? Would I seek out C.S Lewis to give me an analysis on Psychology? Otherwise authoritative sources are good, if they are credible.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,14:40    Quote Hypothetically, say science is wrong. Hypothetically, evolution is incorrect. Then give the Intelligent Design model using scientific methodology. Evolution would fail under scientific methodology, then show how Intelligent Design will excel above it, using scientific methodology. don't think you're the first to ask this.  We often ask it of UDites that come to PT, more or less. for example several of us (including myself) asked Salvador Cordova that very question in one of his infrequent visits to PT, and Wesley Elsberry essentially asked the same question of Dembski in a debate some years back, which related to what science ID was planning on doing. if you want to see what their response looks like, ask Wesley.  It's quite humorous, but I'll paraphrase here: "uhh, yeah, that's a good question, I think we're working on it; expect an answer soon." Look, perhaps you have noticed by treading through AFDave's endless monologue ('cause that's what it is from his perspective), that these folks are mentally INCAPABLE of answering that question.  Nor does it affect their ability to spin a tale to promulgate their worldview. You'll never see an answer to that, or an answer even as to how one could begin to construct and experiment to test the currently non-existent scientific hypothesis of "intelligent design". It really doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, by any real definition of the term.  It only qualifies as an idea, and not one that is even based on any objective observation. I guess, all I'm really saying is: Join the club.  What you are asking them is a great question, but it's no magic bullet. EDIT: ahhh, here's a great example: Wesley frames the question thusly: Quote Basically, I said that I had been at the 1997 “Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise” conference where the ID advocates said that they didn’t have a scientific hypothesis of ID and a means of testing it, but that they were working on it. I asked Dembski what progress ID had made in the intervening years. Here is the response (from AMNH Debate Transcript): WD (William Dembski): Quote Well, let me answer you in two parts. One, if you throw enough money at researchers, you’ll be getting research, right. So I think, uh, I think the, you know, the, the research you’re citing, I don’t mean to dismiss it, I think there’s a lot of good stuff being done, but it’s certainly, the moneys, the research funds are the evolutionary side, we don’t have very much funding, we’re not getting funding from NSF and NIH, so it’s a mainly, mainly private at this point. And I would say yes, we have our work cut out for us. In 1997 we met at a conference, but there was a conference later that year that which was a private gathering, titled “A Consultation on Intelligent Design”, Where the idea was to try to jump start this as a research program. We weren’t there at the time. So, you know, I, I agree, we’ve got our work cut out for us, but, uh, we’re making some slow, slow progress. You know I think uh, we’re still at the point, I mean, I think that my, my work in No Free Lunch and um, Design Inference was trying to lay some theoretical foundations. And, Uh, you know. But I, I do see, there’s, there’s some good work being done, and, I can, I can list some for you. We are getting some stuff into the peer reviewed literature, it’s not, it’s not a whole lot, you know. So yeah, we’ve got our work cut out. and that's from a supposed "leader" of the ID movement. If it had anything to do with science, ID would have been embraced, just like it's twin "creation science" would have years before. There is, however, no way apparently to demonstrate that to the likes of AFDave.  Isn't it readily apparent why that is after a month of examining his mental masturbation?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,14:44    Good deal. That sounds like interesting work.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,15:02    Quote (sir_toejam @ May 24 2006,12:40) If it had anything to do with science, ID would have been embraced, just like it's twin "creation science" would have years before. There is, however, no way apparently to demonstrate that to the likes of AFDave.  Isn't it readily apparent why that is after a month of examining his mental masturbation? Hello, Sir Toejam, Indeed, for me it would be like clubbing a baby seal, slapping a corpse to make it go ouch, etc. I think it was Voltaire that said "It takes two to make a truth; one to speak it, the other to hear" - if I could coax someone into believing that I can levitate at will, shoot flames from my fingers, and recite the 2005 Complete Set of Britannica Encyclopedia, then wouldn't I be justified in my method of thinking? Then again it could be purposeful dissonance, purposeful attempt at dissension - any publicity is good publicity right? Hahaha. By the way, as for Dembski's quote, I would LOVE to be paid for my research, for some its their job, for others its an ambition, for me its a paper requirement.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,15:19    Quote By the way, as for Dembski's quote, I would LOVE to be paid for my research, I feel your pain. Dembksi was essentially lying, btw. Not only has the DI never actually funded any research (only PR), but money to do actual research was offered (some NGO - IIRC the Templeton Foundation), and grudgingly rejected by Dembski et. al. when they couldn't even produce a single hypothesis or experimental design to test. as to published papers in the peer reviewed literature... more lies.  To date, not a single experiment to support ID has EVER been published in any scientific journal. the papers he is referring to really are just ID mental masturbation (no evidence or experiments, just attempts to poke holes in current ToE), or are provably completely unrelated to ID itself. the funny thing is, this isn't hard to find out as the DI put up a list of these so called "peer reviewed" works last year. we got a big laugh out of that one.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,04:28    Questions from the "Ape/Human" and "God Hypothesis" threads ... Renier ... [quote]Afdave, I don't get this "Common Design" thing. Back to the broken Vitamin C gene. Was it broken BEFORE the fall of man, or did it break AFTERWARDS? If before, then humans were not made perfect, right? If after, then why the he11 did it break in much the same way as that of chimps, and then trace it back futher to other apes. BS laddy. Let's say it broke afterwards (after the apple). Why so similar, and why in such a way as to look like common descent? You saw the nice little graphics that the people showed you about how the mutations are related. [/quote] Well, Renier, I cannot say for sure since I was not there (as Ken Ham likes to say), but there are some pretty simple possible answers if you open your mind up a little.  My theory is that it broke AFTERWARDS.  The reason the GULO gene is so similar is because ... drum roll ... Apes and Humans are so similar!!  Now, that wasn't too difficult, was it?  For those of you that still don't get it, just think of the old Ford analogy.  Remember I said that Aerostars and Fiestas are 95% similar, like Chimps and Humans?  (Well, I don't know if it's 95, but probably close enough for the analogy).  OK.  Now all Fords have alternators, right?  And probably the Aerostar alternator is going to be a little bigger than than the Fiesta alternator, maybe even a few design differences.  So the alternator is like the functional GULO gene, OK.  Is everyone with me?  Now ... what happens after about 5 years of driving these cars?  The alternators might break.  Pretty believeable, right?  Do they break in the same way?  Maybe, maybe not.  Now, where did these two vehicles come from?  A COMMON DESIGNER.  Imagine that!  Now why is this so hard for you to picture with Apes and Humans? Chris Hyland ...   Quote No, it is the fact that the mutations are the same, which is evidence that we share a common ancestor. It isnt just based on sequence identity. It is the mutations that have occured that are the important part, but you seem to be ignoring this point. How am ignoring this?  Here is what Jeannot said ...   Quote you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene. Your statement and Jeannot's seem to contradict.   Quote No, but everyone who has claimed to base their arguments on Denton has ended up spouting nonsense. Read the old Shi thread for an example. I don't doubt that you have encountered some non-sensical YECs here.  So just because some other guy quotes Denton and spouts nonsense means all quotes of Denton are nonsense?  Why not try refuting what Denton specifically says?   Quote By the way, could you give the specific reference to this "medieval encyclopedia" you rely on? I'm curious to learn how little Burgundy was able to spare thousands of knights for such a distant enterprise, and what language those knights were speaking. Dictionary of the Middle Ages, vol. 10, 1988, American Council of Learned Societies, p. 39 and following.  Did I say "thousands"?  Well, even Creos make misquotes once in a while.  I should have said "several contingents", which is the exact wording of this article.  I read "thousands" somewhere else, but failed to get the reference.  Do you really think it was not thousands?  Also, someone asked about word comparisons.  Here you go.  I hope the table comes out OK. Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2275-0.htm Now everyone who speaks both Spanish and Portuguese (as I do) knows the similarities b/t those two.  But this table shows something which is not as commonly known - the similarities of Portuguese to French.  This is why I don't need to spend hours and hours researching documents with Arden.  This is so obvious, folks.  Anyone with their eyes open can see the commonality with the French language.  Also, I have noticed that many of you lose focus on the goal of a discussion.  Again, let me remind you that my goal on the Portuguese thing was not to make a rigorous research project out of it.  My goal was simply to show Rilke that she does not help the cause of evolutionists by ranting and raving about how idiotic Creos are, which is what she did.  While it may turn out after Arden spends hours and hours of rigorous research that my "Portuguese is Spanish mixed with French" statement is overly simplistic, it certainly is not idiotic to say this, and it doesn't help evolutionists look bright to just blindly blather that "Creos are idiots".  But again, I have no desire to spend hours and hours on this.  I proved my point.  There are 3 lines of strong evidence that support that my statement was not idiotic, even though it may prove simplistic.  If Rilke wants to disagree with me in the future, I might suggest using the "Jstockwell" approach which makes evolutionists sound a lot more sane.  I do have to ask ... why would you want to spend hours and hours proving the Portuguese thing?  It does seem to me like you are trying to prove that "the sky is royal blue" instead of just "blue." But Arden and Rilke and Faid-- If you insist on doing a major research project on Portuguese, please do me a favor and start a new thread for it.  THX. Eric Murphy ...   Quote The "fine tuning" argument simply isn't that compelling, Dave. As half a dozen people have pointed out, what would truly be persuasive is if we found life in a universe that wasn't tuned for it. That's the weak anthropic principle. After all, an omnipotent god certainly could sustain life in a universe manifestly unsuited for it. But given that God presumably had infinite freedom in how he designed the universe, and assuming that he actually likes life (an assumption that may not be warranted), he could have done a lot better job of it and made the universe vastly, astronomically more congenial to life if that had been his aim. So your argument as to why the universe is not infinitely better suited to life comes down to the usual "God works in mysterious ways" apologetic. There seems to be a common misunderstanding among evolutionists that Creationists think we invoke "GODDIDIT" at every turn, thus killing scientific inquiry.  This is the opposite of what we do (well, can't speak for everyone ... when I say we, I mean at least ICR, AIG and CRS).  Creationists understand natural laws very well and look for them in everything they investigate.  But Creationists have an expanded concept of Natural Law, namely that THERE ARE NATURAL LAWS WHICH WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT YET, and THERE COULD BE AN INTELLIGENCE OUT THERE SOMEWHERE WHO DOES KNOW ABOUT THESE OTHER NATURAL LAWS AND WHO USES THEM.  Now ... why is it so unreasonable to think this?  To me, Creationists are much more open minded in the sense that they are forward thinking and willing to investigate ALL possibilities, not just 'naturalistic' ones.  Keep in mind that I have never said, "Cosmic Fine Tuning proves there is a God."  I say "Cosmic Fine Tuning" is remarkable and seems to defy staggering odds with what we know presently.  Yes, we could discover multiple universes and then we might see that the odds are not so staggering after all.  But we haven't yet.  So the best explanation that we know of today is that Someone set the parameters, because the odds against them being set as they are are so large.  Note that these parameters are both complex (there are a lot of them) and they are specified (if you change any of them, everything dies).  I don't necessarily agree with everything Bill Dembski is doing, but here is where he shines, in my opinion.  Specified complexity does not arise by chance.  It requires intelligence.  Why would scientists like yourselves be closed minded to this possibility?  It seems to me that YOUR mindset, not ours is less progressive.  The same logic applies to Biological Machines.  The best explanation we know of today is that "Someone designed them."  This is because evolution does not provide the necessary mechanisms to create the machines, and we observe intelligence every day making cool machines, i.e. human intelligence.  We are very familiar with a quite reasonable explanation already.  Why would we not even propose the idea and test it.  Of course, something may come along to make us discard Intelligent Design.  But nothing has yet.  As I said, true macroevolution has not been demonstrated yet, and in my opinion never will. Eric Murphy ...   Quote I'm really glad you're abandoning your anti-evolution argument, Dave, beacuse it's become incredibly tedious. I decided to keep it alive.  Go check out my questions on bacterial anti-biotic resistance. Arden ...   Quote I sorta don't see the point of responding to AFD anymore, tho some of the linguistic discussions are still interesting. The less they have to do with AFD, the more interesting they are. Good.  Stay away then.  That way I will be able to dismantle evolutionary arguments and establish Creationist arguments unopposed. Aftershave ...   Quote Missionary AFDave sobs ... BTW Dave, I was right about you washing out of T-38 training, wasn't I? Uh ... where did you come up with that?  Why don't you start a new thread to investigate me?  If you do you'll find that I graduated with honors in my EE degree, then got selected for the creme-de-la-creme Euro Nato Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) at Sheppard AFB in Texas.  This was UPT for fighter pilots and served all of NATO.  Everyone who graduated got assigned to fighter or instructor duty.  I graduated 4th out of a class of 40 and got instructor duty in T-38's which was an absolute blast.  I got married and then lost interest in fighters because of all the deployments and also my "afterburner urges" were fulfilled already.  So go ahead and blather on about my career if you want to, but you are just making yourself look stupider and stupider with every new post.  On the other hand, if you want me to think you are intelligent, try studying "Jstockwell."  He's the most intelligent sounding person I have yet encountered here.   I guess if you can't come up with anything intelligent on your own to say about Evolution, maybe you could start a thread on Rocket Science.  Didn't you tell me you are some kind of rocket scientist? Rilke ...   Quote Dave posted some words in a thread, That showed that his knowledge was read From pages of men Who were smarter than him Since nothing is found in his head. I like your poetry, but do you have to repost my ENTIRE post?  Sure takes up alot of space.  What's the point of that?? Oh, by the way, I also like to write poetry.  You will see mine in the form of a soon-to-be-released new Dynamation called "The Watchmaker" at www.kids4truth.com.  See, we want to get to these kids with the truth at a young age, so that they will not go wrong in science like you did when they grow up. Drew Headley ...   Quote AFDave's anthropic argument is like saying if somebody wins the lottery it must have been rigged because the chances are so slim. This betrays your ignorance of the comparison.  With the lottery, someone always wins everytime you draw a number.  In other words, there is no "specificity."  With the anthropic principle there is an extremely high degree of specificity.   Drew again ...   Quote Hey guys, I just poured a glass of water and the water took the exact shape of the glass. I am not kidding, there is an amazingly small probability that the water will arrange itself into the exact shape of the glass, but it does. Must be divine intervention! Stop Drew, before I conclude you are not a scientist.  Right now I think you are simply a scientist who has said some goofy things. Chris Hyland ...   Quote You seem to be using arguments about the probabilities of universal constants taking certain values, how do you calculate these? Thanks. I didn't calculate them which is why I just used the general 1 to 50 gazillion googolplex to illustrate the enormity of the odds against a finely tuned universe. Faid ...   Quote Note that my thesis does not require more than one universe to exist, although some cosmological theories propose this. Even if ours is the only universe, and that universe happened by chance, we have no basis to conclude that a universe without some form of life was so unlikely as to have required a miracle.  See my discussions with others on alternate universes. BWE ...   Quote If you can prove that the Earth is less than, say, a few billion years old, then you will have disproved evolution and all its trappings anyway.  I would ask that you begin by accepting that you are generally delusional but I suppose that is too much to ask. I would like to know how many of you would sign on to BWE's promise.  Because I am going to do just that.  Will you all become Creationists if I do? I would like to admonish all the professional "insulters" here to take notes from BWE.  In spite of the fact that he hurls insults regularly, I actually get a big laugh out of each one, and ironically, I have come to like the guy.  There's just no way a guy could get mad at BWE when he insults you so creatively.  I won't embarrass those of you who aren't very good insulters, but you probably know who you are.  Here's a hint:  just read it before you post it ... if it makes you laugh, then it's probably funny and worth posting for entertainment value. Mr Christopher ...   Quote Behe's own univeristy has a public disclaimer on their web site distancing themselves from Behe's nonsense ... Dembski has more degrees than I have ex-wives and so far he has amounted to nothing ... For a corpse to rot it must first die yet ToE rages on in modern science and education.    No sign of ToE even catching a cold.  Looks healthier than ever. Weren't Galileo and Copernicus "science outcasts" as well?  Now they look pretty smart, though, don't they?  Goofy argument, Mr Christopher. Jstockwell ...   Quote afdave, Did you even read my post on why fine tuning does not distinguish between a designer and natural origins of the universe? Put simply, given that life exists in this universe, both hypotheses predict the same thing: the universe will be able to support life.   How do you not see this? Now, you could say: 'ah, but fine tuning seems so unlikely, it points to a designer!'  However, in order to make this claim, which is a probabilistic one, you MUST have data on other universes, and have a detailed model on how the parameters of universes are generated.  Do you have these?  If you do, you really should publish them.  No.  I do not have to have data on other universes.  Science takes what it knows NOW, and forms hypotheses.  Then if we turn up some new info on some other alternate universe, we will modify the hypothesis if we are forced to.  This happened with Newton when Einstein came along, but it did not negate Newton's work.  The best hypothesis that we have right now considering data from all scientific disciplines is the "God Hypothesis" (or Super-ET or Intelligent Designer Hypothesis or whatever label you want to give it).  No one has a clue about abiogenesis, macroevolution in organisms has no empirical proof (in fact the opposite of what is predicted actually happens), etc. etc., so the best explanation that we have today is the God Hypothesis.  Not to say there won't be a better explanation not requiring a 'God' at some point, but there's not one now. Steve Story ...   Quote I don't know, I don't read very long posts. For example, that Panda's Thumb commenter, what's his name? Glenn Davidson? That guy thinks he's writing features for the NYT magazine. Hey now, you be nice to Glen Davidson.  I like him.  He hasn't called me a "cretin" in a long time! Fractatious ...   Quote Why do Intelligent Designers (and/or those who support Intelligent Design) proselytize their ideology for fiercely in the face of science? This is something I have tossed around for awhile. Because the evolutionary science establishment cannot see the forest for the trees.  They are so blinded by their beloved theory that they are overlooking the most obvious evidence for Intelligent Design that it is quite ludicrous.  The only choice then for YECers and IDers is to "go public."  Since scientists are not educating the public responsibly in the area of origins, someone must.  So we do.  We are basically doing a political "end run" around obstinate, head-in-the-sand scientists.  Note that we only oppose a small portion of what scientists do.  There is much good work that scientists are doing in spite of their "evolution glasses."  We do not oppose this. Fractatious ...   Quote A question I have been asking for years, which has not been answered (and actually blatantly avoided and ignored) is: Hypothetically, say science is wrong. Hypothetically, evolution is incorrect. Then give the Intelligent Design model using scientific methodology. Evolution would fail under scientific methodology, then show how Intelligent Design will excel above it, using scientific methodology. I'm not up as much on the ID research program ... maybe it is non-existent as of yet.  But I can tell you that the Creation research program is doing very well with excellent organizations such as ICR, CRS and AIG.  And no government funding! Fractatious ...   Quote Simplistically, would I go ask a Janitor with no higher education to give me an analysis of Mendel's Genetics? Would I seek out C.S Lewis to give me an analysis on Psychology?  Surely you cannot really believe that C.S. Lewis is like a janitor?  Do you know nothing of his credentials?  Look, I don't agree with Dan Brown either, but I recognize that the man is brilliant and talented.  If you are going to discredit Lewis, one of the most influential Christian philosophers of the 20th century, you need something better than what you have given. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,04:46    Hello, AF Dave.   Quote Because the evolutionary science establishment cannot see the forest for the trees. I snipped this portion, thought about it briefly and decided not to answer this as its already been covered numerous times on this very thread and I don't cultivate or encourage repitition where it comes down to almost blow-for-blow semantics. Your position is clear. I disagree with it, but its clear.   Quote Surely you cannot really believe that C.S. Lewis is like a janitor?  Do you know nothing of his credentials?  Look, I don't agree with Dan Brown either, but I recognize that the man is brilliant and talented.  If you are going to discredit Lewis, one of the most influential Christian philosophers of the 20th century, you need something better than what you have given. I find it vaguely interesting that you will take an analogy based on credentials and assume that I meant that Lewis was a Janitor - why did you do that? Anyway I am aware of his history even (quote biographer, Alan Jacob based on letters that Lewis sent to Arthur Greeves) with Lewis "fascination in sadomasochism and sexual torture". I am aware that he was a professor of Literature (English). I am also aware that he was NOT a psychologist, his understanding of morality pays no semblance in regards to humans, to those leaders of psychology.

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,05:04    2nd Lt. Dave commented   Quote Now everyone who speaks both Spanish and Portuguese (as I do) knows the similarities b/t those two. Which shows nothing about Portuguese being a mixture of French and Spanish Quote But this table shows something which is not as commonly known - the similarities of Portuguese to French. Which shows nothing about Portuguese being a mixture of French and Spanish. Quote This is why I don't need to spend hours and hours researching documents with Arden.  This is so obvious, folks.  Anyone with their eyes open can see the commonality with the French language. Which shows nothing about Portuguese being a mixture of French and Spanish. Quote Also, I have noticed that many of you lose focus on the goal of a discussion.  Again, let me remind you that my goal on the Portuguese thing was not to make a rigorous research project out of it. You made an incorrect statement.  You lied about it.  You lied about it using incorrect history.  You were caught both in your lies and your ignorance. Quote My goal was simply to show Rilke that she does not help the cause of evolutionists by ranting and raving about how idiotic Creos are, which is what she did. I pointed out that you were wrong.  You lied about my response, then too. The Bible says folks should not lie. But young Davey ignores that to try To recover some grace When there's egg on his face And he'd rather not break down and cry. Quote While it may turn out after Arden spends hours and hours of rigorous research that my "Portuguese is Spanish mixed with French" statement is overly simplistic, it certainly is not idiotic to say this, and it doesn't help evolutionists look bright to just blindly blather that "Creos are idiots". We pointed out that you were wrong; you lied about that. You're not ignorant and stupid 'cause you're a creo.  You're  ignorant and stupid AND you're a creo. Quote But again, I have no desire to spend hours and hours on this.  I proved my point. No, actually you didn't.  You simply lied. Young Dave says the Bible's his book, But we think he should give it a look, For it says not to say, Such big falsehoods each day, If you want to get off the he11-hook! Quote There are 3 lines of strong evidence that support that my statement was not idiotic, even though it may prove simplistic. You provided no evidence whatever to support your case. Quote If Rilke wants to disagree with me in the future, I might suggest using the "Jstockwell" approach which makes evolutionists sound a lot more sane. But Dave, you're here to make fun of.  I would engage in intelligent discussion...with an intelligent person. You're not. Quote I do have to ask ... why would you want to spend hours and hours proving the Portuguese thing?  It does seem to me like you are trying to prove that "the sky is royal blue" instead of just "blue." It took me thirty seconds to google the truth.  I'm sorry it took you hours to be wrong. Young Davey is such a known liar, That if he were caught in a fire, While burning to death, With his last bated breath, He'd say, "it's not a fire, 'tis a tire."

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,05:07    Quote The reason the GULO gene is so similar is because ... drum roll ... Apes and Humans are so similar!! Quote Your statement and Jeannot's seem to contradict. No, the fact that the genes are broken is not evidence for common descent, but the fact that all the breaks are the same is. It is not just the sequence similarity, it is the fact that all the mutations that occured after the break are the same. This is about the fifth time I have said this. Quote Why not try refuting what Denton specifically says? I am not taking my past experiences as proof of having refuted Denton. Perhaps you could summarise for me? Quote Creationists are much more open minded in the sense that they are forward thinking and willing to investigate ALL possibilities, not just 'naturalistic' ones Could you please explain to us how to investigate non-natural possibilities? Quote The same logic applies to Biological Machines.  The best explanation we know of today is that "Someone designed them." You still haven't explained this in any depth. Quote and we observe intelligence every day making cool machines, i.e. human intelligence. Isn't this rather similar to saying that mountains exist because of giant moles? Quote This is because evolution does not provide the necessary mechanisms to create the machines Only if you have a very narrow idea of what evolution is. Quote Why would we not even propose the idea and test it. How would we test it? Quote I didn't calculate them which is why I just used the general 1 to 50 gazillion googolplex to illustrate the enormity of the odds against a finely tuned universe. How do you know that?

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,05:20    Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,09:28) Well, Renier, I cannot say for sure since I was not there (as Ken Ham likes to say), but there are some pretty simple possible answers if you open your mind up a little.  My theory is that it broke AFTERWARDS.  The reason the GULO gene is so similar is because ... drum roll ... Apes and Humans are so similar!!  Now, that wasn't too difficult, was it?  For those of you that still don't get it, just think of the old Ford analogy.  Remember I said that Aerostars and Fiestas are 95% similar, like Chimps and Humans?  (Well, I don't know if it's 95, but probably close enough for the analogy).  OK.  Now all Fords have alternators, right?  And probably the Aerostar alternator is going to be a little bigger than than the Fiesta alternator, maybe even a few design differences.  So the alternator is like the functional GULO gene, OK.  Is everyone with me?  Now ... what happens after about 5 years of driving these cars?  The alternators might break.  Pretty believeable, right?  Do they break in the same way?  Maybe, maybe not.  Now, where did these two vehicles come from?  A COMMON DESIGNER.  Imagine that!  Now why is this so hard for you to picture with Apes and Humans? Dave, you can't even keep the relevance of your own analogies straight.  The problem is not just one of Aeorstars and Fiestas. Look at the sequence data scattered throughout this thread (edit: sorry, the ape thread -- I get lost trying to follow Dave as he bounces around) that show chimps and humans are MORE SIMILAR than chimps and gorillas, or chimps and orangutans, or gorillas and orangutans...  Even better (though highly unlikely), read up on the actual genetic context, in toto, within which we discuss apes, humans and vitamin C. To be relevant, your car analogy must reflect your premise of "created kinds", and I've adapted it accordingly.  Now, you put chimps, gorillas and orangutans in one "kind" (the most concrete definition of any kind you've given).  You put humans in a separate, special kind.  So riddle me this... If the ape (Ford) kind was originally created, and then "evolved" (okay, degenerated since the Fall) into Fiesta (chimps), Aerostar (gorillas) and Taurus (orangutans), then what the ****ing he!! is that Toyota Echo (humans) doing in there, sharing MORE similarities to the freakin' Fiesta (chimps) than any other Ford vehicle (ape), not only in how it is designed (lots and lots of functional genetic sequences), but in exactly how its alternator, cupholders and silly little handles above the doors have fallen apart since it was designed (lots and lots of non-functional sequences, such as pseudogenes like GULO)?  What kind of industrial espionage and manufacturing piracy is your Creator involved in here? I know you will now argue for the similar purpose/market of the Ford Fiesta and Toyota Echo, but that doesn't help you one bit with the "kind" problem: doesn't your "theory" positively demand that the original created kinds be more similar to each other than to another kind?  Else what is the purpose or meaning of this whole "kinds" thing anyway?  If the human kind shares MORE common "design" with a certain member of the ape kind than either shares with the other ape kinds, what does this mean to you?

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,05:46    Afdave: Quote This is why I don't need to spend hours and hours researching documents with Arden.  This is so obvious, folks. And THIS kind of "reasoning" is why it is generally a safe bet to assume the worst when it comes to attempted rational discourse with Creationists. Quote There seems to be a common misunderstanding among evolutionists that Creationists think we invoke "GODDIDIT" at every turn, thus killing scientific inquiry.  This is the opposite of what we do (well, can't speak for everyone ... when I say we, I mean at least ICR, AIG and CRS).... Yes, we could discover multiple universes and then we might see that the odds are not so staggering after all.  But we haven't yet.  So the best explanation that we know of today is that Someone set the parameters, because the odds against them being set as they are are so large.  Note that these parameters are both complex (there are a lot of them) and they are specified (if you change any of them, everything dies).  I don't necessarily agree with everything Bill Dembski is doing, but here is where he shines, in my opinion.  Specified complexity does not arise by chance.  It requires intelligence.  Why would scientists like yourselves be closed minded to this possibility?  It seems to me that YOUR mindset, not ours is less progressive.  The same logic applies to Biological Machines.  The best explanation we know of today is that "Someone designed them."  This is because evolution does not provide the necessary mechanisms to create the machines, and we observe intelligence every day making cool machines, i.e. human intelligence.  We are very familiar with a quite reasonable explanation already.  Why would we not even propose the idea and test it.  Of course, something may come along to make us discard Intelligent Design.  But nothing has yet.  As I said, true macroevolution has not been demonstrated yet, and in my opinion never will. Glad you didn't invoke "GODDIDIT" there, Dave. Quote See, we want to get to these kids with the truth at a young age, so that they will not go wrong in science like you did when they grow up. Scary, Dave.  Just plain scary.  Never come near my kids, and I'll return the favour, m'kay?  By the way, I thought you were most interested in discovering the "truth" (as we are)?  Indoctrination first, eh? Quote I didn't calculate them which is why I just used the general 1 to 50 gazillion googolplex to illustrate the enormity of the odds against a finely tuned universe. Erm...Dave...if you give a number as an answer, there #### well better be a calculation involved, no matter what the margin of error in the result.  Back of the envelope is fine (so long as it is represented as such), but we better be able to look at the freaking envelope.  Welcome to science, big guy.  You're not allowed to pull numbers out of your a$$. Quote I would like to know how many of you would sign on to BWE's promise.  Because I am going to do just that.  Will you all become Creationists if I do? Oh, he11 yeah.  Dave, if you can provide me with rigorous positive evidence that the earth is less than one billion years old (i.e., evidence that matches the standard set by the many independent methods of estimation establishing the current accepted age) , I will join the church of your chosing and pray/observe accordingly.  If you get anywhere near the 6,000 years you believe in, I will even do so sincerely.  I'll be watching, but I won't be practicing any hymns yet. Quote Because the evolutionary science establishment cannot see the forest for the trees.  They are so blinded by their beloved theory that they are overlooking the most obvious evidence for Intelligent Design that it is quite ludicrous.  The only choice then for YECers and IDers is to "go public."  Since scientists are not educating the public responsibly in the area of origins, someone must.  So we do.  We are basically doing a political "end run" around obstinate, head-in-the-sand scientists.  Note that we only oppose a small portion of what scientists do.  There is much good work that scientists are doing in spite of their "evolution glasses."  We do not oppose this. Ah, it's been a while since I've marvelled at such breathtaking hypocrisy and rationalization.  Good show!  Well, no, I guess that's not quite true, seeing as how we get your American news networks up here.  But good show anyways -- I missed my dose of Jon Stewart last night (#### reruns), and this is almost as good!

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,05:53    Quote Well, Renier, I cannot say for sure since I was not there (as Ken Ham likes to say) You know what really gets my goat? It's that "argument" that Ken Ham uses. "Were the scientists there in the beginning? NO! God was there, He knows what happened." This argument is pure BS. Here's why. Let's just go ahead and hand it to Ham, and say that he's right, that God was there in the beginning, and of course, he knows better than modern scientists how the universe, and the earth, and mankind were "created" because He witnessed it. This would be some excellent information to get our hands on, indeed. The only problem is with the fucking priests who say they know what God knows. Bull. I don't buy it for a second. For each of the 6 billion people on the planet there is a different opinion of what God is. And there is no credible evidence of Him ever communicating with anyone. If Ken Ham could persuade God Himself to debate the scientists in any forum, I might think that He had a chance of beating the scientists. But, it's not God that scientists are arguing with, it's assclown priests like Ham.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,05:53    Quote Quote You seem to be using arguments about the probabilities of universal constants taking certain values, how do you calculate these? Thanks. I didn't calculate them which is why I just used the general 1 to 50 gazillion googolplex to illustrate the enormity of the odds against a finely tuned universe. Ineducable.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,05:53    Davey davey davey davey, Pretty much every single biologist, geologist, oceanographer, meteorologist, geneticist, and any other -ist will believe in god/creationism if you can prove that the earth is less than 4 billion years. I'd start with that basic info I posted in the new thread for your young earth evidence. I am happy with my current religion but hey, if yours turns out to be right then all my hard work will have paid off. I will spend eternity with all the folks I like.   -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,05:57    Dave, please check one (but not both) of these two boxes: [ ] I will be presenting affirmative evidence for my "Creator God Hypothesis; [ ] I will not be presenting affirmative evidence for my "Creator God Hypothesis. I'm really keen to know one way or another… -------------- 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

Ladlergo Posts: 32 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,05:58    Quote (Ved @ May 24 2006,11:53) If Ken Ham could persuade God Himself to debate the scientists in any forum, I might think that He had a chance of beating the scientists. That would be great.  I'd have a few questions for Him, like if He enjoys playing practical jokes on lifeforms by adding in design flaws.

Drew Headley Posts: 152 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,06:01    Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,09:28) Drew Headley ...   Quote AFDave's anthropic argument is like saying if somebody wins the lottery it must have been rigged because the chances are so slim. This betrays your ignorance of the comparison.  With the lottery, someone always wins everytime you draw a number.  In other words, there is no "specificity."  With the anthropic principle there is an extremely high degree of specificity.   Drew again ...   Quote Hey guys, I just poured a glass of water and the water took the exact shape of the glass. I am not kidding, there is an amazingly small probability that the water will arrange itself into the exact shape of the glass, but it does. Must be divine intervention! Stop Drew, before I conclude you are not a scientist.  Right now I think you are simply a scientist who has said some goofy things. You are wrong, somebody does not always win the lottery. That is how jackpots can get so high periodically, because nobody wins for a while. Yes, what I am saying is goofy because the points you make are goofy too. My example, while sarcastic, does illustrate a point. If the constants are constrained by laws we do not know about yet, then the probability of the universe being able to sustain life could be quiet high. Honestly, I am not a cosmologist so the answer eludes me.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,06:26    Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,09:28) There seems to be a common misunderstanding among evolutionists that Creationists think we invoke "GODDIDIT" at every turn, thus killing scientific inquiry.  This is the opposite of what we do (well, can't speak for everyone ... when I say we, I mean at least ICR, AIG and CRS).  Creationists understand natural laws very well and look for them in everything they investigate.  But Creationists have an expanded concept of Natural Law, namely that THERE ARE NATURAL LAWS WHICH WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT YET, and THERE COULD BE AN INTELLIGENCE OUT THERE SOMEWHERE WHO DOES KNOW ABOUT THESE OTHER NATURAL LAWS AND WHO USES THEM. No, Dave. It's not that Creationists are more "open-minded" than scientists. It's that they're lazier. Scientists are well aware that there is natural law out there that is poorly understood (that's the understatement of the century). The difference is that Creationists seem content to assume that "someone" out there understands them, and therefore everything's okay. Scientists, on the other hand, work for a manifestly downscale wage, most of the them, in a concerted effort to understand those natural laws. They do actual, you know, research. They spend their lives trying to figure stuff out. It should be clear to you by now, based on your reading of Creationist writers, that Creationists don't actually do research. They spend all their time attempting to critique other peoples' research.      Quote Now ... why is it so unreasonable to think this?  To me, Creationists are much more open minded in the sense that they are forward thinking and willing to investigate ALL possibilities, not just 'naturalistic' ones. Except they don't, Dave. They don't do any actual "investigation." I'd like you to point the rest of us to an actual paper, done by an actual creationist, describing actual research (you know, the kind where you have to wear a lab coat and actually do stuff, not just sit at a desk and read other peoples' papers).     Quote Keep in mind that I have never said, "Cosmic Fine Tuning proves there is a God."  I say "Cosmic Fine Tuning" is remarkable and seems to defy staggering odds with what we know presently. But the problem is, that's where you stop, Dave. You don't go out there and see if you can figure out why the physical parameters are the way they are. People like Lee Smolin, and Lisa Randall, and Murray Gell-Mann, and Stephen Hawking, and Edward Witten are out there every single day trying to figure this out. Meanwhile, the creationists are out there doing what amounts to saying "Goddidit," even if that's not the literal word they're using. Until Creationists actually go out there in the big wild world and get their hands dirty doing actual research, no one in the scientific community is going to take them seriously. And the fact that you take them seriously is one of the principal reasons no one here takes you seriously.     Quote Yes, we could discover multiple universes and then we might see that the odds are not so staggering after all.  But we haven't yet.  So the best explanation that we know of today is that Someone set the parameters, because the odds against them being set as they are are so large. But see, Dave, this is the part you're not getting. Saying someone set those parameters doesn't explain anything, until you figure out how that someone managed to set them. Until you do that, it's just so much hand-waving. -------------- 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

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,06:30    Quote (Drew Headley @ May 24 2006,11:01) Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,09:28) Drew Headley ...     Quote AFDave's anthropic argument is like saying if somebody wins the lottery it must have been rigged because the chances are so slim. This betrays your ignorance of the comparison.  With the lottery, someone always wins everytime you draw a number.  In other words, there is no "specificity."  With the anthropic principle there is an extremely high degree of specificity.   Drew again ...     Quote Hey guys, I just poured a glass of water and the water took the exact shape of the glass. I am not kidding, there is an amazingly small probability that the water will arrange itself into the exact shape of the glass, but it does. Must be divine intervention! Stop Drew, before I conclude you are not a scientist.  Right now I think you are simply a scientist who has said some goofy things. You are wrong, somebody does not always win the lottery. That is how jackpots can get so high periodically, because nobody wins for a while. Yes, what I am saying is goofy because the points you make are goofy too. My example, while sarcastic, does illustrate a point. If the constants are constrained by laws we do not know about yet, then the probability of the universe being able to sustain life could be quiet high. Honestly, I am not a cosmologist so the answer eludes me. Well, the interesting thing is that in the 'evolution lottery' somebody always wins: the survivors.  And this is the specificity. That's why Dembski's filter is such nonsense.  CSI is a matter of drawing bull's-eyes after the fact and then claiming, "wow!  Look at that!  How improbable!" There is an inherent presupposition on the part of fundies that the current biodiversity IS WHAT GOD INTENDED.  Particularly man. What's really funny is that fundies can't see that 'beam' in their own eye.  It's puzzling.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,06:36    Well, I promised I'd respond to AFD if he said anything moronic about linguistics again, and, well he did!     Quote Did I say "thousands"?  Well, even Creos make misquotes once in a while.  I should have said "several contingents", which is the exact wording of this article.  I read "thousands" somewhere else, but failed to get the reference.  Do you really think it was not thousands?  Also, someone asked about word comparisons.  Here you go.  I hope the table comes out OK. Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2275-0.htm Now everyone who speaks both Spanish and Portuguese (as I do) knows the similarities b/t those two.  But this table shows something which is not as commonly known - the similarities of Portuguese to French.  This is why I don't need to spend hours and hours researching documents with Arden. "I got me a gut hunch! That counts for way more them citified linguist-types with all their book-larnin!"     Quote This is so obvious, folks. Only if you're ignorant. It's also 'obvious' that the sun goes around the earth, no?     Quote Anyone with their eyes open can see the commonality with the French language.   'Eyes open'? All the linguists who disagree with you have their eyes shut? I dont know how you're defining 'commonality', but if you think 'things in common' prove that Portuguese is Spanish and French 'mixed', you're deluded. OF COURSE PORTUGUESE AND FRENCH HAVE THINGS IN COMMON, THEY'RE BOTH ROMANCE LANGUAGES!     Quote Also, I have noticed that many of you lose focus on the goal of a discussion.  Again, let me remind you that my goal on the Portuguese thing was not to make a rigorous research project out of it.   You have a gift for understatement.     Quote My goal was simply to show Rilke that she does not help the cause of evolutionists by ranting and raving about how idiotic Creos are, which is what she did.  While it may turn out after Arden spends hours and hours of rigorous research that my "Portuguese is Spanish mixed with French" statement is overly simplistic, Not 'overly simplistic'. False. It didn't take me hours and hours of rigorous research, linguists before me have done all that research, and that's the conclusion THEY came up with.     Quote it certainly is not idiotic to say this, and it doesn't help evolutionists look bright to just blindly blather that "Creos are idiots".  But again, I have no desire to spend hours and hours on this.  I proved my point. You're delusional, Dave. Hate to tell you.     Quote There are 3 lines of strong evidence that support that my statement was not idiotic, even though it may prove simplistic.   Again, not simplistic. False.     Quote If Rilke wants to disagree with me in the future, I might suggest using the "Jstockwell" approach which makes evolutionists sound a lot more sane.  I do have to ask ... why would you want to spend hours and hours proving the Portuguese thing?   Well, I think we're fascinated that you could say something so ignorant with such self-assurance, and then REFUSE to admit you were wrong after being continually refuted for 3-4 days. Sort of like watching a train wreck in slow motion. As I said earlier, if you'd admitted you had your facts wrong last weekend, this subject would have gone away quite promptly.   Quote But Arden and Rilke and Faid-- If you insist on doing a major research project on Portuguese, please do me a favor and start a new thread for it.  THX. Not worth it. As much as I enjoy linguistic discussions, this isn't a linguistics board, plus we've already given you a mountain of evidence, which you've ignored. It would serve no purpose. -------------- "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: May 24 2006,06:50    Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,09:28) Why would scientists like yourselves be closed minded to this possibility?  It seems to me that YOUR mindset, not ours is less progressive.  The same logic applies to Biological Machines.  The best explanation we know of today is that "Someone designed them." Dave, it's not that scientists are closed to the possibility of supernatural explanations. It's that time and again, appeal to supernatural explanations hasn't gotten science anywhere. Do you think if Einstein had said to himself, well, lightspeed must be a constant in Maxwell's equations because god planned it that way, he would have gotten anywhere in his investigations? Do you remember where I said a while back that, if you want to posit an "Intelligent Designer" as an explanation for some natural phenomenon, you still have to explain how that designer accomplishes his designs? That's the point, Dave. Show me where, in any of your arguments about how God finely tuned the cosmos, or how God created these biological machines, you explain how he accomplished it. And saying he "willed them into existence," because, you know, he's all omnipotent and really smart and everything," just doesn't cut it. Scientists want to know why the world is the way it is, Dave. Creationists can't be bothered to find out. -------------- 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: May 24 2006,07:13    Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,09:28) Did I say "thousands"?  Well, even Creos make misquotes once in a while.  I should have said "several contingents", which is the exact wording of this article.  I read "thousands" somewhere else, but failed to get the reference.  Do you really think it was not thousands?  Also, someone asked about word comparisons.  Here you go.  I hope the table comes out OK. Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2275-0.htm Now everyone who speaks both Spanish and Portuguese (as I do) knows the similarities b/t those two.  But this table shows something which is not as commonly known - the similarities of Portuguese to French.  This is why I don't need to spend hours and hours researching documents with Arden.  This is so obvious, folks.  Anyone with their eyes open can see the commonality with the French language. Dave, you are aware that Spanish, French, and Portuguese are all Romance languages, right? Meaning that they're descended (with modification) from Latin? That they're pretty closely related, and only started to diffuse from their ancestral tongue (Latin) within the last thousand years or so, right? So is anyone the least bit surprised that all three languages are pretty similar? I don't know about you, but given even my limited understanding of linguistics, I'm not remotely surprised that all three languages share a great deal of similarities (as all three of them do to Italian and Romanian). That does not—not by a long shot—demonstrate that Portuguese is "a mixture of French and Spanish," any more than your sister is a mixture of you and your brother (not to get too kinky about it). Sorry, Dave, but this argument by similarity is really boneheaded when it comes to languages. -------------- 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

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:23    Dave, the problem with your statement about Portugese is that it was just too simplistic. You said that Portugese is a mix between Spanish and French. In other words, you're saying that the entire definition of Portugese is that it is a combination of those two neighboring languages, because you didn't say that there was anything else to it. You could have added "among other things" to your statement, and it would have done alot to get yourself off the hook you're on now. Now, you may be a little bit correct, in that there are a few ways in which this is statement is true. The problem is, others here were able to come up with dozens of ways in which your statement is not true. So, if your statement was just a little bit true and a whole lot untrue, which would be a better way of describing your statement: true, or false?

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:23    Quote We are basically doing a political "end run" around obstinate, head-in-the-sand scientists. ...in lieu of doing any research whatsoever. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:23    Dave commented, Quote I got married and then lost interest in fighters because of all the deployments and also my "afterburner urges" were fulfilled already. So Dave went into the military because he couldn't get laid? War as a sublimation for sex.  Typical guy (no offense meant to all the other folks here of the male persuasion).

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:31    Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,09:28) Eric Murphy ...       Quote I'm really glad you're abandoning your anti-evolution argument, Dave, beacuse it's become incredibly tedious. I decided to keep it alive.  Go check out my questions on bacterial anti-biotic resistance. Gee, Dave. I was really hoping. To, you know, keep the tedium index to a breatheable level around here. Do you honestly think your "bacteria don't evolve, they lose function" argument is new or original, or that we haven't all heard it a million times before and laughed at its boneheadedness? Look at the source for your quote, Dave. Doesn't that make you the least bit suspicious? How many times have we told you that if you really want to find out what evolution is all about, if you're actually open-minded about the subject, you'll read actual books on evolution from people who actually know what they're talking about. Your insistence on citing things like AiG and the Creation Research Institute just make us laugh. Those guys are clowns, and we know it. You really should know it by now too. Also, if you think macroevolution has not been demonstrated but that common design has been, will you please explain to us how common design explains nested hierarchies? And where do penis worms fit into your phylogenetic tree? I'm really curious about that last one. Based on your "similarity" arguments, I can make a few guesses... -------------- 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

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:38    Quote No, the fact that the genes are broken is not evidence for common descent, but the fact that all the breaks are the same is. It is not just the sequence similarity, it is the fact that all the mutations that occured after the break are the same. This is about the fifth time I have said this. I seem to recall that at least two other people said they were NOT claiming that all the breaks are the same.  I think what may be going on here is that you guys are saying that (1) both are broken and (2) they are 95% similar.  From this you conclude that the gene was broken in a supposed common ancestor, then transmitted along two separate lines of evolution. Now what I am saying is this:  If both are broken and they are 95% similar ... big deal.  Fiestas are 95% similar to Aerostars and their alternators are also 95% similar, and guess what ... they are both susceptible to breaking ... maybe even in the same way!  But they share a Common Designer!  Ditto for Apes and Humans! Quote I am not taking my past experiences as proof of having refuted Denton. Perhaps you could summarise for me? I think I did already.  Please refute Denton point by point if you can. Quote Could you please explain to us how to investigate non-natural possibilities? I have been demonstrating how on this thread.  I know it's not comfortable and is a different way of thinking than what you are used to, but it is the only way to really determine truth.  Science today must be expanded to include the possibility of non-natural events or it becomes artificially myopic.  Remember, the definition of non-natural is simply natural laws which WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT.  Are we so proud to think we know all the natural laws which COULD ever exist?  I'm not. Quote You still haven't explained this [biological machines] in any depth. One can only explain something in as much detail as one knows TODAY.  Tomorrow we may know more and we may be able to explain in further detail.  I fully expect Dembski and Co. to come up with rigorous mathematical ways to investigate irreducible complexity. Intuition is all we have at the moment.  But my intuition explains the data better than your obvious Fairy Tale (no offense ... I know it's not YOUR fairy tale, necessarily). Quote Only if you have a very narrow idea of what evolution is. The only definition that makes scientific sense is one which can be demonstrated in the lab.  This would be what I call microevolution and I agree with this.  I just don't agree with macroevolution because no one has demo'ed it. Quote If the ape (Ford) kind was originally created, and then "evolved" (okay, degenerated since the Fall) into Fiesta (chimps), Aerostar (gorillas) and Taurus (orangutans), then what the ****ing he!! is that Toyota Echo (humans) doing in there, sharing MORE similarities to the freakin' Fiesta (chimps) than any other Ford vehicle (ape), not only in how it is designed (lots and lots of functional genetic sequences), but in exactly how its alternator, cupholders and silly little handles above the doors have fallen apart since it was designed (lots and lots of non-functional sequences, such as pseudogenes like GULO)?  What kind of industrial espionage and manufacturing piracy is your Creator involved in here? I know you will now argue for the similar purpose/market of the Ford Fiesta and Toyota Echo, but that doesn't help you one bit with the "kind" problem: doesn't your "theory" positively demand that the original created kinds be more similar to each other than to another kind?  Else what is the purpose or meaning of this whole "kinds" thing anyway?  If the human kind shares MORE common "design" with a certain member of the ape kind than either shares with the other ape kinds, what does this mean to you? No one has EVER told me that Humans and Chimps share more genetic similarity than say Chimps and Gorillas.  Is this true? Quote Scary, Dave.  Just plain scary.  Never come near my kids, and I'll return the favour, m'kay?  By the way, I thought you were most interested in discovering the "truth" (as we are)?  Indoctrination first, eh? It's indoctrination if it's lies you are teaching, such as macroevolutionary theory.  If it is the truth you are teaching, then it's not generally thought of as indocrination, but simply 'teaching.'  You and I just have different views. Quote Erm...Dave...if you give a number as an answer, there #### well better be a calculation involved, no matter what the margin of error in the result.  Back of the envelope is fine (so long as it is represented as such), but we better be able to look at the freaking envelope.  Welcome to science, big guy.  You're not allowed to pull numbers out of your a$$. 50 gazillion googolplex is not a number last time I checked.  Is it a number to you? Quote Oh, he11 yeah.  Dave, if you can provide me with rigorous positive evidence that the earth is less than one billion years old (i.e., evidence that matches the standard set by the many independent methods of estimation establishing the current accepted age) , I will join the church of your chosing and pray/observe accordingly.  If you get anywhere near the 6,000 years you believe in, I will even do so sincerely.  I'll be watching, but I won't be practicing any hymns yet. Cool.  You can start warming up on Amazing Grace ... (you know, the part about "a WRETCH like you")  (just kidding, just kidding ... don't get offended) Quote You know what really gets my goat? It's that "argument" that Ken Ham uses. "Were the scientists there in the beginning? NO! God was there, He knows what happened." This argument is pure BS. Here's why. Let's just go ahead and hand it to Ham, and say that he's right, that God was there in the beginning, and of course, he knows better than modern scientists how the universe, and the earth, and mankind were "created" because He witnessed it. This would be some excellent information to get our hands on, indeed. The only problem is with the fucking priests who say they know what God knows. Bull. I don't buy it for a second. For each of the 6 billion people on the planet there is a different opinion of what God is. And there is no credible evidence of Him ever communicating with anyone. If Ken Ham could persuade God Himself to debate the scientists in any forum, I might think that He had a chance of beating the scientists. But, it's not God that scientists are arguing with, it's assclown priests like Ham. You make a good point, but you misunderstand Ken Ham.  It would be irresponsible to quote the Bible if we (and Ken) had not done our homework and determined that the Bible is truly a Supernatural book and that it is in fact the message of God to mankind.  Only after this hard work is done is it appropriate to say "God was there and He can tell us."  The good news is that this hard work has been done.  I'm planning on walking you through a little of it. Drew Headley ... Quote You are wrong, somebody does not always win the lottery. That is how jackpots can get so high periodically, because nobody wins for a while. Oops.  You're right.  I was moving a little too fast.  The comparison is still not valid though because the lottery is not "specified complexity." The cosmic parameters are.  All of them have to be a SPECIFIC value for life to work. Quote If the constants are constrained by laws we do not know about yet, then the probability of the universe being able to sustain life could be quiet high. It could be quite high IF we learn about the new laws, agreed.  But we do not know about any new laws now.  Science is about observing what we can TODAY, then making  reasonable hypotheses.  Then if we learn something new tomorrow, we modify our hypothesis. Quote No, Dave. It's not that Creationists are more "open-minded" than scientists. It's that they're lazier. Scientists are well aware that there is natural law out there that is poorly understood (that's the understatement of the century). The difference is that Creationists seem content to assume that "someone" out there understands them, and therefore everything's okay. Scientists, on the other hand, work for a manifestly downscale wage, most of the them, in a concerted effort to understand those natural laws. They do actual, you know, research. They spend their lives trying to figure stuff out. It should be clear to you by now, based on your reading of Creationist writers, that Creationists don't actually do research. They spend all their time attempting to critique other peoples' research. How can you say they are lazier when most of the scientists who founded modern science were creationists?  Creationists have PLENTY of research going on.  Check with ICR and CRS.  Even AIG has a Technical journal now that catalogues real, scientific research.  Now I cannot speak for DI.  You may be correct when you say they do not do research.  But give them time. Quote But the problem is, that's where you stop, Dave. You don't go out there and see if you can figure out why the physical parameters are the way they are. People like Lee Smolin, and Lisa Randall, and Murray Gell-Mann, and Stephen Hawking, and Edward Witten are out there every single day trying to figure this out. Meanwhile, the creationists are out there doing what amounts to saying "Goddidit," even if that's not the literal word they're using. Why stop there?  No one else does.  You don't.  Congress sure doesn't.  Congress writes laws which are INTRICATELY TIED to their understanding of what a human being really is.  Mao Tse Tung had an idea a what humans are and I like our Congress' idea better.  But that's just me.  That's why I don't stop.  I do all I can and Creation scientist ARE doing lots of their own original research, but you are correct ... it only takes us so far.  Then we have to make the hard decisions about government and war and taxes and so on, based on the best information we can get from the scientists on what a human being really is. Quote Dave, it's not that scientists are closed to the possibility of supernatural explanations. It's that time and again, appeal to supernatural explanations hasn't gotten science anywhere. Do you think if Einstein had said to himself, well, lightspeed must be a constant in Maxwell's equations because god planned it that way, he would have gotten anywhere in his investigations? I want to do a research project to show you that a Design Hypothesis makes for MORE PRODUCTIVE scientists than ToE does.  I have not researched this, but I have an idea it is true.  And I would start by saying look at all the time that is wasted by people who try to come up with "how the immune system might have evolved" and so on.  So much time is wasted speculating and writing "Alice in Wonderland" stories, that at the very least, we could put those good minds to work doing something more productive than that! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:42    Missionary AFDave sobs     Quote Uh ... where did you come up with that?  Why don't you start a new thread to investigate me? Sorry Dave for hurting your sensitive feelings yet again.  I keep forgetting about your delicate little feminine side.  Does your nose bleed every 28 days too? Here's an idea for you Dave while you dry your tears.  If you want to show that you're not an intellectually dishonest coward, then answer these questions that I've now put to you six times: 1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools? 2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews? 3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study? I'll keep asking and embarrassing you until you explain your YEC position on this issue, might as well deal with it. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:46    Quote Look at the source for your quote, Dave. Doesn't that make you the least bit suspicious? How many times have we told you that if you really want to find out what evolution is all about, if you're actually open-minded about the subject, you'll read actual books on evolution from people who actually know what they're talking about. Your insistence on citing things like AiG and the Creation Research Institute just make us laugh. Those guys are clowns, and we know it. You really should know it by now too. I thought I was doing what you always are asking me to do ... quote a REAL SCIENTIST who REALLY WEARS A LAB COAT and you know ... does REAL WORK!  Am I mistaken? ARDEN ... THIS IS GOD SPEAKING ... IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE PORTUGUESE, PLEASE START A NEW THREAD ... THIS THREAD IS ABOUT "THE CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS" ... HENCE THE CREATIVE TITLE. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Pages: (202) < ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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