RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  Topic: FTK Research Thread, let's clear this up once and for all< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
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: 4932
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: 10960
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: 1205
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: 10960
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

  
  748 replies since June 10 2007,02:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]