RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers
Spags

Hello Spags and welcome to AtBc,

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

I hope that you enjoy your time here.

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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


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

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

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 11047
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

Welcome to AFDave's world!

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

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

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

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

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

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Henry J



Posts: 5106
Joined: Mar. 2005

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

Re "Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea"

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

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

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

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

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

Oh well.

Louis

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

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

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

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

Oh well.

Louis

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

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

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

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

Louis

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

  
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

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

Hi again Stephen, thanks for the welcome.

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

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

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

Cheers
Spags

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

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

hey spags-

quick question (ok, maybe not so quick):

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

what were your reactions to the various presentations?

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

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

know what I'm talking about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks

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

-CC

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

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

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

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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


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

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


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

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5106
Joined: Mar. 2005

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

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

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

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

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

Henry

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

Are we closer to bats than to mice?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5106
Joined: Mar. 2005

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

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

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

Henry

  
nuytsia



Posts: 131
Joined: June 2006

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

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

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

Henry

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

Very cool pdf available at the BBC.

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

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1436
Joined: Aug. 2005

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

Thanks for links, esp. Sandwalk and comments, Nuytsia

  
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

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

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


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

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

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


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

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

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

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

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

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

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

quick question (ok, maybe not so quick):

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

what were your reactions to the various presentations?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks

You're welcome ;)

Cheers
Spags

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

  
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

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

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

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

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

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

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


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

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

Stick to the points made in the paper, please.

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

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

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

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

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

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

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

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

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

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


thanks, spags.

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

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

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

:)

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

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

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

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

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

-CC

  
Henry J



Posts: 5106
Joined: Mar. 2005

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

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

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

Henry

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

Henry

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




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

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

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

  
khan



Posts: 1529
Joined: May 2007

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

Is there a time line for that chart?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

What cowards! No mention of slime molds or stromatolites!

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

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

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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