Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::UnReasonable Kansans thread

Posted: July 09 2008,15:17

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:13)

Quote (Doc Bill @ July 09 2008,15:02)

OK, FtK, how about fish, frogs and lizards.

Doesn't that solve your problem of vital organ development?

Yeah, okay, so let's say we cut out one of those vital organs...would they live? Just sayin'.

Cart before the horse.

No Ftk, the lungs developed after they need arose. Also, evolution does not target specific members but parts of species.

So there was no need to have lungs until the first fish needed a way to get from mud puddle to mud puddle. Lungs arose from that.

For those who are more literate lungs are most likely a re-structuring of the swim bladder, correct?

ppb

Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: July 09 2008,15:17

Given that a tadpole->frog goes from gills but no lungs to lungs but no gills, I would say yes!

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:20

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,12:27)

I'm still waiting to be told why common descent must be adhered to in order to do biology. �No one addressed the primary topic of my post.

FtK

Your question is a strawman. Nobody said "common descent must be adhered to in order to do biology".

What was said, multiple times, is that common descent works better. It offers a better explanation of the observed facts, that it explains differences as well as similarities, and allows science to progress at a more rapid rate than some other notions, say, ID or creationism (aka common design). �This has been pointed out to you many times, including the time a few weeks back when you backed yourself into a corner re speciation of the icefish. Neither ID nor creationism explains the observed facts in that case, and you were unable to come up with even a coherent discussion of those facts.

The proof of that statement lies in the productivity of science using common descent vs science using common design. In terms of published papers, the comparison is laughable. In terms of scientific progress (new products, treatments for diseases, etc.) the scorecard looks even worse for your side.

Indeed, you can "do science" if you are a creationist. You just won't do it very well, and most of the IDists who were trained as scientists have actually quit it altogether. That's another clue that it really doesn't get you anywhere very fast.

So quit complaining that nobody answered your question. It has been answered a dozen times before, per usual.

And thanks for the quotes for my sig. Much appreciated.

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

olegt

Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: July 09 2008,15:22

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:10)

Quote (olegt @ July 09 2008,15:00)

Hugs and kisses, FtK. �

If god is out of the equation, what's the difference between creation science and ID?

Sigh...

Oleg, we've been over this time and time again. �I honestly don't understand why you don't see the difference.

Read Brown's book. �It ='s creation science.

Read Dembski's no free lunch. �It ='s ID

There is a difference...huge really. �Creation science fucks with virtually every field of secular science in case you haven't noticed. �

ID only postulates the idea that there has to be a designing force responsible for the complexity we see in nature. �

Sure, some issues may overlap, but ID is a different concept that has no overt religious teachings. �Religious implications? �Sure. �But, then evolution has religious implications as well.

Excellent, FtK, now we're moving somewhere! �

You're right, Behe and Dembski's ID stuff is different from Walt Brown's. �At the same time, it's virtually indistinguishable from the scientific creationism of Henry Morris. �Here's Dembski responding to Morris:

Quote

Morris claims that intelligent design brings nothing new to the debate: "It is not really a new approach, using basically the same evidence and arguments used for years by scientific creationists but made to appear more sophisticated with complex nomenclature and argumentation." Morris notes that the bacterial flagellum, the icon of intelligent design, was used by the late Dick Bliss. So too, my use of the term "specified complexity" as a criterion for detecting design has, according to Morris, "essentially the same meaning as 'organized complexity,' which is more meaningful and which I have often used myself." And as for my universal probability bound of 10^(�150), below which chance is precluded, Emile Borel proposed a less conservative one of 10^(�50) and Morris himself proposed a bound of 10^(�110).

You can read Morris's original critique of ID here. �The bottom line: Dembski and Behe didn't invent a new brand of creationism, they just re-branded an existing one. �Sure, their creation science is different from Brown's but it's identical to Morris's.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout �

argystokes

Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 09 2008,15:25

Quote

Read Brown's book. It ='s creation science.

Read Dembski's no free lunch. It ='s ID

OK. But is Of Pandas and People a creation science book or an ID book?

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:26

Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,15:02)

And I seem to remember reading this somewhere as a governing goal in some sort of document...

Quote

"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

And, how would that differ from the four horsemen's plan to use science to erradicate religion?

I think we're on a level playing field in regard to those who would like to see one ideology replace the other. If we're all honest, every one of us would be more comfortable if we all held the same worldview. But, that doesn't mean that that will be decided in the science class. As long as both sides are fairly considered, neither has anything to fear. If anyone thinks that one ideology is going to reign supreme and wipe out consideration of the other, they're absolutely delusional.

Both sides have and always will have a place at the table regardless of whose ideology currently reigns over the science classroom. We can (and have) try to kill each other off, but it won't change the fact that there will always be those who reject design and those who accept it.

If both sides were allowed to be considered, the public would be more apt to trust scientists and the incessent bickering and court cases over this bullshit would cease.

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

Chayanov

Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:28

Quote (argystokes @ July 09 2008,15:25)

Quote

Read Brown's book. �It ='s creation science.

Read Dembski's no free lunch. �It ='s ID

OK. But is Of Pandas and People a creation science book or an ID book?

It's a cdesign proponentist book -- in other words, a transitional.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Chayanov

Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:29

Quote

And, how would that differ from the four horsemen's plan to use science to erradicate religion?

I'd say "Evidence please," but we all know how that would turn out.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:30

Quote

No Ftk, the lungs developed after they need arose. Also, evolution does not target specific members but parts of species.

So there was no need to have lungs until the first fish needed a way to get from mud puddle to mud puddle. Lungs arose from that.

How?

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 09 2008,15:32

Quote

And, how would that differ from the four horsemen's plan to use science to erradicate religion?

FTK: Who are these 'four horsemen'?

(We'll set aside the question of whether they want to irradiate religion.)

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

Chayanov

Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:33

My guess is she's claiming Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris have a master plan to end all religion.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:34

Quote (Nerull @ July 09 2008,13:29)

I presume you also think we should teach that, while the evidence says the earth goes around the sun, there are those who believe it is carried across the sky in a chariot, and since their claims are so vague they are hard to disprove, both claims have equal weight?

yeah that is this fool in a nutshell.

relative truth, thy name is FtK.

your descent into the gaping maw of solipcism is tightly correlated with your inability to define 'information'.

you made the claim, liar, now let's hear what you mean by 'information'.

ROFLMGAAO

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.�Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 09 2008,15:35

Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,13:33)

My guess is she's claiming Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris have a master plan to end all religion.

Nah, I'm sure she's including Erasmus somewhere in there.

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

Chayanov

Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:36

Maybe she needs more horsemen. How about the eleventy-one horsemen of the apocalypse?

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:36

Quote

Nobody said "common descent must be adhered to in order to do biology".

Got that right! That would make a perfect sig for me IF I HAD AN EDIT BUTTON AND COULD ADD IT TO MY SIG LINE.

The rest of your post is BS. It's your opinion that your ideology would work better because it's a mind set you can't free yourself from.

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

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:38

Oh, yippy, Darwin's daddy is back and foaming at the mouth again. Joy.

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

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:38

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,13:39)

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 09 2008,13:22)

I see Ftk is off her meds again.

...as if I didn't have anything fun to do...

I see Wesley has made a call for supporting a claim or retracting it.

Could someone save me some pain and tell me if that's occurred yet?

Actually, no....I'm on more meds in order to tame this poison ivy.

Cut it with the retraction shit. �There have been so many accusations against me in the last two pages that have not been backed with evidence that it's not even funny. �I'm not a liar or dishonest so all those who claimed I am can retract now.

If you're going to throw me back in the john, then you're just doing it so you don't have to address the issues I presented. �So, I retract everything I said about Wes. �There....now your have no excuse to throw me off my thread.

And, no Assinator, your answer is no sufficient. �That does not answer why one *must* adhere to common descent in order to "do science". �It's merely a mind set. �Nothing more.

my bolding.

And this shows the depths of your intellectual dishonesty.

Say something stupid. Claim you mean it. Retract it and claim you mean it. All part of a postmodern charade, a front in the culture war.

FtK, no one cares about you. Even less so your 'friends' in the ID movement. At least here, while we mock you, we pity you. Dr Dr Dr Sweater just sees you as a book sale. And The Dogs Ass Backwards wishes she could sell you a book (although you have a very similar syntax, much like a non-english speaking person learning the language from Sweet Valley High books).

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.�Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 09 2008,15:38

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,13:36)

Quote

Nobody said "common descent must be adhered to in order to do biology".

Got that right! �That would make a perfect sig for me IF I HAD AN EDIT BUTTON AND COULD ADD IT TO MY SIG LINE.

The rest of your post is BS. �It's your opinion that your ideology would work better because it's a mind set you can't free yourself from.

Right, like once you free your mind from the ideology that there's any difference between 6,000 years or 4.5 billion.

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

olegt

Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: July 09 2008,15:40

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:30)

Quote

No Ftk, the lungs developed after they need arose. �Also, evolution does not target specific members but parts of �species.

So there was no need to have lungs until the first fish needed a way to get from mud puddle to mud puddle. �Lungs arose from that.

How?

Here's an excerpt from Evolution: the Triumf of an Idea by science journalist Carl Zimmer.

Quote

Lungs, for example, appear to have evolved in fish long before any air-breathing land vertebrate existed. There are still some primitive, air-breathing fish alive today, such as the bichir of Africa. Lungs are helpful to the bichir, but not absolutely essential, because it can get oxygen through its gills. But by breathing through its lungs from time to time, a bichir can boost its swimming stamina with an extra supply of oxygen to the heart. Around 360 million years ago, one lineage of air-breathing fish began spending some time on dry land. As they increased their time out of the water, they adapted their limblike fins to support their weight as they walked. Eventually their gills disappeared altogether. Over the course of millions of years, these early tetrapods became completely dependent on their lungs -- a process documented with fossils.

I highly recommend reading the book. I'm sure you can get it at the local library.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout �

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 09 2008,13:45)

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 09 2008,13:43)

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,13:39)

If you're going to throw me back in the john, then you're just doing it so you don't have to address the issues I presented. �So, I retract everything I said about Wes. �There....now your have no excuse to throw me off my thread.

Can you feel the love? �I sure can.

Group Hug!!!

Actually, it's *my* thread. Just so we're clear.

that thread has been worn out so many times you could drive a truck through it.

like my buddy, a fishing/hunting guide in alaska, said when he started dating a girl in town: "Another local came up to me and said, 'Son, that ain't your girl, it's your turn'".

Richtard you got to hollah at yo girl, now. Straighten this fool out, tell her wassup.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.�Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 09 2008,15:42

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,13:38)

Oh, yippy, Darwin's daddy is back and foaming at the mouth again. �Joy.

Nah, she's on her mountain at TT avoiding Cajuns.

SEE HERE.

�

Quote

Maybe she needs more horsemen. How about the eleventy-one horsemen of the apocalypse?

More like the eleventy-one science professors of the apocalypse.

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

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:42

Remove a vital organ?

No fair, FtK! That wasn't your question.

If the fish, amphibian, reptile sequence isn't plausible to you, propose an alternative explanation.

Chayanov

Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:44

Quote

More like the eleventy-one science professors of the apocalypse.

That ought to give her nightmares.

"We're in your schools, teaching your children!"

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:46

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,14:13)

Quote

Have you found a solution to the gill-lung problem, FtK?

Have you?....take a stab at answering the questions posed by Berlinski in the youtube I provided in my first post of this discussion, then I'll take your questions seriously.

ROFLMGAAO.

discussion.

ROFLMGAAO

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.�Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Lou FCD

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 09 2008,15:48

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:45)

Quote (Sol3a1 @ July 09 2008,14:41)

Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,14:38)

Quote

God or a lucky blob....make your choice.

Quote

Keep religion out of the discussion folks.

*ahem*

I was about to point out her fellow traveller lcd made several refs to their (they are both Christians right?) god.

She (Ftk - are you XX or XY or some other combo?) didn't seem to mind it then.

But this is better.

There's a word I'm thinking about.

Hypocrite!

XY - the resident creationist stripper and antagonizer. �Thanks.

um, Ftk?

...never mind.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:49

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:10)

Quote (olegt @ July 09 2008,15:00)

Hugs and kisses, FtK. �

If god is out of the equation, what's the difference between creation science and ID?

Sigh...

Oleg, we've been over this time and time again. �I honestly don't understand why you don't see the difference.

Read Brown's book. �It ='s creation science.

Read Dembski's no free lunch. �It ='s ID

There is a difference...huge really. �Creation science fucks with virtually every field of secular science in case you haven't noticed. �

ID only postulates the idea that there has to be a designing force responsible for the complexity we see in nature. �

Sure, some issues may overlap, but ID is a different concept that has no overt religious teachings. �Religious implications? �Sure. �But, then evolution has religious implications as well.

naughty wench

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.�Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 09 2008,15:50

Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,13:44)

Quote

More like the eleventy-one science professors of the apocalypse.

That ought to give her nightmares.

"We're in your schools, teaching your children!"

How's this for quick turnaround?

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

Chayanov

Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: July 09 2008,15:51

i can haz loldawkinz?

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

carlsonjok

Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

Posted: July 09 2008,15:52

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 09 2008,15:50)

Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,13:44)

Quote

More like the eleventy-one science professors of the apocalypse.

That ought to give her nightmares.

"We're in your schools, teaching your children!"

How's this for quick turnaround?

Umm, am I seeing things or has PZ misbuttoned his shirt?

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

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006