guardian.co.uk— "Last night in Westminster Abbey, just yards from the final resting place of Charles Darwin, two believers and two atheists slugged it out before the altar."
May 13, 2009View in Crawl 4
@Mnementh2230 said:"Using biblical passages to try to prove your point is idiotic, as the bible is full of contradictions, factual errors, impossibilities, and historical inaccuracies."Yet you are unable to cite a single one.-----------------------------------"Further, passages from it don't mean a damn thing to people who don't already subscribe to your unevidenced faith."I've seen the evidence and am convinced on that basis, that's why I quoted it. You, on the other hand, are a repeater. You've been repeatedly *told* that there is no evidence and YOU DIDN'T CHECK FOR YOURSELF. You are thus doomed to a lifetime of repeating errors as they are dictated to you by your substitute god(s), the elite core of your social construct.--------------------"Further, Donkeys and Horses can reproduce together, though the offspring is almost always sterile (mules). Are they the same "kind"?"Apparently. This example may have been left as a study of the limitations of DNA reproduction. Feel free to read into it whatever you wish, however. ------------------------------"Once again you demonstrate your scientific illiteracy. You cannot interbreed "species" because by the very definition species cannot interbreed...Perhaps you should learn a little more about what you're talking about. Google "Speciation Event".I will look it up and review my understanding of the relationship of Genus to Species. Whatever I learn, however, my point stands. If reproduction is possible, a kind is established and no further delineation is required. Did you watch the video? Didn't think so.--------------------------"Incorrect, and refuted elsewhere. The mention of "favoured races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. "Any validation of the concept of"race" implies racism--to some degree. DNA does not support the notion of races of humanity. Therefore, if anyone sees such a thing, it exists in his mind. You cannot deny that racism was a much more prominent factor in the lives of Darwin and his contemporaries than it may be among you and yours. I refer you to "The Mis-measure of Man", the work of evolutionary biologist, Steven Jay Gould who studied and documented other attempts at scientifically validating racism by Darwin's contemporaries. It was, in fact, all the rage.---------------------"Further, even if it DID, it doesn't mean anything with regards to the modern version of the Theory, "Oh, but you are mistaken, sir. To accept the theory is to accept its intent and all attempts at spreading a dominant species throughout the earth through decidedly unnatural selection (war).----------------------------------"Again, refuted, and the root of it has no bearing on the modern understanding. Comparing modern Evolutionary Theory to the first form of 150 years ago is about as relevant as comparing modern Chemistry to Alchemy."Again, I disagree. Modern chemistry has ancient alchemy as it's foundation. Such a comparison is valid. -----------------------------------"I'm not racist. One of my best friends is half Australian Aboriginal. "I didn't say you were racist, I said you were carried "through" the one error into another.-------------------------------------"You're an idiot, "Then why do you bother to engage me? Do you not insult yourself in the pointless attempt to...whatever it is you are attempting to do with an idiot? --------------------------------------"but that has nothing to do with your ethnic background and everything to do with your lack of educational and critical thinking skills."On the contrary, I reject your flawed education and have been quite critical of you and your ridiculous theory. Furthermore, I neither stated nor raised any issue with respect to my own background.------------------------------------------"I know plenty of Christians who also accept the verifiable truth of Evolutionary Theory. "Truth through repetition. You can't repeat it enough to get me to fall in line. Most people who call themselves "Christian" have no idea who Christ was, what he said, where it is written, etc. Your point is meaningless. That is an entirely different discussion.-----------------------------------------"That I reject your religion is not based on my acceptance of Evolutionary Theory as much as it is the lack of evidence for Biblical validity (and indeed, the massive amount of evidence against it)."There is no evidence against the validity of the Bible, there is "talk" against the validity of the bible from people who haven't adequately studied it and don't care for the burden of responsibility they know it would bring. Time and again "smart" men scoffed at the bible only to discover that it was correct. Instead of admitting defeat, however, they forget about their error and continue their fruitless, endless, faultfinding journey.------------------------------------"The trail of truth will lead to where the evidence points. "And, having believed only what you wanted to be true, you will be nowhere to be found. "Truth" is not only a posteriori, that's why a priori exists.--------------------------------------"There are plenty of things I *want* to be able to do or prove, but none that I can do with objective evidence."Therein is the flaw. Your overlords have created for you an argument with incomplete terms. You have basically said "show me the one thing that can never be seen and I'll believe it" and then declared yourselves right when no one could show it to you. Discoveries of the unknown have been consistent throughout the human experience. Every time a man looks for something bigger, he finds something bigger, when man looked for something smaller, atoms, quarks, neutrinos and "super strings" appeared--even if they cannot be seen. If you looked for a God, you might have found that he's been there the whole time but that's not what you looked for. What you looked for is *NO* God. That is, therefore, what you found. No applause is due for your "discovery."-----------------------"That you don't know anything about the field of abiogenesis or the progress being made there (Harvard has done some neat things recently with fatty acids and primitive lipid layers - the basis of cell walls) is your own problem. However, you are correct - we do not know for certain, but we've got some pretty good hypotheses."I am unimpressed. Until you get a lump of coal to reproduce and walk you have empty words based on an empty desire.---------------------------------------"Abiogenesis isn't a theory, it's a field of study. Technically, it's a hypothesis. Evolution is a Theory, but it's not a layman's theory, it's a Scientific Theory, and a Scientific Theory has enough evidential backing so as to be accepted as fact by those who actually study the subject (unlike yourself). "Call abiogenesis anything you want; it is still a lot of empty words. Life has extra-physical origins and you can't prove that physically without actually creating life. That's why you have no proof. Incidentally, if you did succeed in proving any hypothesis or theory of abiogenesis, you would have succeeded in proving Intelligent Design--unless you were going to admit that either a) you didn't do anything or b) you're not intelligent. -------------------------------Life could have originated from the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Evolution would still be just as valid, because it doesn't require or explain a beginning to the process - it only describes how the process works once life already exists. It's a fundamental tenant of the science that you remain willfully ignorant of because it doesn't fit in with your canned arguments from ignorance."Evolution describes nothing unless you can prove that God didn't do it and you cannot prove that, either. You may make some observations of phenomena that are observable in the here-and-now, form and test a hypothesis and successfully come up with a vaccine but that cannot be extrapolated into evidence that everything that you believe *must have happened* millions of years ago actually occurred the way you say. With God (or any intelligence) at the beginning of life on earth, evolution is unnecessary. It's like forming a theory of how sandwiches are formed. If someone did it, that's pretty much the end of the discussion. If NO ONE did it, however, there tends to be NO SANDWICH. Also the end of the discussion. Occam's razor, anyone?----------------------------"Your entire argument against Evolutionary Theory is based on your ignorance of it, which we can attribute to your lack of education and critical thinking skills. In short, you're making a bunch of straw-man arguments against something you don't even really understand, and you look all the more pathetic because of it. I pity you your narrow-minded world view, and the lack of bulls**t filters in your brain."My filters must be working fine since I am not in agreement with the errant conclusions of your flawed social construct. I know everything worth knowing about your theory; it is a sorely lacking alternative to an inescapable truth...BUT YOU STILL WANT TO ESCAPE so you will never stop weaving the lie into ever grander deceptions until even you can't find your way out.
@Mnementh2230"...my dear Crazy, "I don't mind your calling me "crazy" (it is, after all, my name) but if you don't stop calling me "dear" I'm going to block you.-----------------------------------"I've just looked one step deeper than you. "No, you looked one step to the left..."Let no one be seducing himself: If anyone among YOU thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God;. ."-- (1 Cor 3:18-19)"For it is written: ?I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.? ....21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing." (1 Cor 1:19, 21) What you fail to notice is that the discussion has continued because we haven't *all* arrived at an indisputable truth. As with the question of the heliocentric nature of the solar system, we are bound to, one day, end up with one side defeated and forever silenced. Since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, when that one point is reached, science will likely not come out the victor.-----------------------"You go look at the evidence, you see what its proponents say, and then you see what its detractors say, and you decide which argument is more plausible using basic principles of epistemology. I'm guessing you didn't look at what the detractors had to say. "How could I not when you have filled the world with it? From the first time I heard the theory of evolution in the 4th grade it sounded wrong to me. You need to get up on the principles of sociology because that is as much a factor in your belief set as any "proof" you think you have.--------------------------------------"Besides that, the passages in a holy book still don't mean squat to folks who don't subscribe to the religion of the holy book, which was my original point anyway."I'm well aware of that fact but that fact has no bearing on the passages, themselves. Maybe *you* are in error but that's a possibility to which you are not open.--------------------------------------"You don't see that as stretching things just a little bit? "No. Did you watch the video?--------------------------------------"Something left by an omnipotent deity that, when viewed in context with its own holy book, denies said holy book's definition of "kind"?I don't see that as being the case but you do since your intent is only to see the Bible as flawed. Furthermore, it is but one example among millions. A mule doesn't reproduce. So what? I don't find it to be terribly meaningful in the grand scheme. --------------------------------------"So explain ring species to me, in the context of a "kind". Further, would you strictly define what a "kind" is? No creationist to date has been able to strictly define it, that I'm aware of."I believe my original point comes back into view. It is not necessary to define species except to the extent that reproduction is possible. Reproduction will take place where it is possible according to the rules of a system that has been set in motion. End of story.--------------------------------------"I agree, to some degree. However, we have different "breeds" of dogs, do we not? Their appearance varies much more than the difference between someone of African and someone of Eastern descent, but the differences are still there. "What is being seen is the result of a relatively isolated population interbreeding. Over time, the gene pool tends to average out; the appearance of distinctness may come into view. Humans may feel compelled to label the averaged pool but that label is not binding. Diversify the population and new traits begin to form new appearances--within limits. Dogs don't reproduce with cats, they're not the same kind.----------------------------------------------"The differences between the various ethnicities of humanity DO SERVE purposes for the original ethnicity's homeland, however (in come cases - in others, it may be merely genetic drift). Darker skin in people of African descent, for example, helped to keep them safe from solar damage. When folks started moving north to where there was less sun, however, too much melanin kept them from producing enough Vitamin D, and thus, through mutation, we have Caucasians,"Bulls**t. How can you attribute a mutation to an environmental cause? Either mutations are random or they aren't; you can't have it both ways. Furthermore, why do you attribute the difference to the environment when it is just as possible (and more plausible) that lighter-skinned people were more *comfortable* in cooler climates and so relocated there? By your argument, the Inuit, a relatively dark-skinned people with an "asian" appearance, should have have all magically turned into blue-eyed blonds. Of course, you can always explain-away the fact that it has not occurred by saying "it takes millions of years" (how convenient) but that's crap, too. Either they need the traits to survive or they don't. Right now, it is clear that they don't.------------------------------------------------"I know Darwin was racist - most men of his time were. They didn't know any better. There is a lot of evidence to suggest he was less racist than most of his time, however, but it's hardly germane to the topic."The point is quite pertinent. You state that "they didn't know any better" with respect to racism but racism was the inspiration of the theory which you continue to extol. Can't have it both ways.---------------------------------------------------------"Actually, the very idea of wiping out a race is contrary to modern understanding of Evolutionary Theory, because it reduces genetic diversity. "Tell that to the white supremacists who are actively spreading AIDS in Africa under the guise of trying to stop it. The ball has been rolling since Darwin's time and there is no stopping the momentum. There are very many who believe in their superiority and they will not give it up. What they're up to, now, is a different discussion but *why* they're up to it is the theory that supports their error.-------------------"Genetically diverse populations have less incidence of genetic disease and more probability of individuals having resistance against specific diseases, as EASILY observed by viewing pure-bred dogs vs. mutts. The pure-breds have all kinds of issues and susceptibilities that you won't find in a mutt. Furthermore, in a race of mutts, the large diversity allows for faster adaptation of the population in the event of new selection pressures."More windy bulls**t. It's a simple matter of averages. Adaptation is a myth. Any living thing which faces a potentially lethal situation will either a) die or b) not die. If (a) then no adaptation occurs because death prevents reproduction. if (b) then no adaptation occurs because none was needed to survive. Furthermore, if mutations are "random" there can't also be a cause. You can't have it both ways. Pick a side; we're at war (j/k).---------------------------------------------------"The difference is that there is ...nothing from alchemy except truths stumbled upon by chance were kept in the modern understanding."Thus making the comparison valid.---------------------------------------------------"The same can be said of Evolutionary Theory - only that which is useful or factual has been kept, and the useless and wrong has been discarded."Sorry, that whole baby should have gone out with the bathwater. It is merely a mental exercise and a distraction offered as an alternative to an undesirable truth.---------------------------------------------------"It's a case study on the self correcting nature of science - we *DO NOT* have to keep biases of the progenitor of an idea, especially when, by expanding upon the idea, we can prove those biases to be wrong."In those cases, the argument is adjusted but not necessarily to the exclusion of the error. When the issue of beginnings came up, instead of abandoning the project, the distinction of "abiogenesis" was invented to kick off the inconvenient truth that a godless beginning is most necessary to the theory of Neverlution. I remind you, you still don't have a plausible beginning for life.---------------------------------------------------"in the course of correcting you, I am sometimes able to learn new things during my research. "You have not corrected me, however, I agree with the potential for increased learning in the effort. I, too, do it for that reason. Also, I just love skeet-shooting evolutionary theory and watching its proponents squirm.----------------------------------"You call my education flawed based on what criteria? Some idea that there is a conspiracy of science to deny your religion? "The conspiracy is grander than that but that, too, is another discussion.---------------------------------------------------"The idea is laughable when you understand the self correcting nature of science. "A nice ideal but one which the scientific community, as a whole, fails to live up to. Did you watch the video? That's my point.---------------------------------------------------"Further, you are critical of a Theory that you don't even understand, and have no education on....How can you be critical of something you don't even understand? ..."I already told you; I understand your little theory as well as I need to. I need not immerse my entire head into it because it is based upon faulty (or missing) precepts. The danger of exploring it to the extent you have is akin to the danger of playing D&D. People get detached from reality and there's no bringing them back.---------------------------------------------------"Repetition isn't required, only education so you can understand. You disparage what you don't even understand."Repetition is required for propaganda to gain acceptance. That's why no (and I mean not a single) news story or documentary can discuss an observation about a living system without using the word "evolution". ---------------------------------------------------------------"Oh really? Lets see hereGenesis:-God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day"Your flawed understanding of the scriptures is partially due to poor translating and partially due to listening to repeaters. Gen 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" Period. No mention of method, no mention of time. Really, would Moses have understood it? What words in ancient Hebrew would have sufficed to describe it? How useful would such detail been to the ancient shepherd? What you consistently fail to want to observe is that if YOU were God, you would have dumbed it down, too.----------------------------"-In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, "Incorrect. I refer you back to the first verse in the Bible. If there were "no light and stars", to what, then, did "heaven" refer?--------------------------------"birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite."""Known from science"? Just who was there to observe this? NOBODY. The difference is not "known" it is "supposed". Your "facts" are not binding. ------------------------------------"-Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes"Again, you're wrong, "Heaven and earth". A clear distinction made between two different things. This is, again, why you fail; poor translation and poor research. The King James VERSION a) is not a TRANSLATION and b) was not translated directly from the oldest known manuscripts, it was translated from latin (a dead language) into olde english (another dead language). It's use has been superseded by many translations superior in accuracy and should not be regarded as a "standard". The word translated in KJV "light" in Gen 1:14 is more accurately translated "luminaries". Furthermore, the reference to "luminaries" in the verse in question refers not to the CREATION of these luminaries (which were created along with the earth in vs 1:1) but to their becoming clearly visible from the earth in "the expanse" which we now call "sky" due to apparent clarification of the atmosphere. I remind you Gen 1:2 prescribed "darkness" specifically "upon the SURFACE of the waters."Here is the major point that "science" and bible critics have been all too happy to overlook. That which is described in terms of "days" (a relative term having alternate translation options including "phase") refers not to the CREATION of the earth but to its DEVELOPMENT from the status of "formless and waste" of which we read at Gen 1:2. Everything that happens after Gen 1:1 is RELATIVE TO THE EARTH. The creation of the "heaven and earth" in Gen 1:1 was NOT said to have been "a first day".--------------------------------"-God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun."see previous explanation.----------------------
"Really? The insanity defense, again? Understand this: "Insane" has no real meaning. It's just you insulating yourself from something that you don't agree with."No, I'm calling it how I see it. It's not a defense, merely an observation. And I didn't say you was insane. I said it appears you suffer from paranoia and psychosis."I could call you crazy for all of the stupid $h!t you believe but that would be meaningless and not binding because it's my opinion."You could, but the stupid $h!t I believe tends to be backed up with scientific empircal evidence. Independently verifiable facts. You don't need group think or the NWO brainwashing you. You can go see for yourself. That's how science really works."You are a drone and you are doomed. As with most conspiracies, you will one day, find out that it is real but the damage will be done by then."You completely confirmed my stated opinion of you here. All conspiracies are true and everyone else is a drone - right? This is a classical trait of those suffering from paranoia. It's text book."My religion gives me hope of salvation from *your* condition."And that also, is exactly how I expect things to look from where you are."You don't have any so, no, you won't be shaking me any time soon. science isn't nearly as "independent" as you have been trained to repeat."I'm afraid it is. You can go check out the results and the methods for yourself if you were so inclined. Unfortunately it would be devastating for your world view, and so you won't.Also, this idea of 'repeating' is a classical conspiracy belief held by many including David Icke. Ironically, there's hardly a post by you goes by without you repeating this idea of repeating. Isn't that funny?"I have formed every opinion I have based upon a truly independent examination of the evidence: I looked at it myself."You see, given your posts and blatantly vacuous knowledge of science, the scientific method, evolution, the theory of evolution, geology and indeed physics, I find this impossible to believe. Despite your claim otherwise, it's very obvious that you know very little about these subjects and what you do know is broken. You draw conclusions based on caricatures of them that only exist inside your head. "I am not bound in a social construct and compelled to herd myself with a crowd as you evidenced that you are when you started your reply with "Guys, ""Two doesn't make a crowd now does it? And, I'm not compelled at all. What a peculiar thought! Rather, I'm giving a heads-up of a realization I had about the pattern of your posts to two fellow debaters. Hopefully, to alert them to the fact that they are probably wasting their time trying to debate you.But then, I think they probably already know.
@CrazyOnce again, you're making the same logical mistakes you've made in the past...--------"No, you looked one step to the left..."And then you quote your book of myths at me again. Bravo, you missed the point. If I start quoting from The Vedas, The Abesta, or the Book of the Dead, will that have any effect on you? No, it won't. So why do you think quoting from your book of myths will have any effect on me? You seem to be unable to look at things objectively when it comes to your religion."...science will likely not come out the victor."So you admit you have an anti-science agenda?--------"How could I not when you have filled the world with it? From the first time I heard the theory of evolution in the 4th grade it sounded wrong to me."So your argument is one from incredulity, then. Another logical fallacy. Big surprise."You need to get up on the principles of sociology because that is as much a factor in your belief set as any "proof" you think you have."I deal with evidence - proof is only available in Mathematics. Every other field of science is evidence based, and the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. You can go to museums and see the fossils, you can clearly see the changes in life occuring. You can do the tests, you can perform the experiments, you can do the *HARD* work... or you can sit in your basement, deny the entire concept of higher education, and bitch and moan about a process you haven't even got a base-level understanding of.----------"Maybe *you* are in error but that's a possibility to which you are not open."Incorrect, I'm quite open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but I've yet to be presented with evidence of it, and the passages in a holy book are not evidence of the veracity of the holy book itself - not without external verification of that veracity.----------"No. Did you watch the video?"The link is a 404, so no.----------"A mule doesn't reproduce. So what? I don't find it to be terribly meaningful in the grand scheme."You don't - as someone who is skeptical of all supernatural claims, I do, when viewed in the context of your bible's "kind". Things reproduce after their kind, so you say, but nobody has ever strictly defined "kind", and then you still have to ask where all the hybrids fit in.----------"I believe my original point comes back into view. It is not necessary to define species except to the extent that reproduction is possible. Reproduction will take place where it is possible according to the rules of a system that has been set in motion."So you didn't look it up, then? Ok, here's the deal. Ring species are examples we can see where species A and species B are closely enough related that they're able to reproduce together, B and C are the same, C->D, D->E, E->F, but F CANNOT MATE WITH A, because they're genetically incompatible. So A and B are the same species by your definition, and B and C are (so by proxy, A and C are), C and D are (and again, by proxy A and D), and so on, but when you get to the end, A and F cannot be the same species because they can't reproduce, but your rules of reasoning say they should be, because E and F can mate, and E and A can mate.----------"Bulls**t. How can you attribute a mutation to an environmental cause? Either mutations are random or they aren't; you can't have it both ways."Someone has a random mutation that assist his or her ability to live and function, and he or she passes it on. Nothing about my previous statement requires non-random mutation."Furthermore, why do you attribute the difference to the environment when it is just as possible (and more plausible) that lighter-skinned people were more *comfortable* in cooler climates and so relocated there?"That's not what the evidence suggests. I suggest you educate yourself."By your argument, the Inuit, a relatively dark-skinned people with an "asian" appearance, should have have all magically turned into blue-eyed blonds"No, that's not the case. They found a source for Vitamin D in their environment, so any mutation that would have caused their skin to become lighter would not have been beneficial. It's not magic, it's science. Did you even understand what I was saying? We need Vitamin D. Caucasion's ancestors couldn't get enough from their environment, but someone had a mutation (and we know what the mutation is, btw) that assisted in Vitamin D production, and so thrived and passed it on. Inuits never had that deficiency, and so never had a selection pressure that would benefit that mutation, and so remained with the same general skin tone. You see?------------"...racism was the inspiration of the theory which you continue to extol"Racism was not the basis. Evidence was the basis. Their flawed understanding of the evidence at the time led them to what they believed was a justified belief in racism. They extrapolated beyond what the evidence actually suggested. Now, as you pointed out earlier, we have genetics. We know better.------------"Tell that to the white supremacists who are actively spreading AIDS in Africa under the guise of trying to stop it."I'd love to. They're hurting humanity, because they just don't understand how Evolutionary Theory actually works.------------"...but *why* they're up to it is the theory that supports their error."It is their flawed understanding of the theory that supports them. Besides, people were racist before Darwin - do you really think they wouldn't just find something else to justify them if Evolutionary Theory wasn't available? It certainly didn't seem to be a detriment to racists *before* Darwin.------------"More windy bulls**t. It's a simple matter of averages. Adaptation is a myth. Any living thing which faces a potentially lethal situation will either a) die or b) not die. If (a) then no adaptation occurs because death prevents reproduction. if (b) then no adaptation occurs because none was needed to survive. Furthermore, if mutations are "random" there can't also be a cause. You can't have it both ways."You misunderstand once again. Here: in a genetically identical population, say... a fungus is introduced. Either everything lives or dies. If it all dies, the population is wiped out. In a genetically DIVERSE population, however, there are more chances that some indivuduals will survive to perpetuate the species. We see this today with resistance to AIDS - some folks have it, others don't. We see it with anti-biotic resistant bacteria. Adaptation isn't a myth, you just don't understand it.-------------"Thus making the comparison valid."Actually, it doesn't. The "untruths" from Darwin's time have been discarded. His observations were based strictly on taxonomical observations on living creatures. Now we have fossil and genetic evidence. We've learned so much since his beginnings that to cling to his original findings is fruitless. Darwin was the father of Evolution, but he was not its teacher.-------------"Sorry, that whole baby should have gone out with the bathwater. It is merely a mental exercise and a distraction offered as an alternative to an undesirable truth."And what undesirable truth would that be? I suppose you're talking about your God, but that isn't exactly a universily accepted truth now either, is it? Further, what about all the fossil, genetic, and other evidence? It doesn't just go away.-------------"In those cases, the argument is adjusted but not necessarily to the exclusion of the error. When the issue of beginnings came up, instead of abandoning the project, the distinction of "abiogenesis" was invented to kick off the inconvenient truth that a godless beginning is most necessary to the theory of Neverlution"The argument is adjusted to fit the evidence, but it must take into account the WHOLE BODY of evidence. If evidence A, B, C, and D all point to conclusion 1, and E points to conclusion 2, we don't immediately discard conclusion 1 - SOME portion of it may have been valid, so it is deconstructed and we come up with conclusion 3, that A, B, C, D, and E all support.Further, a godless beginning is not necessary for Evolution. The first life could have been dropped off on this planet by some religion's God, and Evolutionary Theory would still be valid."I remind you, you still don't have a plausible beginning for life."Didn't I give you a link not too long ago that explained how we're still making progress in this field? Further, we've only been doing serious study in abiogenesis for... say, 40 years at most. Trying to replicate in a lab what took at least half a billion years isn't an easy process.--------------"You have not corrected me, however, I agree with the potential for increased learning in the effort. I, too, do it for that reason. Also, I just love skeet-shooting evolutionary theory and watching its proponents squirm."I've yet to squirm. I've corrected you on both the facts and the methods of Evolutionary Theory, which you still don't understand.--------------"The conspiracy is grander than that but that, too, is another discussion."I'd love to hear it - lemme get my popcorn. Wait, before you start - do you have any objective evidence to support this hypothesis?--------------"I already told you; I understand your little theory as well as I need to. I need not immerse my entire head into it because it is based upon faulty (or missing) precepts."You don't even understand the base mechanisms, as evidenced by my need earlier to correct your flawed understanding of natural selection with the Inuits, and your inability to grasp adaptation. You don't understand the base concepts, so how can you say you understand it well enough? You say it's based on faulty or missing precepts - what would they be?--------------"What you consistently fail to want to observe is that if YOU were God, you would have dumbed it down, too."No, if I were God, I'd be omnipotent, and as such, I'd know there would be debate on the topic. Further, as an omnipotent being, I'd be able to create life that had the capability to understand advanced concepts from an early age without the need for vast amounts of educaiton. Hell, I might just give them all genetic memory and implant such genetic memory with the information needed to understand the teachings of my holy book, which would be explicit and very detailed, so as to harbor no doubt. I could further give every living being the ability to repair its DNA back to basics, so that mutation would almost never occur - after all, if I were a God, I wouldn't want people to think that Evolution were even possible, so I'd take out the only way for it to happen by making changes to DNA nearly impossible.--------------"Incorrect. I refer you back to the first verse in the Bible. If there were "no light and stars", to what, then, did "heaven" refer?"I have no idea, but God didn't make the stars until the third day:1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years-------------""Known from science"? Just who was there to observe this? NOBODY. The difference is not "known" it is "supposed". Your "facts" are not binding."So you deny the evidence of the fossil record, radiometric dating, dendrochronology, archaeology, paleontology, taxonomy, molecular biology and genetics, too?-------------"Again, you're wrong, "Heaven and earth"..."1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.*PLANTS AND TREES HERE*1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.*SUN HERE*As you said, though, this is is the KJV."The creation of the "heaven and earth" in Gen 1:1 was NOT said to have been "a first day"."Don't care - we've got dendrochronological records going back 10,000 years, which is a damn sight further back than most biblical scholars say the earth has been around. We've got evidence of civilizations from further back beyond that.--------------"Impossibility? 3/4 of the earth's surface is covered with water *now*. How does that compare to EVERY OTHER PLANET?"Every other planet we know about? Lots more water. However, the impossibility comes in two ways. If water came up with the planet as is, the amount of water needed to cover Mt. Everest doesn't exist on this planet. If the mountains were lower, as most folks say, then the raising of the mountains to today's level is geologically impossible without creating enough devestation and heat to boil the planet to sterilization. I can do the math for you, if you like. Other impossibilites include the Ark itself (such a sized boat made of wood would have cracked its keel - learn mechanical engineering!)Continued...
"There is plenty of evidence for the flood. Most of it is physical but there are actually other testimonials from nearly EVERY ANCIENT CULTURE."And yet they don't end the same. It's a pretty common story, but how could they possibly know it was a global flood if they didn't see all of the world? Further, the Sumerian religion seems to be the oldest account we've seen of such a story, and it predates the Christian religion by a few thousand years (which also predates the whole flood story in the Bible, doesn't it?)Oh, and I've seen the Neal Adams videos, and he's full of crap. His ideas regarding an expanding earth are based on a single coincidence (that things fit nicely), and don't answer important questions like: How is the earth growing? Why is it growing? Where is the mass coming from? Why have we never measured an increase in gravity from this extra mass? His "theory" (and I use the term loosely here - it is NOT a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination) is physically impossible, but Neal Adams (a cartoonist) is too scientifically illiterate to realize it.---------------"Oh, really? And just what qualifies you, an atheist, to know what a God would do if he *did* exist? How dare you presuppose to know!?"It only makes logical sense. An omnipotent being should know these things beforehand, and thus shouldn't feel grief... though if he could feel greif, as an omnipotent being, he could also take steps to prevent it.---------------"The nature of water and light are not in dispute and were not said to have changed. The only thing that is written to have changed is the nature of the atmosphere. It is written:"Nothing in the nature of the atmosphere would need to have changed for rainbows to be visible. We can see rainbows with the aid of a prism - atmosphere isn't even necessary. Just because something is written doesn't mean it is true. However, I see you're continuing on this point below..."The "waters above the expanse" were what were released creating the "impossible" flood. Of course the flood is impossible *now* because the "waters above" have already been released. That marked a fundamental change in the earth quite likely including changes in atmospheric pressures that could have forestalled the formation of precipitation-bearing clouds for It is also written:"Ok, so the majority of water on the planet was somehow above the planet, creating an atmospheric pressure where precipitating clouds were impossible... let's just look at how much pressure that actually takes (BTW: Hovind's theories have all been debunked long before me, so you might try something he DIDN'T endorse) - First of all, we'd need a solid layer of water in contact with and pushing on the atmosphere (never mind that water doesn't float in the air - we've got GRAVITY!). Now, this solid layer - it can't be liquid, can it? If it were, it would have just fallen to earth (and heating to incandescent along the way, sterilizing the planet). You'll need a solid ice shield. Ok, so we've got a solid ice shield... that is either thin enough to be broken by the moon's gravitational pull, or thick enough that it blocks all light from coming to the surface. Which is it?As for higher pressure making cloud formation impossible, that's not the case. Cloud formation doesn't occur in high pressure weather fronts because air moves out away from the center of high pressure. Air must come down from above to replace the air moving away from the high. Thus there is a general sinking or subsidence of air in a high pressure area. High pressure generally brings dry fair weather. That doesn't mean that higher pressure over all would make cloud production impossible, it just means that we'd have higher pressure atmosphere. To make the atmospheric pressure high enough that cloud formation couldn't happen, humans could not survive - they certainly couldn't survive the rapid decrease in pressure once the ice shield broke up! Ever hear of the Bends? Same principle."Under the prior atmospheric structure, NO RAINBOWS WOULD HAVE BEEN VISIBLE because there was no precipitation in the expanse."You really haven't thought this through, have you? So mist comes up to water stuff - you ever hold up a garden hose to make a mist, and see a rainbow through that mist? It works!"How else do you want to explain the FACT that entire herds of mastodon, etc, have been found UNDER arctic ice? Some of these have been found to have fresh vegetation in their mouths and stomachs"<a class="user" href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html</a>-------------&quot;And your alternative "random mutation" is not preposterous because it is yours?"No, it is not preposterous because it has evidence to support it. Simply put, we can repeat much of this mutation work in the lab, and we understand genetics. On the other hand, light bouncing off a streaked rod and entering an animals eyes will have no effect on its gametes."So if it was an act of God, what of it? You can't say it didn't happen because he didn't do it for *you*. "Ah, so now you're falling back to the "God did it" argument. I was wondering when we were going to get to this point. It is the ultimate in intellectual lazyness.--------------"And I could go on for hours correcting you."And yet, you didn't really. You proposed a lot of physically impossible stuff without thinking it through, and resorted to "magic man done it!" in the end.--------------"faith is not a possession of all people..."--(2 Thessalonians 3:2)"Moreover, without faith it is impossible to please [him] well.." --(Hebrews 11:6)"So God made me to fail him, according to your religion. What a kind, compassionate diety you have.--------------"You believe men evolved from monkey, which evolved...from fish..from amoeba...from ROCKS."It is a bit more complicated than that, and the rocks part isn't right (we don't know that part yet), but essentially, yes.--------------"Your overlords are secular, like you. Their holy books are "Origin of Species", "The God Delusion" and "A Brief History of Time""All of which have objective evidence to back them up, and sound logic for their conclusions (well, Origin of Species is quite a bit off, but it's not bad for what evidence he had available to him at the time, which wasn't much).--------------"You, like everyone else (self included), see what you want to see. The difference between us is that what I want is the whole truth--physical *and* spiritual."And I see no objective evidence of this "spirit" thing even existing."Others always see differently. There isn't one topic under the sun upon which all people agree. Your point applies equally to yourself--and therefore, cancels out."Incorrect. That I don't believe in your deity doesn't mean I DON'T want to believe in it - I want truth, and if the evidence pointed towards your religion, I'd have no choice but to follow it to the logical conclusion. The evidence does NOT point to your religion, or any at all.--------------"Easy out"When you can address the actualy issue instead of a straw-man version, I will give you an appropriate reply. You wanted science to make a lump of coal walk, and that is a straw-man argument.--------------"bad link"here: <a class="user" href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/">http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucl ...</a>--------------"...and proving Intelligent Design."Incorrect. It is not evidence of ID as they're not using the same methods as any original designer - at least, not to their knowledge. They're using simulated conditions for a pre-biotic earth (according to all the evidence available) and going from there. It may provide some evidence that a designer can create life, but it is by no means evidence that it DID happen.--------------"Yes, the a priori evidence of this assertion is your inability to demonstrate otherwise."Then I have an invisible cricket bat on my shoulder. Your inability to demonstrate otherwise provides a priori evidence that I'm right. Do you see how absolutly imbicilic your argument is? Any unevidenced claim for which nobody can claim an evidenced counter is correct by your argument.--------------"*My* holy book is the #1 best seller of all time. Most published, translated and distributed book in history. Plenty of people can see the truth in it even if *some* don't want to."Ah, an appeal to popularity! What a wonderful logical fallacy. Most people thought disease was caused by demons at one point in time, too. Were they right?--------------"An experiment conducted by 1,000 monkeys with 1,000 typewriters or carefully guided by an intelligence? Bam! --nailed 'em."If you actually understood the process - say, putting a bunch of the right chemicals (that existed in a pre-biotic earth) in a beaker, evaporating it, hydrating it, evaporating it, hydrating it, etc... can you really call that a directed process?--------------"No, sir. For you to prove your point, you can't interfere in any way. The most you can do without contaminating the test is to stand and point as rocks spontaneously form cells and you can't do that."No, we first have to simulate a pre-biotic earth, with all the chemicals and conditions that existed then. We can't use a modern environment because life is already there.--------------"ID is all about the evidence for intelligence that is found encoded *AS* DNA"Which is perfectly well explained by Evolutionary Theory, if you actually understand it."the mind blowingly precise tuning of the gravitational constant"Inherent to the universe."...the incredibly "lucky" sizing and placement of the moon *and* sun that allows for a perfect alignment during a solar eclipse--revealing, among other things, the sun's corona."Actually, it isn't perfect. The moon's orbit is elliptical, meaning that its distance varies between 363,000km and 405,000km. This means that in relation to the sun, the moon can sometimes be too large to see most of the corona, or too small and expose part of the surface, too. Further, the moon's orbit is tilted in relation to our solar orbit, meaning we can only see a solar eclipse 2-5 times a year, and most of those are never total. There is very little "designed" about it, unless the designer didn't really have much of an eye for detail.--------------""Science doesn't work with the supernatural and therefore is not qualified to have an opinion on something it can't touch"? Don't like that as much?"Nah, that's fine. Until someone can come up with objective evidence that the supernatural even exists, I'm fine with it. However, the claims of supernaturalists, such as yourself and others, are easily debunked by science when they conflict with objective reality.--------------"Objective evidence? That's like fish arguing against the theory of "dry". Everything they know of is underwater so...""So prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt that the supernatural exists. Show me something that cannot possibly be explained by any natural phenominon or psychological predisposition. Your holy book doesn't count, and nor does reality itself.--------------"You decided that it happens. "We decided it happens because that's what ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD POINTS TO. It wasn't a foregone conclusion, it's what every piece of evidence in the natural world suggests.--------------"Nice try! I blocked him and don't read his stuff. Next time you quote him, don't say it's from him and I might address it."As I stated previously, the originator of an idea has no bearing on the veracity of an idea. Apok didn't even come up with the idea - quantum randomness basically says that not everything in the universe is deterministic. Either man up and read the quote, or admit your cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.--------------"Did you fail to give me one with you windy, empty would-be explanations?"I'm not your science teacher, and my responses have been anything but empty. Your inability to understand them is your own problem, not mine.
Also, Crazy, I suggest you DO read Apok's replies on this thread. They're quite good, and if you're intellectually honest you should be able to read them.
Closed AccountMay 14, 2009
just magicians - illusionist guild
crazedleperMay 14, 2009
@Mnementh2230 said:"Using biblical passages to try to prove your point is idiotic, as the bible is full of contradictions, factual errors, impossibilities, and historical inaccuracies."Yet you are unable to cite a single one.-----------------------------------"Further, passages from it don't mean a damn thing to people who don't already subscribe to your unevidenced faith."I've seen the evidence and am convinced on that basis, that's why I quoted it. You, on the other hand, are a repeater. You've been repeatedly *told* that there is no evidence and YOU DIDN'T CHECK FOR YOURSELF. You are thus doomed to a lifetime of repeating errors as they are dictated to you by your substitute god(s), the elite core of your social construct.--------------------"Further, Donkeys and Horses can reproduce together, though the offspring is almost always sterile (mules). Are they the same "kind"?"Apparently. This example may have been left as a study of the limitations of DNA reproduction. Feel free to read into it whatever you wish, however. ------------------------------"Once again you demonstrate your scientific illiteracy. You cannot interbreed "species" because by the very definition species cannot interbreed...Perhaps you should learn a little more about what you're talking about. Google "Speciation Event".I will look it up and review my understanding of the relationship of Genus to Species. Whatever I learn, however, my point stands. If reproduction is possible, a kind is established and no further delineation is required. Did you watch the video? Didn't think so.--------------------------"Incorrect, and refuted elsewhere. The mention of "favoured races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. "Any validation of the concept of"race" implies racism--to some degree. DNA does not support the notion of races of humanity. Therefore, if anyone sees such a thing, it exists in his mind. You cannot deny that racism was a much more prominent factor in the lives of Darwin and his contemporaries than it may be among you and yours. I refer you to "The Mis-measure of Man", the work of evolutionary biologist, Steven Jay Gould who studied and documented other attempts at scientifically validating racism by Darwin's contemporaries. It was, in fact, all the rage.---------------------"Further, even if it DID, it doesn't mean anything with regards to the modern version of the Theory, "Oh, but you are mistaken, sir. To accept the theory is to accept its intent and all attempts at spreading a dominant species throughout the earth through decidedly unnatural selection (war).----------------------------------"Again, refuted, and the root of it has no bearing on the modern understanding. Comparing modern Evolutionary Theory to the first form of 150 years ago is about as relevant as comparing modern Chemistry to Alchemy."Again, I disagree. Modern chemistry has ancient alchemy as it's foundation. Such a comparison is valid. -----------------------------------"I'm not racist. One of my best friends is half Australian Aboriginal. "I didn't say you were racist, I said you were carried "through" the one error into another.-------------------------------------"You're an idiot, "Then why do you bother to engage me? Do you not insult yourself in the pointless attempt to...whatever it is you are attempting to do with an idiot? --------------------------------------"but that has nothing to do with your ethnic background and everything to do with your lack of educational and critical thinking skills."On the contrary, I reject your flawed education and have been quite critical of you and your ridiculous theory. Furthermore, I neither stated nor raised any issue with respect to my own background.------------------------------------------"I know plenty of Christians who also accept the verifiable truth of Evolutionary Theory. "Truth through repetition. You can't repeat it enough to get me to fall in line. Most people who call themselves "Christian" have no idea who Christ was, what he said, where it is written, etc. Your point is meaningless. That is an entirely different discussion.-----------------------------------------"That I reject your religion is not based on my acceptance of Evolutionary Theory as much as it is the lack of evidence for Biblical validity (and indeed, the massive amount of evidence against it)."There is no evidence against the validity of the Bible, there is "talk" against the validity of the bible from people who haven't adequately studied it and don't care for the burden of responsibility they know it would bring. Time and again "smart" men scoffed at the bible only to discover that it was correct. Instead of admitting defeat, however, they forget about their error and continue their fruitless, endless, faultfinding journey.------------------------------------"The trail of truth will lead to where the evidence points. "And, having believed only what you wanted to be true, you will be nowhere to be found. "Truth" is not only a posteriori, that's why a priori exists.--------------------------------------"There are plenty of things I *want* to be able to do or prove, but none that I can do with objective evidence."Therein is the flaw. Your overlords have created for you an argument with incomplete terms. You have basically said "show me the one thing that can never be seen and I'll believe it" and then declared yourselves right when no one could show it to you. Discoveries of the unknown have been consistent throughout the human experience. Every time a man looks for something bigger, he finds something bigger, when man looked for something smaller, atoms, quarks, neutrinos and "super strings" appeared--even if they cannot be seen. If you looked for a God, you might have found that he's been there the whole time but that's not what you looked for. What you looked for is *NO* God. That is, therefore, what you found. No applause is due for your "discovery."-----------------------"That you don't know anything about the field of abiogenesis or the progress being made there (Harvard has done some neat things recently with fatty acids and primitive lipid layers - the basis of cell walls) is your own problem. However, you are correct - we do not know for certain, but we've got some pretty good hypotheses."I am unimpressed. Until you get a lump of coal to reproduce and walk you have empty words based on an empty desire.---------------------------------------"Abiogenesis isn't a theory, it's a field of study. Technically, it's a hypothesis. Evolution is a Theory, but it's not a layman's theory, it's a Scientific Theory, and a Scientific Theory has enough evidential backing so as to be accepted as fact by those who actually study the subject (unlike yourself). "Call abiogenesis anything you want; it is still a lot of empty words. Life has extra-physical origins and you can't prove that physically without actually creating life. That's why you have no proof. Incidentally, if you did succeed in proving any hypothesis or theory of abiogenesis, you would have succeeded in proving Intelligent Design--unless you were going to admit that either a) you didn't do anything or b) you're not intelligent. -------------------------------Life could have originated from the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Evolution would still be just as valid, because it doesn't require or explain a beginning to the process - it only describes how the process works once life already exists. It's a fundamental tenant of the science that you remain willfully ignorant of because it doesn't fit in with your canned arguments from ignorance."Evolution describes nothing unless you can prove that God didn't do it and you cannot prove that, either. You may make some observations of phenomena that are observable in the here-and-now, form and test a hypothesis and successfully come up with a vaccine but that cannot be extrapolated into evidence that everything that you believe *must have happened* millions of years ago actually occurred the way you say. With God (or any intelligence) at the beginning of life on earth, evolution is unnecessary. It's like forming a theory of how sandwiches are formed. If someone did it, that's pretty much the end of the discussion. If NO ONE did it, however, there tends to be NO SANDWICH. Also the end of the discussion. Occam's razor, anyone?----------------------------"Your entire argument against Evolutionary Theory is based on your ignorance of it, which we can attribute to your lack of education and critical thinking skills. In short, you're making a bunch of straw-man arguments against something you don't even really understand, and you look all the more pathetic because of it. I pity you your narrow-minded world view, and the lack of bulls**t filters in your brain."My filters must be working fine since I am not in agreement with the errant conclusions of your flawed social construct. I know everything worth knowing about your theory; it is a sorely lacking alternative to an inescapable truth...BUT YOU STILL WANT TO ESCAPE so you will never stop weaving the lie into ever grander deceptions until even you can't find your way out.
crazedleperMay 15, 2009
@Mnementh2230"...my dear Crazy, "I don't mind your calling me "crazy" (it is, after all, my name) but if you don't stop calling me "dear" I'm going to block you.-----------------------------------"I've just looked one step deeper than you. "No, you looked one step to the left..."Let no one be seducing himself: If anyone among YOU thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God;. ."-- (1 Cor 3:18-19)"For it is written: ?I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.? ....21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing." (1 Cor 1:19, 21) What you fail to notice is that the discussion has continued because we haven't *all* arrived at an indisputable truth. As with the question of the heliocentric nature of the solar system, we are bound to, one day, end up with one side defeated and forever silenced. Since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, when that one point is reached, science will likely not come out the victor.-----------------------"You go look at the evidence, you see what its proponents say, and then you see what its detractors say, and you decide which argument is more plausible using basic principles of epistemology. I'm guessing you didn't look at what the detractors had to say. "How could I not when you have filled the world with it? From the first time I heard the theory of evolution in the 4th grade it sounded wrong to me. You need to get up on the principles of sociology because that is as much a factor in your belief set as any "proof" you think you have.--------------------------------------"Besides that, the passages in a holy book still don't mean squat to folks who don't subscribe to the religion of the holy book, which was my original point anyway."I'm well aware of that fact but that fact has no bearing on the passages, themselves. Maybe *you* are in error but that's a possibility to which you are not open.--------------------------------------"You don't see that as stretching things just a little bit? "No. Did you watch the video?--------------------------------------"Something left by an omnipotent deity that, when viewed in context with its own holy book, denies said holy book's definition of "kind"?I don't see that as being the case but you do since your intent is only to see the Bible as flawed. Furthermore, it is but one example among millions. A mule doesn't reproduce. So what? I don't find it to be terribly meaningful in the grand scheme. --------------------------------------"So explain ring species to me, in the context of a "kind". Further, would you strictly define what a "kind" is? No creationist to date has been able to strictly define it, that I'm aware of."I believe my original point comes back into view. It is not necessary to define species except to the extent that reproduction is possible. Reproduction will take place where it is possible according to the rules of a system that has been set in motion. End of story.--------------------------------------"I agree, to some degree. However, we have different "breeds" of dogs, do we not? Their appearance varies much more than the difference between someone of African and someone of Eastern descent, but the differences are still there. "What is being seen is the result of a relatively isolated population interbreeding. Over time, the gene pool tends to average out; the appearance of distinctness may come into view. Humans may feel compelled to label the averaged pool but that label is not binding. Diversify the population and new traits begin to form new appearances--within limits. Dogs don't reproduce with cats, they're not the same kind.----------------------------------------------"The differences between the various ethnicities of humanity DO SERVE purposes for the original ethnicity's homeland, however (in come cases - in others, it may be merely genetic drift). Darker skin in people of African descent, for example, helped to keep them safe from solar damage. When folks started moving north to where there was less sun, however, too much melanin kept them from producing enough Vitamin D, and thus, through mutation, we have Caucasians,"Bulls**t. How can you attribute a mutation to an environmental cause? Either mutations are random or they aren't; you can't have it both ways. Furthermore, why do you attribute the difference to the environment when it is just as possible (and more plausible) that lighter-skinned people were more *comfortable* in cooler climates and so relocated there? By your argument, the Inuit, a relatively dark-skinned people with an "asian" appearance, should have have all magically turned into blue-eyed blonds. Of course, you can always explain-away the fact that it has not occurred by saying "it takes millions of years" (how convenient) but that's crap, too. Either they need the traits to survive or they don't. Right now, it is clear that they don't.------------------------------------------------"I know Darwin was racist - most men of his time were. They didn't know any better. There is a lot of evidence to suggest he was less racist than most of his time, however, but it's hardly germane to the topic."The point is quite pertinent. You state that "they didn't know any better" with respect to racism but racism was the inspiration of the theory which you continue to extol. Can't have it both ways.---------------------------------------------------------"Actually, the very idea of wiping out a race is contrary to modern understanding of Evolutionary Theory, because it reduces genetic diversity. "Tell that to the white supremacists who are actively spreading AIDS in Africa under the guise of trying to stop it. The ball has been rolling since Darwin's time and there is no stopping the momentum. There are very many who believe in their superiority and they will not give it up. What they're up to, now, is a different discussion but *why* they're up to it is the theory that supports their error.-------------------"Genetically diverse populations have less incidence of genetic disease and more probability of individuals having resistance against specific diseases, as EASILY observed by viewing pure-bred dogs vs. mutts. The pure-breds have all kinds of issues and susceptibilities that you won't find in a mutt. Furthermore, in a race of mutts, the large diversity allows for faster adaptation of the population in the event of new selection pressures."More windy bulls**t. It's a simple matter of averages. Adaptation is a myth. Any living thing which faces a potentially lethal situation will either a) die or b) not die. If (a) then no adaptation occurs because death prevents reproduction. if (b) then no adaptation occurs because none was needed to survive. Furthermore, if mutations are "random" there can't also be a cause. You can't have it both ways. Pick a side; we're at war (j/k).---------------------------------------------------"The difference is that there is ...nothing from alchemy except truths stumbled upon by chance were kept in the modern understanding."Thus making the comparison valid.---------------------------------------------------"The same can be said of Evolutionary Theory - only that which is useful or factual has been kept, and the useless and wrong has been discarded."Sorry, that whole baby should have gone out with the bathwater. It is merely a mental exercise and a distraction offered as an alternative to an undesirable truth.---------------------------------------------------"It's a case study on the self correcting nature of science - we *DO NOT* have to keep biases of the progenitor of an idea, especially when, by expanding upon the idea, we can prove those biases to be wrong."In those cases, the argument is adjusted but not necessarily to the exclusion of the error. When the issue of beginnings came up, instead of abandoning the project, the distinction of "abiogenesis" was invented to kick off the inconvenient truth that a godless beginning is most necessary to the theory of Neverlution. I remind you, you still don't have a plausible beginning for life.---------------------------------------------------"in the course of correcting you, I am sometimes able to learn new things during my research. "You have not corrected me, however, I agree with the potential for increased learning in the effort. I, too, do it for that reason. Also, I just love skeet-shooting evolutionary theory and watching its proponents squirm.----------------------------------"You call my education flawed based on what criteria? Some idea that there is a conspiracy of science to deny your religion? "The conspiracy is grander than that but that, too, is another discussion.---------------------------------------------------"The idea is laughable when you understand the self correcting nature of science. "A nice ideal but one which the scientific community, as a whole, fails to live up to. Did you watch the video? That's my point.---------------------------------------------------"Further, you are critical of a Theory that you don't even understand, and have no education on....How can you be critical of something you don't even understand? ..."I already told you; I understand your little theory as well as I need to. I need not immerse my entire head into it because it is based upon faulty (or missing) precepts. The danger of exploring it to the extent you have is akin to the danger of playing D&D. People get detached from reality and there's no bringing them back.---------------------------------------------------"Repetition isn't required, only education so you can understand. You disparage what you don't even understand."Repetition is required for propaganda to gain acceptance. That's why no (and I mean not a single) news story or documentary can discuss an observation about a living system without using the word "evolution". ---------------------------------------------------------------"Oh really? Lets see hereGenesis:-God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day"Your flawed understanding of the scriptures is partially due to poor translating and partially due to listening to repeaters. Gen 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" Period. No mention of method, no mention of time. Really, would Moses have understood it? What words in ancient Hebrew would have sufficed to describe it? How useful would such detail been to the ancient shepherd? What you consistently fail to want to observe is that if YOU were God, you would have dumbed it down, too.----------------------------"-In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, "Incorrect. I refer you back to the first verse in the Bible. If there were "no light and stars", to what, then, did "heaven" refer?--------------------------------"birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite."""Known from science"? Just who was there to observe this? NOBODY. The difference is not "known" it is "supposed". Your "facts" are not binding. ------------------------------------"-Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes"Again, you're wrong, "Heaven and earth". A clear distinction made between two different things. This is, again, why you fail; poor translation and poor research. The King James VERSION a) is not a TRANSLATION and b) was not translated directly from the oldest known manuscripts, it was translated from latin (a dead language) into olde english (another dead language). It's use has been superseded by many translations superior in accuracy and should not be regarded as a "standard". The word translated in KJV "light" in Gen 1:14 is more accurately translated "luminaries". Furthermore, the reference to "luminaries" in the verse in question refers not to the CREATION of these luminaries (which were created along with the earth in vs 1:1) but to their becoming clearly visible from the earth in "the expanse" which we now call "sky" due to apparent clarification of the atmosphere. I remind you Gen 1:2 prescribed "darkness" specifically "upon the SURFACE of the waters."Here is the major point that "science" and bible critics have been all too happy to overlook. That which is described in terms of "days" (a relative term having alternate translation options including "phase") refers not to the CREATION of the earth but to its DEVELOPMENT from the status of "formless and waste" of which we read at Gen 1:2. Everything that happens after Gen 1:1 is RELATIVE TO THE EARTH. The creation of the "heaven and earth" in Gen 1:1 was NOT said to have been "a first day".--------------------------------"-God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun."see previous explanation.----------------------
nitsujMay 16, 2009
"Really? The insanity defense, again? Understand this: "Insane" has no real meaning. It's just you insulating yourself from something that you don't agree with."No, I'm calling it how I see it. It's not a defense, merely an observation. And I didn't say you was insane. I said it appears you suffer from paranoia and psychosis."I could call you crazy for all of the stupid $h!t you believe but that would be meaningless and not binding because it's my opinion."You could, but the stupid $h!t I believe tends to be backed up with scientific empircal evidence. Independently verifiable facts. You don't need group think or the NWO brainwashing you. You can go see for yourself. That's how science really works."You are a drone and you are doomed. As with most conspiracies, you will one day, find out that it is real but the damage will be done by then."You completely confirmed my stated opinion of you here. All conspiracies are true and everyone else is a drone - right? This is a classical trait of those suffering from paranoia. It's text book."My religion gives me hope of salvation from *your* condition."And that also, is exactly how I expect things to look from where you are."You don't have any so, no, you won't be shaking me any time soon. science isn't nearly as "independent" as you have been trained to repeat."I'm afraid it is. You can go check out the results and the methods for yourself if you were so inclined. Unfortunately it would be devastating for your world view, and so you won't.Also, this idea of 'repeating' is a classical conspiracy belief held by many including David Icke. Ironically, there's hardly a post by you goes by without you repeating this idea of repeating. Isn't that funny?"I have formed every opinion I have based upon a truly independent examination of the evidence: I looked at it myself."You see, given your posts and blatantly vacuous knowledge of science, the scientific method, evolution, the theory of evolution, geology and indeed physics, I find this impossible to believe. Despite your claim otherwise, it's very obvious that you know very little about these subjects and what you do know is broken. You draw conclusions based on caricatures of them that only exist inside your head. "I am not bound in a social construct and compelled to herd myself with a crowd as you evidenced that you are when you started your reply with "Guys, ""Two doesn't make a crowd now does it? And, I'm not compelled at all. What a peculiar thought! Rather, I'm giving a heads-up of a realization I had about the pattern of your posts to two fellow debaters. Hopefully, to alert them to the fact that they are probably wasting their time trying to debate you.But then, I think they probably already know.
mnementh2230May 18, 2009
@CrazyOnce again, you're making the same logical mistakes you've made in the past...--------"No, you looked one step to the left..."And then you quote your book of myths at me again. Bravo, you missed the point. If I start quoting from The Vedas, The Abesta, or the Book of the Dead, will that have any effect on you? No, it won't. So why do you think quoting from your book of myths will have any effect on me? You seem to be unable to look at things objectively when it comes to your religion."...science will likely not come out the victor."So you admit you have an anti-science agenda?--------"How could I not when you have filled the world with it? From the first time I heard the theory of evolution in the 4th grade it sounded wrong to me."So your argument is one from incredulity, then. Another logical fallacy. Big surprise."You need to get up on the principles of sociology because that is as much a factor in your belief set as any "proof" you think you have."I deal with evidence - proof is only available in Mathematics. Every other field of science is evidence based, and the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. You can go to museums and see the fossils, you can clearly see the changes in life occuring. You can do the tests, you can perform the experiments, you can do the *HARD* work... or you can sit in your basement, deny the entire concept of higher education, and bitch and moan about a process you haven't even got a base-level understanding of.----------"Maybe *you* are in error but that's a possibility to which you are not open."Incorrect, I'm quite open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but I've yet to be presented with evidence of it, and the passages in a holy book are not evidence of the veracity of the holy book itself - not without external verification of that veracity.----------"No. Did you watch the video?"The link is a 404, so no.----------"A mule doesn't reproduce. So what? I don't find it to be terribly meaningful in the grand scheme."You don't - as someone who is skeptical of all supernatural claims, I do, when viewed in the context of your bible's "kind". Things reproduce after their kind, so you say, but nobody has ever strictly defined "kind", and then you still have to ask where all the hybrids fit in.----------"I believe my original point comes back into view. It is not necessary to define species except to the extent that reproduction is possible. Reproduction will take place where it is possible according to the rules of a system that has been set in motion."So you didn't look it up, then? Ok, here's the deal. Ring species are examples we can see where species A and species B are closely enough related that they're able to reproduce together, B and C are the same, C->D, D->E, E->F, but F CANNOT MATE WITH A, because they're genetically incompatible. So A and B are the same species by your definition, and B and C are (so by proxy, A and C are), C and D are (and again, by proxy A and D), and so on, but when you get to the end, A and F cannot be the same species because they can't reproduce, but your rules of reasoning say they should be, because E and F can mate, and E and A can mate.----------"Bulls**t. How can you attribute a mutation to an environmental cause? Either mutations are random or they aren't; you can't have it both ways."Someone has a random mutation that assist his or her ability to live and function, and he or she passes it on. Nothing about my previous statement requires non-random mutation."Furthermore, why do you attribute the difference to the environment when it is just as possible (and more plausible) that lighter-skinned people were more *comfortable* in cooler climates and so relocated there?"That's not what the evidence suggests. I suggest you educate yourself."By your argument, the Inuit, a relatively dark-skinned people with an "asian" appearance, should have have all magically turned into blue-eyed blonds"No, that's not the case. They found a source for Vitamin D in their environment, so any mutation that would have caused their skin to become lighter would not have been beneficial. It's not magic, it's science. Did you even understand what I was saying? We need Vitamin D. Caucasion's ancestors couldn't get enough from their environment, but someone had a mutation (and we know what the mutation is, btw) that assisted in Vitamin D production, and so thrived and passed it on. Inuits never had that deficiency, and so never had a selection pressure that would benefit that mutation, and so remained with the same general skin tone. You see?------------"...racism was the inspiration of the theory which you continue to extol"Racism was not the basis. Evidence was the basis. Their flawed understanding of the evidence at the time led them to what they believed was a justified belief in racism. They extrapolated beyond what the evidence actually suggested. Now, as you pointed out earlier, we have genetics. We know better.------------"Tell that to the white supremacists who are actively spreading AIDS in Africa under the guise of trying to stop it."I'd love to. They're hurting humanity, because they just don't understand how Evolutionary Theory actually works.------------"...but *why* they're up to it is the theory that supports their error."It is their flawed understanding of the theory that supports them. Besides, people were racist before Darwin - do you really think they wouldn't just find something else to justify them if Evolutionary Theory wasn't available? It certainly didn't seem to be a detriment to racists *before* Darwin.------------"More windy bulls**t. It's a simple matter of averages. Adaptation is a myth. Any living thing which faces a potentially lethal situation will either a) die or b) not die. If (a) then no adaptation occurs because death prevents reproduction. if (b) then no adaptation occurs because none was needed to survive. Furthermore, if mutations are "random" there can't also be a cause. You can't have it both ways."You misunderstand once again. Here: in a genetically identical population, say... a fungus is introduced. Either everything lives or dies. If it all dies, the population is wiped out. In a genetically DIVERSE population, however, there are more chances that some indivuduals will survive to perpetuate the species. We see this today with resistance to AIDS - some folks have it, others don't. We see it with anti-biotic resistant bacteria. Adaptation isn't a myth, you just don't understand it.-------------"Thus making the comparison valid."Actually, it doesn't. The "untruths" from Darwin's time have been discarded. His observations were based strictly on taxonomical observations on living creatures. Now we have fossil and genetic evidence. We've learned so much since his beginnings that to cling to his original findings is fruitless. Darwin was the father of Evolution, but he was not its teacher.-------------"Sorry, that whole baby should have gone out with the bathwater. It is merely a mental exercise and a distraction offered as an alternative to an undesirable truth."And what undesirable truth would that be? I suppose you're talking about your God, but that isn't exactly a universily accepted truth now either, is it? Further, what about all the fossil, genetic, and other evidence? It doesn't just go away.-------------"In those cases, the argument is adjusted but not necessarily to the exclusion of the error. When the issue of beginnings came up, instead of abandoning the project, the distinction of "abiogenesis" was invented to kick off the inconvenient truth that a godless beginning is most necessary to the theory of Neverlution"The argument is adjusted to fit the evidence, but it must take into account the WHOLE BODY of evidence. If evidence A, B, C, and D all point to conclusion 1, and E points to conclusion 2, we don't immediately discard conclusion 1 - SOME portion of it may have been valid, so it is deconstructed and we come up with conclusion 3, that A, B, C, D, and E all support.Further, a godless beginning is not necessary for Evolution. The first life could have been dropped off on this planet by some religion's God, and Evolutionary Theory would still be valid."I remind you, you still don't have a plausible beginning for life."Didn't I give you a link not too long ago that explained how we're still making progress in this field? Further, we've only been doing serious study in abiogenesis for... say, 40 years at most. Trying to replicate in a lab what took at least half a billion years isn't an easy process.--------------"You have not corrected me, however, I agree with the potential for increased learning in the effort. I, too, do it for that reason. Also, I just love skeet-shooting evolutionary theory and watching its proponents squirm."I've yet to squirm. I've corrected you on both the facts and the methods of Evolutionary Theory, which you still don't understand.--------------"The conspiracy is grander than that but that, too, is another discussion."I'd love to hear it - lemme get my popcorn. Wait, before you start - do you have any objective evidence to support this hypothesis?--------------"I already told you; I understand your little theory as well as I need to. I need not immerse my entire head into it because it is based upon faulty (or missing) precepts."You don't even understand the base mechanisms, as evidenced by my need earlier to correct your flawed understanding of natural selection with the Inuits, and your inability to grasp adaptation. You don't understand the base concepts, so how can you say you understand it well enough? You say it's based on faulty or missing precepts - what would they be?--------------"What you consistently fail to want to observe is that if YOU were God, you would have dumbed it down, too."No, if I were God, I'd be omnipotent, and as such, I'd know there would be debate on the topic. Further, as an omnipotent being, I'd be able to create life that had the capability to understand advanced concepts from an early age without the need for vast amounts of educaiton. Hell, I might just give them all genetic memory and implant such genetic memory with the information needed to understand the teachings of my holy book, which would be explicit and very detailed, so as to harbor no doubt. I could further give every living being the ability to repair its DNA back to basics, so that mutation would almost never occur - after all, if I were a God, I wouldn't want people to think that Evolution were even possible, so I'd take out the only way for it to happen by making changes to DNA nearly impossible.--------------"Incorrect. I refer you back to the first verse in the Bible. If there were "no light and stars", to what, then, did "heaven" refer?"I have no idea, but God didn't make the stars until the third day:1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years-------------""Known from science"? Just who was there to observe this? NOBODY. The difference is not "known" it is "supposed". Your "facts" are not binding."So you deny the evidence of the fossil record, radiometric dating, dendrochronology, archaeology, paleontology, taxonomy, molecular biology and genetics, too?-------------"Again, you're wrong, "Heaven and earth"..."1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.*PLANTS AND TREES HERE*1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.*SUN HERE*As you said, though, this is is the KJV."The creation of the "heaven and earth" in Gen 1:1 was NOT said to have been "a first day"."Don't care - we've got dendrochronological records going back 10,000 years, which is a damn sight further back than most biblical scholars say the earth has been around. We've got evidence of civilizations from further back beyond that.--------------"Impossibility? 3/4 of the earth's surface is covered with water *now*. How does that compare to EVERY OTHER PLANET?"Every other planet we know about? Lots more water. However, the impossibility comes in two ways. If water came up with the planet as is, the amount of water needed to cover Mt. Everest doesn't exist on this planet. If the mountains were lower, as most folks say, then the raising of the mountains to today's level is geologically impossible without creating enough devestation and heat to boil the planet to sterilization. I can do the math for you, if you like. Other impossibilites include the Ark itself (such a sized boat made of wood would have cracked its keel - learn mechanical engineering!)Continued...
mnementh2230May 18, 2009
"There is plenty of evidence for the flood. Most of it is physical but there are actually other testimonials from nearly EVERY ANCIENT CULTURE."And yet they don't end the same. It's a pretty common story, but how could they possibly know it was a global flood if they didn't see all of the world? Further, the Sumerian religion seems to be the oldest account we've seen of such a story, and it predates the Christian religion by a few thousand years (which also predates the whole flood story in the Bible, doesn't it?)Oh, and I've seen the Neal Adams videos, and he's full of crap. His ideas regarding an expanding earth are based on a single coincidence (that things fit nicely), and don't answer important questions like: How is the earth growing? Why is it growing? Where is the mass coming from? Why have we never measured an increase in gravity from this extra mass? His "theory" (and I use the term loosely here - it is NOT a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination) is physically impossible, but Neal Adams (a cartoonist) is too scientifically illiterate to realize it.---------------"Oh, really? And just what qualifies you, an atheist, to know what a God would do if he *did* exist? How dare you presuppose to know!?"It only makes logical sense. An omnipotent being should know these things beforehand, and thus shouldn't feel grief... though if he could feel greif, as an omnipotent being, he could also take steps to prevent it.---------------"The nature of water and light are not in dispute and were not said to have changed. The only thing that is written to have changed is the nature of the atmosphere. It is written:"Nothing in the nature of the atmosphere would need to have changed for rainbows to be visible. We can see rainbows with the aid of a prism - atmosphere isn't even necessary. Just because something is written doesn't mean it is true. However, I see you're continuing on this point below..."The "waters above the expanse" were what were released creating the "impossible" flood. Of course the flood is impossible *now* because the "waters above" have already been released. That marked a fundamental change in the earth quite likely including changes in atmospheric pressures that could have forestalled the formation of precipitation-bearing clouds for It is also written:"Ok, so the majority of water on the planet was somehow above the planet, creating an atmospheric pressure where precipitating clouds were impossible... let's just look at how much pressure that actually takes (BTW: Hovind's theories have all been debunked long before me, so you might try something he DIDN'T endorse) - First of all, we'd need a solid layer of water in contact with and pushing on the atmosphere (never mind that water doesn't float in the air - we've got GRAVITY!). Now, this solid layer - it can't be liquid, can it? If it were, it would have just fallen to earth (and heating to incandescent along the way, sterilizing the planet). You'll need a solid ice shield. Ok, so we've got a solid ice shield... that is either thin enough to be broken by the moon's gravitational pull, or thick enough that it blocks all light from coming to the surface. Which is it?As for higher pressure making cloud formation impossible, that's not the case. Cloud formation doesn't occur in high pressure weather fronts because air moves out away from the center of high pressure. Air must come down from above to replace the air moving away from the high. Thus there is a general sinking or subsidence of air in a high pressure area. High pressure generally brings dry fair weather. That doesn't mean that higher pressure over all would make cloud production impossible, it just means that we'd have higher pressure atmosphere. To make the atmospheric pressure high enough that cloud formation couldn't happen, humans could not survive - they certainly couldn't survive the rapid decrease in pressure once the ice shield broke up! Ever hear of the Bends? Same principle."Under the prior atmospheric structure, NO RAINBOWS WOULD HAVE BEEN VISIBLE because there was no precipitation in the expanse."You really haven't thought this through, have you? So mist comes up to water stuff - you ever hold up a garden hose to make a mist, and see a rainbow through that mist? It works!"How else do you want to explain the FACT that entire herds of mastodon, etc, have been found UNDER arctic ice? Some of these have been found to have fresh vegetation in their mouths and stomachs"<a class="user" href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html</a>-------------&quot;And your alternative "random mutation" is not preposterous because it is yours?"No, it is not preposterous because it has evidence to support it. Simply put, we can repeat much of this mutation work in the lab, and we understand genetics. On the other hand, light bouncing off a streaked rod and entering an animals eyes will have no effect on its gametes."So if it was an act of God, what of it? You can't say it didn't happen because he didn't do it for *you*. "Ah, so now you're falling back to the "God did it" argument. I was wondering when we were going to get to this point. It is the ultimate in intellectual lazyness.--------------"And I could go on for hours correcting you."And yet, you didn't really. You proposed a lot of physically impossible stuff without thinking it through, and resorted to "magic man done it!" in the end.--------------"faith is not a possession of all people..."--(2 Thessalonians 3:2)"Moreover, without faith it is impossible to please [him] well.." --(Hebrews 11:6)"So God made me to fail him, according to your religion. What a kind, compassionate diety you have.--------------"You believe men evolved from monkey, which evolved...from fish..from amoeba...from ROCKS."It is a bit more complicated than that, and the rocks part isn't right (we don't know that part yet), but essentially, yes.--------------"Your overlords are secular, like you. Their holy books are "Origin of Species", "The God Delusion" and "A Brief History of Time""All of which have objective evidence to back them up, and sound logic for their conclusions (well, Origin of Species is quite a bit off, but it's not bad for what evidence he had available to him at the time, which wasn't much).--------------"You, like everyone else (self included), see what you want to see. The difference between us is that what I want is the whole truth--physical *and* spiritual."And I see no objective evidence of this "spirit" thing even existing."Others always see differently. There isn't one topic under the sun upon which all people agree. Your point applies equally to yourself--and therefore, cancels out."Incorrect. That I don't believe in your deity doesn't mean I DON'T want to believe in it - I want truth, and if the evidence pointed towards your religion, I'd have no choice but to follow it to the logical conclusion. The evidence does NOT point to your religion, or any at all.--------------"Easy out"When you can address the actualy issue instead of a straw-man version, I will give you an appropriate reply. You wanted science to make a lump of coal walk, and that is a straw-man argument.--------------"bad link"here: <a class="user" href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/">http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucl ...</a>--------------"...and proving Intelligent Design."Incorrect. It is not evidence of ID as they're not using the same methods as any original designer - at least, not to their knowledge. They're using simulated conditions for a pre-biotic earth (according to all the evidence available) and going from there. It may provide some evidence that a designer can create life, but it is by no means evidence that it DID happen.--------------"Yes, the a priori evidence of this assertion is your inability to demonstrate otherwise."Then I have an invisible cricket bat on my shoulder. Your inability to demonstrate otherwise provides a priori evidence that I'm right. Do you see how absolutly imbicilic your argument is? Any unevidenced claim for which nobody can claim an evidenced counter is correct by your argument.--------------"*My* holy book is the #1 best seller of all time. Most published, translated and distributed book in history. Plenty of people can see the truth in it even if *some* don't want to."Ah, an appeal to popularity! What a wonderful logical fallacy. Most people thought disease was caused by demons at one point in time, too. Were they right?--------------"An experiment conducted by 1,000 monkeys with 1,000 typewriters or carefully guided by an intelligence? Bam! --nailed 'em."If you actually understood the process - say, putting a bunch of the right chemicals (that existed in a pre-biotic earth) in a beaker, evaporating it, hydrating it, evaporating it, hydrating it, etc... can you really call that a directed process?--------------"No, sir. For you to prove your point, you can't interfere in any way. The most you can do without contaminating the test is to stand and point as rocks spontaneously form cells and you can't do that."No, we first have to simulate a pre-biotic earth, with all the chemicals and conditions that existed then. We can't use a modern environment because life is already there.--------------"ID is all about the evidence for intelligence that is found encoded *AS* DNA"Which is perfectly well explained by Evolutionary Theory, if you actually understand it."the mind blowingly precise tuning of the gravitational constant"Inherent to the universe."...the incredibly "lucky" sizing and placement of the moon *and* sun that allows for a perfect alignment during a solar eclipse--revealing, among other things, the sun's corona."Actually, it isn't perfect. The moon's orbit is elliptical, meaning that its distance varies between 363,000km and 405,000km. This means that in relation to the sun, the moon can sometimes be too large to see most of the corona, or too small and expose part of the surface, too. Further, the moon's orbit is tilted in relation to our solar orbit, meaning we can only see a solar eclipse 2-5 times a year, and most of those are never total. There is very little "designed" about it, unless the designer didn't really have much of an eye for detail.--------------""Science doesn't work with the supernatural and therefore is not qualified to have an opinion on something it can't touch"? Don't like that as much?"Nah, that's fine. Until someone can come up with objective evidence that the supernatural even exists, I'm fine with it. However, the claims of supernaturalists, such as yourself and others, are easily debunked by science when they conflict with objective reality.--------------"Objective evidence? That's like fish arguing against the theory of "dry". Everything they know of is underwater so...""So prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt that the supernatural exists. Show me something that cannot possibly be explained by any natural phenominon or psychological predisposition. Your holy book doesn't count, and nor does reality itself.--------------"You decided that it happens. "We decided it happens because that's what ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD POINTS TO. It wasn't a foregone conclusion, it's what every piece of evidence in the natural world suggests.--------------"Nice try! I blocked him and don't read his stuff. Next time you quote him, don't say it's from him and I might address it."As I stated previously, the originator of an idea has no bearing on the veracity of an idea. Apok didn't even come up with the idea - quantum randomness basically says that not everything in the universe is deterministic. Either man up and read the quote, or admit your cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.--------------"Did you fail to give me one with you windy, empty would-be explanations?"I'm not your science teacher, and my responses have been anything but empty. Your inability to understand them is your own problem, not mine.
mnementh2230May 18, 2009
Also, Crazy, I suggest you DO read Apok's replies on this thread. They're quite good, and if you're intellectually honest you should be able to read them.