|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 8:55:24 AM | | Do you think the spread of Aides is quickened by the over use of anti biotics given from childhood up , preventing the building up of immune systems? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 9:05:40 AM | Well now MEN, here is a lady's, “moi”, point of view...
I have been quietly following this forum for a while now... and read back a few screens; here is what I can say.
For those of you who see the lighter side of this so call debate, I applaud you as this is quite interesting and somewhat entertaining...  ..And you know who you are.... 
However, for those of you who are looking for an argument and are tenacious in their views, here is how I see it. It doesn't matter who much you try to re-invent the wheel, it's already been done. All the hypothesis and quotes doesn’t make a matter right... But it is a foundation from what our views are based. Science doesn't dictate how our day is going to be when we get up in the morning, just influences the outcome beyond our control of what could be.... Mind you each interpretation is very different.
All and every elements need the other so must co-exist in order to reproduce and survive. Too much fluctuation will cause an imbalance in this circle of life.
[So it is my opinion that these coincidences (see also anthropic principal) coupled with a clear purpose for these coincidences not only proves Intelligent design of the Universe, but also that This design lays the fundamental groundwork for all other design that man himself engages in.]
As for ID, this may be altered, however, by technology and can be very destructive to any form of living and creatures. That is if man doesn’t destroy it first.......  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 9:16:32 AM | Well it's nice to see another lady on this site.... Welcome!!!!
As for your question..
I don't think Aids is 'quickened' by the overuse of antibiotics.. But antibiotics do decrease the ability for the body to fight bacteria and virus, thus weakening our immune system. To my limited knowledge, this spread would be more due to the mutations of bacteria and viruses with the forever increasing number of new diseases discovered each day.... imagine was is discovered too late.... those are the dangerous ones to look for! If you put the two together, it may have an influence but is not the root cause of the spread.... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 9:55:49 AM |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsur wrote
Because misquoting is a *fetish* with Creationists. I've been on talk.origins since 1992 or so, and Creationists have been using the same misquotes (and new ones, I grant them that) since before that. It's so bad, and so repetitive, that some folk over at talk.origins have been putting up the Creationist Quote Mining Project to make it easier to figure out exactly WHAT misquote Joe Q. Creationist is using.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing said has convinced me that putting down a group of people( as apposed to putting down thier arguement) is scientific or logical.
Being logical and scientific seems to be something you both repeat often. So if you want to be scientific or logical you should explain the contridiction of these two things.(putting down groups of people and saying you value being scientific and logical)
Okay. How about you go back through this thread, and see how many times large blocks of quotes have been posted in a single post. Then see how many times these quotes have been shown to be either faked, misquoted, out-of-context, or just irrelevant.
Then see if you can judge if the original poster was an Evolutionist, a Creationist, or 'Other/Unknown'.
If you want to be 'logical' or 'scientific' about it, I propose the following.
I observe that Creationists like to post large blocks of quotes.
Null hypothesis: The majority (> 50%) of quotes by Creationists are valid, correct, in-context, relevant quotes.
It is my contention that this null hypothesis is disproved (p<0.05), insofar as there are no examples where it is true. There may be insufficient examples to support the claim on this thread alone, however. I base my claim on observations made over many more years and forums than this one.
(The Null-hypothesis model is widely used in scientific research to test hypotheses.)
Once you have this hypothesis, you can then use it and test it further. I think I've stated more than once in this thread that 'oh, I'm sure more quotes will be posted, they'll be just as bogus'. If I haven't, I'm making the claim now.... if this thread keeps rolling on, we will see more Creationist posters making huge block cut&paste posts of mostly bogus quotes again.
See, that's being logical and scientific. Prior behavior *is* a strong indicator of future behavior in this case.
Other observations made about Creationist Misquoting Habits: they never admit they used bogus quotes, and hence never apologize for misleading the reade, which would seem to be the honest thing to do. Even the Catholic Church apologized for their handling of Galileo after a time(okay, a LONG time). ;)
Better?
If there was an intelligence involved in the creation or transformation of something it is logical that their would be a dicernable pattern throughout that whole thing that can not be explained logicly by looking at only the thing under question. So that is what would be looked for/tested for in all the data we have on biology. Is their a pattern in the rate of species creation that stretches across the entire 4.6billion? year history of life? In the number of deaths/births in that time? Is there a pattern in the different places different life forms were created at over the whole 4.6billion years. If there can be found one and only one or evidence of more than one pattern but that look like they all lead to one pattern and that pattern can not be logically explained using what has been found out about and acepted as common knowledge about nature, than that would be prove in support of the theory of I.D.
Okay, but then ID needs to explain such phenomena *better* than evolutionary theory in order to displace it. If you want to look at the pattern of species appearing and disappearing in the fossil record, there has been a fair bit of work on that by scientists. Broadly speciation rates do seem to vary over time, certainly species extinction seems to have been intense at various points in time, with 'mass extinctions' at a number of points (Devonian, P/Tr, K/T, etc.)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
However species diversity seems to have increased over time. If you'd like to propose a model that explains this sort of thing I think people would be interested, if it fit the data well.
Personally, I have no idea where life came from. It could have been seeded here by Xordaxians, God, or Xenu for all I know. There's just no remaining physical evidence I'm aware of. It's certainly something that will be discussed for a long, long time.
But repeatedly using faked quotes is no way to go about it, n'est-ce pas?
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 10:02:21 AM | "Nothing said has convinced me that putting down a group of people"
Saying that anyone who has taken high school physics should understand a very basic principle is not putting anyone down unless you are saying 1: that you took high school physics and 2: that you still don't understand that orderly processes can emerge from underlying relationships. Is that what you are saying?
"It should read "it argues against and only against creation and transformation of life having happened by a random process and/or a process that does not involve an intelligence.""
You just said basically the same thing. You are misapplying the term "random." Also, you are stating in this sentence that I.D., by necessity, invokes an intelligent designer as core to the theory, which is odd since you only just stated...
"To the argument that the theory of I.D. requires a creator I have already stated my argument against that and have not seen anything posted that convinces me that my argument is in error."
Make up your mind. If I.D. only asserts, as you say, that it opposes Evolution because it does not require a creator, then, by simple logic, I.D., requires a creator. There is a difference between stating an argument that is logically coherent and stating one that is internally inconsistent. I am illustrating the lack of logical consistency. If your argument was consistent to begin with, I would have either acknowledged it as a sound point, or explained why, although logical, it was still in error, but your statement is logically inconsistent and does not illicit any response except to point that out.
"The theory of I.D. can not be tested with complete accuracy. Neither can the theory of evolution by natural selection though it can be tested more accurately than I.D."
When are you guys going to drop this "complete accuracy" fallacy? You are clouding the issue with a straw man. Empirically verifiable is not the same as "absolute truth." Science NEVER claims absolute truth. Rather then repeat myself over and over and over, just go back and read the thread, because this issue has been beaten into the ground. The difference is that I.D. offers nothing that is empirically verifiable, and it offers no theoretical explanations of causal processes. "God did it" is not a scientific theory.
"If there was an intelligence involved in the creation or transformation of something it is logical that their would be a dicernable pattern throughout that whole thing that can not be explained logicly by looking at only the thing under question."
You know, you don't want to be insulted, but when you prattle on negatively about something you don't understand, then what do you expect? Your knowledge of science is abysmal. That's fine. I don't expect you to understand science, but I do expect you not to rant and rave on a subject with which you don't have adequate familiarity. Again, I wouldn't negatively critique a novel without having read it first, and that is essentially what you are doing. That behaviour DESERVES to be insulted. You completely missed my point, which is that patterns DO emerge from the interaction of basic constituents. Nature is filled with examples of this. You need not go much further than a cursory study of non-linear dynamical systems to understand this. Therefore finding "patterns" in nature is only proof that there are patterns in nature. Evolution does not make the equivalent, but specious, claim that the mere existence of patterns is proof of Evolution. Instead it has uncovered complex mechanisms that explain these patterns.
"If there can be found one and only one or evidence of more than one pattern but that look like they all lead to one pattern and that pattern can not be logically explained using what has been found out about and acepted as common knowledge about nature"
Then by your own admission, which by the way is in error, I.D. offers nothing, because those patterns CAN be logically explained. That's what theorists have been doing for well over a century- honing that explanation and working out the kinks. Are they done? No, we are talking about complex multivariate systems and inquiry will continue for a long time still. Are they on the right track? Clearly, by the wealth of corroborating evidence from various disciplines, they are on the right track. That being said, attempting (unsuccessfully by the way) to poke holes in an existing theory without offering a more predictive and explanatory model does not a scientific theory make. Trying to poke holes in Relativity, for instance, does not thereby prove that space is actually pea soup. Look, if you want to understand science or Evolution, then there are many here who would be happy to educate you, but that is clearly not your intention. Your intention is to frantically grasp at straws in order to convince yourself that your philosophical preconceptions are not threatened. Sorry, but I don't have respect for that. I have respect for those who desire to learn; I do not respect those who plug their ears when someone is trying to educate them.
"The question then is the sorter(nature) made of random processess and if it is, how does something made of random processes perform a nonrandom function?"
Case in point- this has been explained, and I don't like repeating myself, but I shall. If two clades within a species have allopatrically diverged to the point that one has passed on the trait of web feet and another hasn't, and then the plain they live in is flooded due to a climactic change, then that clade with the web feet is more likely to survive the event and continue passing on their genes. The transposition of genes that led to the webbing may have been random (although on the genic level the degree of randomness is also arguable) and the flooding of the plain may have been due to a random, but still deterministic, event, but the EFFECT of one on the other is not random. The flooded plain CHOSE those with the web feet. Further, study chaos and complexity theory, and you will see, in very formal terms, how higher order patterns can emerge in complex non-linear systems. Again, nature is filled with such examples as are computer models of non-linear systems.
"It occurs to me that for that explanation to work the process of natural selection would have to have the dominent influence over all the other processes involved in the creation and transformation of life in the theory of evolution by natural selection. Do evolutionist contend that this is true?"
Depends on the evolutionary biologist that you talk to. Modern theory incorporates what may be considered structuralist causes in addition to functionalist causes. Also, natural selection occurs on and between different levels, and is not the simple cause and effect that you are picturing. Some traits may be selected on an organismal level, others on a species level, others purely on a genic level. For instance social behaviour is likely selected on a species level, that is the clade with enhanced social behaviour may have a survival advantage over the clade that doesn't possess this trait. It is selected for by competing species within a clade and not by individual organisms. Also, some traits are merely architectural consequences of another mutation. The fact that our blood is red is simply a consequence of other traits that were selected for. It is invisible to evolution, so it remains inconsequential, but it's easy to see how the color of a flower, lets say, could be the consequence of another trait that was selected for, but becomes a functional trait in itself if it is consequently more noticeable to insects that pollinate the flower, so now the flower is selected for it's redness and not the original trait that was selected that the redness hitched a ride with. These are called spandrals or pre-adaptations depending on who you talk to.
"I assumed that you would know I was asking where nature came from(what created it?)."
Where nature came from is wholly irrelevant to the theory. If you think it is relevant THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE THEORY. If you want to believe that God created nature, then fine. That has nothing to do with, and in no way contradicts the theory of Evolution.
"In short the formula is thus.
improbability + specification = Intelligent Design."
That is not a formula. Do you honestly think that the factors in scientific formulas are vague concepts added together? That's like saying "love + charity = kindness." That is hardly a scientific formula.
"That is if an incident is found to be highly unlikely to occur by chance, and there is purpose and/or order found within that incident, then that incident is thus proven to have occurred by design."
First, there is no existing litmus test to make any meaningful statement as to the probability of life occurring. In fact recent discoveries of life occurring in deep sea thermal vents, which emits gases toxic to most life as we know it, as well as compelling evidence of the existence of organic compounds in space are leading us to believe that it is far more probable than we formerly thought. Until we understand the mechanisms that broach the nexus between inorganic and organic chemistry we can't even address probability, so that is an empty argument. If you are talking about the probability of speciation occurring, on the other hand, that is highly probable as there is a vast amount of genetic and paleontological evidence that that has happened an uncountable number of times in earth's history.
"Now this seems simple and it's simplicity is in fact what opens ID to accusations of "pseudo-science." However I would like to point out that this formula is used by people everyday in order to prove design. In criminal justice, forensic science, and even every day life."
A detective may follow a hunch based on the seeming improbability of an event, but that is not forensic science. Forensic science is about particulars that are proved by repeatable experiment. A fingerprint or DNA may involve a probability, but that probability is expressed in very precise terms and overwhelming terms. In other words the probability that recovered DNA matches an individual on the order of 99.99% is entirely different than the "probability" that a suspect was at a particular location. Without forensic evidence it's just a hunch. Perhaps the suspect was visibly nervous when interrogated and the detective thinks it's "probable" that he's lying. The genetic evidence actually conclusively places him there with a MEASURABLE probability of 99.99%. A vague concept like "specification" is not measurable.
"If you saw a stack of pennies on a table all facing heads up would you believe me if I told you that they fell out of my coin purse and just landed that way?"
Completely unrelated to Evolution. First of all, we are talking about millenia, so it would be a better analogy if you upended your coin purse a billion times. If that is the case then I would believe it very probable. It only needs to happen once. Second of all, there are physical mechanisms involved, such as self-organizing complexity, that make it a poor analogy anyway.
"If you saw a stack of bricks assembled in such a way as to form a structure with rooms and doors and a roof, would you believe that they fell out of a dump truck that way by chance."
Ditto. If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to make substantive arguments, and not arguments that call your knowledge of science into question.
"It is reasonable in both instances to say that design is proven with or without the presence of an observable creator."
Again, if all you want to prove is that there are discernible patterns in nature, then put yourself at ease, because Evolution already addresses this. Or you can keep tilting at windmills Don Quixote.
"So it is my opinion that these coincidences (see also anthropic principal) coupled with a clear purpose for these coincidences not only proves Intelligent design of the Universe, but also that This design lays the fundamental groundwork for all other design that man himself engages in."
Your invoking the anthropic principle is amusing. Do you know what the anthropic principle is? Evolution, again, does not claim that life is merely a set of coincidences. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 10:07:22 AM | I read Bill Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" almost ten years ago before anyone else really knew what it was. What is interesting is that the description of ID in popular media is so watered down it does not really reveal the important questions that ID raises. The media says that ID is a theory that the Universe is so complex that it must have been created by some sentient form. That is true, but it was not the entire point of Dembski's work. Dembski simply pointed out that using a simple formula, One can determine Intelligent design in all areas, not just the origin of the universe. In short the formula is thus.
improbability + specification = Intelligent Design.
That is if an incident is found to be highly unlikely to occur by chance, and there is purpose and/or order found within that incident, then that incident is thus proven to have occurred by design.
There is no actual evidence that abiogenesis is 'unlikely to occur', however. There is in fact some early work showing that self-organizing systems could plausibly have arisen given what we think we know about the primitive Earth.
There is also no evidence of 'purpose' I am aware of in the fossil record. Perhaps it doesn't mineralize well?
And 'order' is quite visible in the world - a crystal of salt is *highly* ordered, but nobody seems to claim each salt granule was crafted by a Designer to spec, do they?
The problem with arguing about probability *after* the fact is that *someone* has to win the lottery.
I agree there are interesting philosophical questions that 'design theory' can come up with. If they could just ditch the effort to use ID as a smokescreen to shove a particular creed of Christianity into science classes, maybe they could start to look into them instead?
As *practiced*, ID is simply rebranded Creationism. Same people, same books, same arguments, with the word 'God' crossed out and 'Designer' written in, in crayon... (apologies to Monty Python).
See also 'Cdesign proponentists'. =)
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 10:12:48 AM |
See, that's being logical and scientific. Prior behavior *is* a strong indicator of future behavior in this case.
As in, your repeated slanders and libel against those that you disagree with, and the infantile name calling you always resort to?
Yep, typical, predictable, and so 'old news' of you Tsur. *Yawn* 
Personally, I have no idea where life came from. It could have been seeded here by Xordaxians, God, or Xenu for all I know. There's just no remaining physical evidence I'm aware of. It's certainly something that will be discussed for a long, long time.
So, you have posted countless times that you are 'so right' in your fallable views, yet now you say you do NOT know??
THENNNNN, Cease with the childish name calling tactics you repeatedly employ against those whom you continually disagree with.
But repeatedly using faked quotes is no way to go about it, n'est-ce pas?
As in, what talk.origins and wikipedia have been caught doing, and are now under careful scrutiny and detailed investigation? (For continual half truths, misinformation, slander, libel, and out right lies.)
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/15/2006 10:50:01 AM | Wikipedia is free Encyclopedia edited all contributers, its not a conspiracy. What happened is that some fringe nut edited a page with bogus information implicating a guy in a conspiracy to shoot a president. The guy read the page before anyone could erase the vandals nonsense and he decided to sue over the matter.
As far as talk.origins being caught and investigated for slander what are you talking about?
When Creationists start making general accusations against all people who advocate evolution based on what a MINORITY have done they are REALLY the pot calling the kettle black. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/16/2006 10:50:49 AM |
When Creationists start making general accusations against all people who advocate evolution based on what a MINORITY have done they are REALLY the pot calling the kettle black.
Well, to be fair, there are any number of really obnoxious atheists who like to slam religion based on the actions of a minority. The fact that Creationists have been deceitful and manipulative in trying to force religion into science classes doesn't mean that you can fairly tar 'Christians' generally with the same brush. I would also oppose any attempt for any sort of advocacy of atheism in science classes - if as a teacher I was asked questions about my personal religious beliefs in class, I would try to parry the question without being deceptive.
As I've pointed out, I truly *intensely* dislike liars, and those who distort the facts for their own ends. I'd say I 'hate' them but my mother always told me I simply 'disliked them intensely', and who am I to argue? I also dislike censorship, I don't think anyone should be prevented from speaking their piece, because I (maybe foolishly) believe that the truth will eventually overcome their fabrications. For example, the insistance of Creationists on using faked quotes is easily countered by giving corrected quotes - the infamous misquote of Darwin on the evolution of the eye (earlier in thread), for example, is one of the most common Creationist misquotes, and takes only a few seconds to counter. But you have to draw the line somewhere I guess, and I'm sure I've skated close to it more than once in use of hostile language! I don't think I've had any posts deleted here for posting attacks (though I suspect I did lose one from commenting about 'hey, look, posts have vanished, how odd' - hi Mr. Moderator!) but I can see how the moderators have to use discretion.
I suppose that feeling of respect for the truth and honesty is what drives me to argue with Creationists and their psychological brethren, Holocaust Deniers. And if in the process I get to make some particular Creationist look like an clown, that's my reward too.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/16/2006 8:03:26 PM | Lol, when you going to let up on the misquotes, Tsur. They weren't intentional. Not like the Darwin camp doesn't twist data and interpretations to make it line up with their bogus theories. What a crock. Let's in fact, talk about how many of the evolution textbooks are teaching the childeren about 100+ year old hoaxes by evolutionists. Teaching the kids that this load of crap is what proves evolution to be a "fact" is just short of criminal imo. Worst of it is that I'm not even talking about 20-30 year old books but ones put out in the last 5-10 years. I realize evolutionists are grasping at straws for coming up with good evidence to support their bs but it is pretty extreme to be intentionally feeding school-childeren false or misleading facts in an attempt to indoctrinate them before they are capable of evaluating what the truth really is. Scientific standards? Huh, no better than the religions they are attempting to replace and in fact worse.
As long as the scientific field is condoning these textbooks for teaching in the schools it is blatant hypocrisy for evolutionists to be yipping about a few misquotes on a dating site....or anywhere else for that matter.
So Tsur, do you *intensly dislike* the lies, deceit and censorship that is running rampant in the evolutionary science classes or is it only reserved for Creationists?
Here is the link for the textbooks and their errors, in case you're wanting to correct that injustice. http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/16/2006 10:12:02 PM |
As long as the scientific field is condoning these textbooks for teaching in the schools it is blatant hypocrisy for evolutionists to be yipping about a few misquotes on a dating site....or anywhere else for that matter.
So Tsur, do you *intensly dislike* the lies, deceit and censorship that is running rampant in the evolutionary science classes or is it only reserved for Creationists?
Here is the link for the textbooks and their errors, in case you're wanting to correct that injustice. http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
Oh, Jonathan Wells. Sure, I've heard of him.
Wells' article looks to be taken from his book, Icons of Evolution. I'm familiar with the book, but not the American Spectator article.
The problem with Wells is he's wrong about a lot of the things he claims. His attacks on evolution have been addressed a long time ago, and more than once.
See, for instance, the various articles pointing out Wells' errors at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
As to inaccuracies in textbooks, given that Wells himself is wrong about so much, forgive me for not taking his 'unbiased' opinion on the matter.
And I don't know anyone who 'condones' errors in textbooks. No doubt some authors aren't as good at fact-checking as they should be, but the one making the major false claims here is Wells.
So yeah, while I appreciate anyone pointing out errors in textbooks, Wells is a fraud himself, so no, I don't respect him.
Read Gishlick's article on the NCSE website to see how bad Wells really got his facts wrong. link from the web page above. In fact, anyone citing Wells is already admitting they don't have a solid understanding of the subject anyhow - he's been debunked for half a decade, after all.
Wells' book and article are simply a more formal example of Creationist misquotes and distortions. A habit repeatedly seen on this thread.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/16/2006 10:47:52 PM | | So what does the evidence have to do with his reputation? Is there any Creationist that you consider to have a good reputation? Besides, any "proof" from Talk Origins is suspect. It is about on the same level as backing up a statement from the bible. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/16/2006 10:50:13 PM | I've always wondered what process took hold to cause the so called
'big bang; from a perfect vaccuum of space suddenly we have
planets, chemicals, mammals & consciousness. I understand that no
human can tell us the process which created life and so with that
no one can tell us what wasn't.
Smarter men than most of us here have converted to christianity
out of there life work as atheist scientists. Who am I to argue
with them? Who am I to argue with Einstein who wrestled w/
the existence with God? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/16/2006 11:07:27 PM |
So what does the evidence have to do with his reputation? Is there any Creationist that you consider to have a good reputation? Besides, any "proof" from Talk Origins is suspect. It is about on the same level as backing up a statement from the bible.
It's the fact that Wells so openly tries to mislead and misuse actual evidence that determines his reputation. If you had looked at the articles I posted a link to, including that one on the NCSE website, you would have seen how *badly* Wells flubbed his facts.
Are there 'Creationists' I consider to have good reputations? Not really, no. But the problem with Wells is that his claims are so easily knocked over. The only people who think he's impressive are those who don't actually have any understanding of what he's claiming.
I mean, Phillip Johnson is quite personable, I've met him, and he's a big guy at the DI. But scientifically he's no better than Wells. To be fair, he's a lawyer, not a scientist. And very polite. He even signed my copy of his book.
--R.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/17/2006 1:54:54 AM |
It's the fact that Wells so openly tries to mislead and misuse actual evidence that determines his reputation. If you had looked at the articles I posted a link to, including that one on the NCSE website, you would have seen how *badly* Wells flubbed his facts.
Still using a Ad Hominem Argument to try to negate the evidence.
Are there 'Creationists' I consider to have good reputations? Not really, no. But the problem with Wells is that his claims are so easily knocked over. The only people who think he's impressive are those who don't actually have any understanding of what he's claiming.
This still doesn't answer why books put out in the last 5-10 years still contain supposed evidence for evolution that was thrown out over a century ago. It makes Wells problem small and insignificant in comparison to what Evolutionists are doing in the educational system ith their lies and deception. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/17/2006 7:40:34 AM | Still using a Ad Hominem Argument to try to negate the evidence.
One of Tsur's most common infantile tactics; "Gee, I can not win on self-admitted lack of education of knowledge, soo, Duuuh, I'll call them names, yes, Duuuh, that should work."
This still doesn't answer why books put out in the last 5-10 years still contain supposed evidence for evolution that was thrown out over a century ago. It makes Wells problem small and insignificant in comparison to what Evolutionists are doing in the educational system ith their lies and deception.
So many, as we have seen in here, pick at a VERY FEW things that 'creationists' have blundered on, but yet all the while, deny or try to belittle or even *gasp* lie about the countless evolutionists LIES that abound.
Their argument is mostly: "Well, see? the Creationists screwed up on these FEW things, ergo, ALL of their statements MUST be all wrong as well."
Most can not debate even logically, or with any personal knowledge either; Their best efforts are mostly cut and paste methods, which all that shows really, is that they really have way too much useless time on their hands.
And yes, 'talk.origins' has been also found to be, like 'wikipedia', full of blatant lies, errors, misquotes, libel and outright 'hate crime' status attacks against 'Christians' and 'Creationists'.
 | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3142 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/17/2006 8:00:53 AM | This line of argument is moot, exposing that Wells isn't being honest in his critique of the science of evolution isn't an "ad hominum", it's merely pointing out the flaw in his argument, and the cite behind the flaw.
Find a source that doesn't outright admit to the fallacy of petitio principi in it's "Statement of Faith", and start from there.
Anything from AiG for example, is derived from people who admit they will set aside science if science doesn't fit their agenda.
How is THIS an ad hominum?
And yes, 'talk.origins' has been also found to be, like 'wikipedia', full of blatant lies, errors, misquotes, libel and outright 'hate crime' status attacks against 'Christians' and 'Creationists'.
Cite? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/17/2006 8:27:24 AM | Still using a Ad Hominem Argument to try to negate the evidence.
No, I posted a link to extensive evidence that demonstrates that Wells is wrong, and that his claims are false and misleading.
So many people have done so in such detail that it would be impractical to 'cut and paste' it here.
Wells claims are bogus, as shown by the actual evidence (which Wells ignores or distorts). I'm assuming you've read the NCSE article by this time and are aware of that. After all, I've read Wells' article and anyone with more than a kindergarten-level understanding of evolution (and the history thereof) can see he's seriously wrong on what he claims.
I also suggest you actually learn what 'ad hominem' means since you are misusing the term so badly. In fact, given that you've attempted to discredit numerous people who have shown Wells' facts to be incorrect, simply because they are linked to 'from Talk Origins', the only person guilty of 'ad hominem' here would be you.
Again, in view of the serious errors in Wells' claims (explained at length by a number of articles from various sources), his further claims that 'and these textbooks are all tainted with these flaws' is a problem for anyone. If I stand up and claim 'the Tahoma font is a guaranteed sign of devil worship' then I'm going to sure find a lot of devil-worshippers out on the Internet, aren't I? That's because a false premise allows you to make any conclusion you like, as Wells has done.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/17/2006 8:50:54 AM | Find a source that doesn't outright admit to the fallacy of petitio principi in it's "Statement of Faith", and start from there.
An honest "Statement of Faith (Beliefs)" does in no way negate the factual evidences contained witin a well documented and researched website.
Anything from AiG for example, is derived from people who admit they will set aside science if science doesn't fit their agenda.
Cite Please.
How is THIS an ad hominum?
Tsur, and a few others, constantly resort to direct name calling.
i.e.: "idiot(s)", "liar(s)", "fool(s)", "stupid", etc, etc.
His posts like this, are tatamount to hate crime literature; Something, which, at last check, is punishable by Federal laws in both Canada and the USA.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/17/2006 9:15:10 AM | Romantic
Your quote:
"His posts like this, are tatamount to hate crime literature; Something, which, at last check, is punishable by Federal laws in both Canada and the USA."
The laws of Slander and Deflamation of character are only enforceable when the comments made against a person or particular group of people can be demonstrated to be false, and were made with the intent of causing injury to that person....
I do not this Tsur meets these requirements.
Also, what is all the evidence that Creationism has. I posed this question earlier in this thread and received no reply.
Creationist evidence in general flows like this, from what I have read on this site:
1. Distort / misquote / misuse evolutionist arguments.
2. Distort / misquote / misuse previously discarded evolutionary principles.
3. Claim that nature is far to complicated for evolution to explain.
4. If it is this complicated it must have had a designer.
5. That designer must be intelligent - ergo - God.
I have yet to read any Creationist evidence that can be tested, is verifiable, and outside of 'the Bible'. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/17/2006 9:17:14 AM |
Anything from AiG for example, is derived from people who admit they will set aside science if science doesn't fit their agenda. Cite Please.
See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
Under '(D) General', point #6 states:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
As to 'ad hominem', you evidently don't know what that means either. When I pointed out you were knowingly lying about your source, I did so by providing evidence to that effect, with examples, links and references. You even admitted it. People can go back in the thread and see for themselves.
His posts like this, are tatamount to hate crime literature; Something, which, at last check, is punishable by Federal laws in both Canada and the USA.
Ah well, we can add 'the law' to the list of things you don't know a lot about, I see. Please feel free to demonstrate how anything I've said contravenes the Criminal Code of Canada. Since you mentioned 'at last check' I gather you must have looked it up before you made the claim?
Oh, and try to respond in a way that doesn't get *more* of your posts deleted, okay? It makes it had to follow the thread.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/17/2006 9:20:35 AM | Brain_in_a_vat posted:
"His posts like this, are tatamount to hate crime literature; Something, which, at last check, is punishable by Federal laws in both Canada and the USA."
The laws of Slander and Deflamation of character are only enforceable when the comments made against a person or particular group of people can be demonstrated to be false, and were made with the intent of causing injury to that person....
I do not this Tsur meets these requirements.
Actually, the relevant law he's confused about is Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42972.html) [Hate Propaganda].
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Specifically subsection 2, I'd think, since Subsection 1 requires me to be inciting a breach of the peace, which is a bit hard to claim. This forum also probably doesn't qualify as 'a public place'.
The problem with his claim is that the CCC lists a number of defenses:
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Well, I'll take (a) for starters, I certainly get (b), and (c) as well. If I want evidence I can just use trial transcripts from any number of cases, most recently Dover.
I did the simple homework on Our Hero's behalf since I've actually written an essay on Hate Crime in Canada as an undergrad and I knew where to look. I don't, oddly, expect thanks. Not to mention 'Creationists' probably don't qualify as an 'Identifiable Group'.
So far it's science (biology/evolution, physics, chemistry), logic (serial misuse of 'ad hominem'), and law on the list of things Our Hero doesn't know much about. Anyone care to add any I've missed? If the list gets too long we should maybe start a new thead?
--R.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/17/2006 9:28:25 AM |
The laws of Slander and Deflamation of character are only enforceable when the comments made against a person or particular group of people can be demonstrated to be false, and were made with the intent of causing injury to that person....
Something which, he continues to do so by his continual name calling and libelous statements.
And by his own admission, he attacks personally others he 'disagrees' with.
Wilful promotion of hatred
Yes tsur, something YOU, and a few others have done in here.
And to say I 'admitted to lying'? THAT is a blatant lie by you. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/17/2006 9:49:26 AM | I was suggesting that the comments Tsur makes would not meet the definitions of slander and deflamation as they, in some instances have been accurate. (It was my way of giving you a hard time, as a joke, i.e. not being serious).
Also, I was hoping you would provide me with that illusive creationist proof and evidence. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/17/2006 10:04:52 AM | Shrug. You posted a 40-odd line *verbatim* quote from McDowell, then denied your source was 'Christian'. I pointed out the obvious untruth of that denial, based on the use of verbatim quotes. I also pointed out that your use of unsourced quotes like that amounted to plagiarism.
When challenged, your reply amounted to 'so what if it's in McDowell. I own the book and I know it well, so what if I quoted him'.
People can go back to around page 40 or so and see for themselves.
Really, this is flogging a dead horse; your credibility on the subject was shot when you kept using misquotes and then not apologizing when you were caught out, dozens of pages ago. I don't know who you're trying to impress with your lack of knowledge on the subject?
I was amused to learn you're a UFOlogist though. It ties in with the whole 'Denier' mindset. Thanks for being another positive data point on the 'people who fall for one form of pseudoscience tend to be open to falling for another one'.
--R. | |
|
|
| Page 126 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
