Thread: middle east again...

  1. #196
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,868
    >>RB
    But if anyone here would take the time study the life and actions of the the prophet Mohammed they would find him (1) a murderer, (2) a torturer, (3) a child rapist, (4) a robber, (5) a consummate Bedouin Arab, and more.<<
    >>RB
    It's about Jesus vs. Muhammad and which prophet really lived up to the preachings of his respective Word. Jesus never sent an army to kill and conquer an unsuspecting enemy. Jesus never persecuted those who disagreed with him. Jesus never stole. He never took on 14 wives and countless other concubines. He never urged anyone to kill and steal in God's name. Jesus never did any of those things; Muhammad did every one. And more.<<

    So Christianity is better than Islam because JC is better than M?

    My point was that no matter what these people said it is how their followers INTERPRET it here and now. You want Muslims to be accountable because Mohammad was flawed. But complain that I want Christianity to be accountable because your priests rape children, you kill indiscriminately in revenge and ignore the small evil they do, in the name of, 'the greater good'.

    Least Muslims are following the Koran (which tells them to extract revenge) unlike Christians who selectively ignore Jesus' teachings (should be turning the other cheek).

    "It is easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"
    >>RB
    The Christians who resided in Damascus, Alexandria, Aleppo, Jersusalem and elsewhere did nothing to provoke their Islamic conquerors, and those Christians had every right to defend and try to take back their land just the same as Palestinians claim to be doing to day.

    So the native American Indians (or Indigenous Australian Aborigines) have a right to take back their land that we conquered? And we should send tanks against them if they do?
    Last edited by novacain; 05-06-2002 at 12:21 AM.
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  2. #197
    Registered User Malcar Morab's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    52
    I know this sounds flaky, and a bit odd, but I won't be back here on this board until Augest. I have a summer job(salmon fishing in Alaska) that will keep me from any available internet capabilities. Maybe in Augest, though. The semester starts up then and the first part is rather hairy.

    I know that I have only been a member here for *cough* four days *cough* but I have enjoyed the time immensely.

    I have learned so much about evolution, fossils, mutation, Darwin, creatism, etc. in the past four days. My goal is to get a biology degree and study animals around the world. Knowledge is power, and with power man can do many, many things.

    You all have been a joy to talk with, witty, intelligent people are a wonderful find. Clyde, don't stop asking questions, you stumped me with quite a few of your own and I was actually forced to find the answers to them on my own free will. I was never very interested in research, but doing this had opened my eyes to show me how much fun study can really be.

    I still believe that God is there, he created the earth and all the animals. The proof to the supernatural world is just too overwhelming for me to turn my back on God. There are things in this world science cannot explain, after all, evolution was a man made thought. Man has never been very smart, much as we like to think so.

    Let me poise this question as a parting thought for the night, you may or may not have heard it before.

    If you died tomorrow, where would you go?

    Simple enough question, but it is one some people (and even I struggled with in the past) have carried with them all their lives.

    Happy C and C++ing guys!!!
    ~Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.~
    -----Mark Twain

    ~God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.~
    ------Reinhold Niebuhr

  3. #198
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,403
    "I apologize if any of the quotes are truly out of context"

    Any? ANY? Try ALL.

    "That said, you are supposed to look at the quotes objectively. For the record, the paleontologist(he does believe in evolution, just admits that there is not the supposed abundance of fossil evidence) is NILES ELDREDGE, as I said before. I'm pretty sure that he did not graduate from the university of creation science, but you might want to check up on that, just to make sure. He might have. "

    IF he believes that there is no evidence then why exactly does he PROCLAIM the huge amouts of evidence in his book: "The Triumph of Evolution, and the Failure of Creationism"??

    I'll tell you why, because either that quote is fabricated (which publication does it come from?) Or it like all your other quotes is completely of context, it may well be then when he talks about gradual, what he means is not the gradual phenotypic change that we see in THOUSANDS of fossils, but instead he means the sudden emergence of new species ala the Cambrian era.

    "And in the middle ages 99.99999 of scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth, (considering there were 100 million scientists, and that there are 100 million paleontologists) "

    LOL, thats the best counter-argument you can come up with?

    1) The Middle Ages were a time where science was dominated by religion, totally screwing it up.

    2) The argument that: science has been wrong in the past where man-kind knew little about the world therefore we shouldn't listen to scientists in the present is so comical it barely deserves a counter; scientists say that (close to the surface of the Earth) mass accelerates towards the Earth at 9.81 ms^-2 but hey! They've been wrong before! LOL.

    The question is WHY do you think that 99.9999% of paleontologists and scientists believe in evolution, IF as you say the fossil record does not show evolution (which is blatently does as I keep pointing out) why exactly do all of the paleontologists believe in evolution? Hmmm?

    "So Patterson thinks that "statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record?" That's interesting considering that such statements are made all the time. Is Patterson another one of those telling lies to children? "

    Did ya read my post cause I did cover this, we cannot prove a direct lineage from Archaeopteryx to birds because doing so would mean a fossil of every species in between Archaeopteryx to modern birds, however evolutionary theory says that there will be comon ancestry, hence links between the higher taxa, and we find exactly that. It is fairly obvious that birds did in-fact evolve from reptilies, but we cannot isolate the EXACT lineage, because there just aren't enough fossils around. Comprendez?

    "Yes I did read it. Basically you say that there are errors copying genetic information (simplification), which results in small changes in characteristics, which sometimes (but not most of the time) result in "improved" "performance" in the organism's habitat, which results in the passing of the characteristics to the rest of the population. Over long periods of time, the sum of these changes results in "new" organisms."
    And this explanation is supposed to explain to me how mammals, that give birth to living creatures, evolved from reptiles?
    You are going to have to explain more clearly. "

    You have all the information there, but if you want me to put it together you.....ok:

    Mammals evolved from reptiles, a group of reptiles were geographically seperated, from then they adapted to whatever environment they were in gradually altering: at the point where they are no longer compatable with the group they split from they are a new species, that does not stop them changing though, as long as their is selective pressure they will continue to adapt, so in their case their skull gradually changed into a more mammalian skull, their teeth gradually changed to more mammalian teeth, they began to regulate their own temperature, etc. etc. And a few million years later we have modern mammals.

    Incidently the Therapsid series of fossils chart the lizard-mammlaian linkage in great detail:

    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...7/therapsd.htm

    Given the properties of DNA: A self replicating system capable of mutation, evolution is logically INEVITABLE. Speciation is INEVITABLE from microevolution, because all you need for speciation to occur, is for the two groups of organisms to be unable to interbreed, all that requires is a loss of genetic similarity.

    "I assume Jones is referring to this "

    Probably, and notice what they say at the top of that link of yours:

    "New animal species can emerge much quicker than previously thought"

    It says they prefer not to interbreed, evidently they can interbreed, BUT since both Dr. Jones and the article claim this is a new species, evidently whilst they can interbreed their young are not fertile.

    "Of course it does! The imperfections are so vague and difficult to intepret that a lot of theories could do that. For the imperfections to qualify as evidence for the occurence of evolution, it has to be shown that no other theory can account for said imperfections. As is, they are merely evidence for the possibility of evolution. And how can they be seen as evidence against evolution? "

    Errm name one theory other than evolution that does account for the imperfections, you can't because there isn't one. And they are hardly vague, you see redundant phenotypic features, in organisms because the environment changes a lot faster than evolution.

    "The site explains very clearly what the fossil record shows indeed. Convergence in the structural aspect does not prove direct descent! "

    And? I keep you telling you that the fossils cannot directly prove direct descent, because in order to do so you would need a fossil of every species between the ancestor and the species at hard. What the fossil do prove is that evolution happens. That species adapt slowly forming new species, via the evolutionary process, furthermore, because we have linking fossils tha show linkages between the higher taxa, we can tell the general line that speciation occured in, we can know for example that birds came from lizards we cannot know however for certain that birds came from Archaeopteryx.

    "You appear to believe that I am a creationist, when I stated no such thing. Your habit of assumption doesn't say much for the suitability of your mind for science"

    If you do not believe in creationism then it doesn't matter whether or not there are problems with evolution (which there aren't as i keep pointing out) it would still be the best theory available. Since from style of your posts it seemed you did not believe evolution occured the only rational conclusion would be that you believed in an alternative, the only alternative to evolution that has been cited so far is creationism.

    Oh and hehe, i like the little side-swipe you got in there about my "suitability for science", you have no idea about my academic ability.

    "I stated very clearly that I believe in a guided evolution. In fact, I believe that evolution, guided or not, is a very reasonable theory concerning the history of life on Earth. However, I do not think that it merits the status of fact."

    I see, well then the fact that i keep answering your points should convince you, afterall your not adhereing to any irrational beliefs now are you? So when i pointed out why your objections to the eye (and why your problem with Dawkins program was invalid), the wing, why your quotes did not mean what you thought they did, showed links to numerous sites debunking every argument you have provided and also showing some of the vast fossil evidence, etc. etc. So, have you changed your mind? Or are you still sticking to your opinion because you feel like it, or perhaps you will say "I'm not convinced" (because, maybe, you don't want to be, or perhaps it's pride, you don't want to be seen to "lose" the debate) or some other-such nonsense. Hmm?

    "And I love your accusations of standard "creationist tactics." The evolutionsits of course partake in no such behaviour? When Goldschmidt came out with his idea, he was reviled and ridiculed in a fashion that would make Josef Goebbels envious. When Dembski published papers on Intelligent Design Theory (a far cry from special creation) he got the same treatment."

    Of course he was rediculed! It was nonsense, there was no evidence whatsoever supporting his theory, furthermore it was clear his motivation was a religious one! Scientists do not misquote people, creationists do, scientists do not prey on the ignorance of thir audience, creationists do, scientists offer palpable theory backed up with evidence, creationists offer "faith", creationism is a sham.

    Oh and your paper......

    " Wells is a Senior Fellow in the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, and has said that he has committed his life to "destroying Darwinism", and this was his motivation for getting his second Ph.D. (His first Ph.D. was in theology, from Yale University, and his undergraduate training was in theology from Rev. Moon of the Unification church.) Thus, when Wells states in the preface that he first realised that textbooks were not being honest about presenting evidence for evolution, one has to consider that this is after he has spent many years determined to fight and destroy evolution. Perhaps he might not have been as objective as it sounds in the preface, when he states "During my years as a physical science undergraduate and biology graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, I believed almost everything I read in my textbooks"

    and

    "A cynic might suggest that the REAL purpose of the book is not to actually provide scientific documentation, but instead to instill a "reasonable doubt" amongst those in the general population who are ignorant of the subject area; if this were his goal, then I think he is likely to be successful. Needless to say, this book is selling quite well amongst the fundamentalist Creationist circles in the U.S. "

    Hmm...

    For a full debunking of him go here:

    http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/IconsReview.html
    Last edited by Clyde; 05-06-2002 at 07:05 AM.

  4. #199
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,403
    "http://www.rae.org/FAQ01.html Check out this site, it has some interesting things about Gould and transitional fossils. "

    That site contains the SAME misquote of Colin Patterson they have also got another misquote of Gould, (I have coverered misquotes of gould previously)that i have already covered in this thread! It is another creationist site that lies about the fossil evidence and misquotes scientists.

    They misquote gould and then they draw invalid conclusions from their own misquote like this:

    ""The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould)

    Within scientific circles Gould drove home the point that transition fossils are lacking (as demonstrated in the Patterson quote above). Yet in speeches to the public in the last few years he has directly contradicted himself, boldly claiming that transition fossils are one of the three best arguments for evolution!"


    Well i urge you to re-read this:

    "Many evolution deniers quote Stephen Jay Gould and other punctuated equilibria proponents as saying that transitional forms are very rare. Most non-specialists get ideas of "missing links" between higher taxa of animals when they hear about transitional forms. Gould has been very clear that these are common and yet he has been quoted many times that transitional forms are rare. What is going on here? In the context of punctuated equilibria, a transitional form is between immediately related species (say two species of squirrels, species of similar Devonian trilobites, etc.), and is not referring to a transition between human and non-human, whales and primitive land mammals, etc. Indeed the transitions Gould and other punctuated equilibria proponents are arguing about would be generally be dismissed as "microevolution" by many evolution deniers. Thus antievolutionists arguing against the existence of transitions between larger taxa are very likely guilty of misquotation if they quote Gould's writings on punctuated equilibria. For more details on this see Gould's10 classic essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" where he explains his position on the fossil record as well as demonstrates young-earth creationist misrepresentations of his views"

    The site is the uses all the usual creationist mistruths, etc. etc. Fairly meaningless stuff.

    "Platapus lay eggs, but does that mean they are evolving into chickens?"

    No it means they have common ancestry to chickens.

    "There are odd things, fossils that are found, like fish with both lungs and gills, fish with lizard like feet, small dinasaurs that are featherd. But is this so odd? Is it so new? We all agree that lizards and birds cannot mate. "

    Those odd things are exactly what evolution predicts: links between the taxa.

    "why would'nt a bird evolve into a lizard"

    Why would it? You can NEVER EVER get a species evolving into an already existing species, or a higher taxa evolving into an already existing higher taxa. Chickens are farmed, meaning we select for and against specific traits hence overiding any evolutionary process. If you stuck chickens in the wild, then they would evolve, into what? You cannot predict evolution (well, not accurately anyway), so you'd just have to wait a few hundred thousand years and see

    IF we didn't know anything about the fossil record then we could have thought that perhaps lizards did evolve from birds........ but it turns out to be the other way round, lizards were around first.

    "The bounderys of how the world begin are layed out in the bible, we don't believe God created evolution, as some Christians(?) mistakenly try to say. Things don't just happen, this world did not come about by accident, it happend for a reason, everything happens for a reason. We are not mistakes. How much farther can people go? People are not evolving into something better, we are what we are and we will always be the same, until the end of time"

    Christians say that God created evolution because that is the only way they can take into account the facts of the world.

    What basis do you have for claiming that "everything happens for a reason" your basis perhaps is that it would be "nice" if that were the case? People ARE still evolving, and all current theory predicts there will be no "end of time".

    "Genesis chapter one and two that contradict, or is it Genisis and Exodus?"

    There is a DIRECT contradiction between genesis 1 and genesis 2, the order in which God makes the man and aniamls, is reversed.

    "I can only make so many points and answer so many questions, researching things takes a rather long time."

    Thing is, every point you make I (and others) show to be invalid.
    Last edited by Clyde; 05-06-2002 at 07:22 AM.

  5. #200
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,403
    "I still believe that God is there, he created the earth and all the animals."

    Chances are you will always believe in God, like I said before if there was a "conclusive" experiment you would ignore it if it showed God did not exist, you brain has been well and truly captured by the powers of indocrination.

    However there is no reason that you cannot realise evolution is fact, most Christians realise it so your belief in God is not a holding point.

    " The proof to the supernatural world is just too overwhelming for me to turn my back on God"

    Lol, what "proof"!?

    "There are things in this world science cannot explain, after all, "

    Well indeed, and when science could not explain the weather, people said "its God!", and when science could not explain meteors, peopel said "its God!", and now whenever science cannot explain something (which is getting rarer) people say "its God!"

    "Man has never been very smart, much as we like to think so. "

    Smart compared to what? Smart enough to work out relativity, quantum mechanics, to build cars, planes, computers, all that when we started off living in caves (actually I think the cave thing is a myth).

    "Let me poise this question as a parting thought for the night, you may or may not have heard it before.

    If you died tomorrow, where would you go?

    Simple enough question, but it is one some people (and even I struggled with in the past) have carried with them all their lives. "

    I wouldn't "go" anywhere, I would cease, stop, end, caput, just because something is not "nice" does not make it not true.

  6. #201
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,403
    Ooh lookie lookie:

    Fyodor writes:

    ""the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another"

    - Steve Stanley.

    Well...........:

    "R(creationist)) The Big Horn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years, during an early period in the age of mammals. Because this record is so complete, paleontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together to illustrate continuous evolution. On the contrary, species that were once thought to have turned into others turned out to overlap in time with their alleged descendants, and according to Steven Stanley: "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

    "MB) Here's another famous contextual misquote. When speciation occurs, the old species do not suddenly "vanish" as the new ones arise. That old buzzard is another Gishism. For speciation to occur, a series of changes must occur and accumulate within an existing population. Sometimes, these changes result in a new species that co-exists with its ancestor. At other times, the new species proliferates and replaces its ancestor over time. Still other times, the new species itself dies out while the ancestor lives on. Stanley is saying the obvious -- that one species does not suddenly die out while being totally and simultaneously replaced by its descendants. Therefore, overlapping species are what we should expect to find. As you have just pointed out in your argument, that is exactly what we *do* find."

    Furthermore that chrono-species quote:

    "If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodentlike form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!"

    Since you evidently do not know what a chrono-species (or for some reason didn't want to tell me) I found out: Chronospecies is the term used to distinguish species who have a continous lineage, if a group of organisms change environment they adapt to it via evolutionary processes, at the point they "would" no longer be compatable with their original selves they are deemed a new species, because the orginal species are not actually around anymore, sometimes the two different species are refered to as "chrono-species" because they are species separated by time.

    YOU already went on to provide the explanation!:

    "I believe Stanley attempted to rectify this by relying upon changes in regulatory genes. "

    This is very true, certain genes known as regulatory genes, result in a much more dramatic phenotypic change, whilst it is still gradual the SCALE is much larger when dealing with regulatory genes, for example, the physical size of an organism is largely determined by just 8 specific genes, hence the amount of time required to alter the physical size of an organism, is millions of times less than if such genes did not exist. Incidently I would imagine these genes are the reason we see both dwarfs and supremely tall people in human society.
    Last edited by Clyde; 05-06-2002 at 08:55 AM.

  7. #202
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    200
    It says they prefer not to interbreed, evidently they can interbreed, BUT since both Dr. Jones and the article claim this is a new species, evidently whilst they can interbreed their young are not fertile
    If that is true, then it would appear that there are some differing opinions.
    Hendry does offer a word of caution: "Despite our findings of rapid adaptation and reproductive isolation, I don't necessarily presume these two salmon populations will evolve into what would be recognized as separate species. We have simply used new populations to demonstrate the same processes that lead to new species."
    http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/arch...900salmon.html
    Note that he does not presume that they will evolve into separate species. I should think that it would be fairly obvious that they are not now separate species? Damn, I forgot to include the "lookie lookie" part, thereby showing the conclusiveness of my argument.
    IF he believes that there is no evidence then why exactly does he PROCLAIM the huge amouts of evidence in his book: "The Triumph of Evolution, and the Failure of Creationism"??

    I'll tell you why, because either that quote is fabricated (which publication does it come from?)...
    I am astounded. I gave you the complete context! As to your question, how would I know why he proclaims the huge amounts of evidence? Perhaps he is what some would deem a hypocrite. Perhaps he is emotionally attached to Darwinism as a sort of "religion." BTW, I believe the quote is from "Time Frames." I'll try to find out for you, if it really matters.

    1) The Middle Ages were a time where science was dominated by religion, totally screwing it up.

    2) The argument that: science has been wrong in the past where man-kind knew little about the world therefore we shouldn't listen to scientists in the present is so comical it barely deserves a counter; scientists say that (close to the surface of the Earth) mass accelerates towards the Earth at 9.81 ms^-2 but hey! They've been wrong before! LOL.
    Except for the slight difference that darwinism is not an empirical fact, as is the acceleration of matter towards earth. I'm not saying that we shouldn't to listen to scientists-I am saying that because they back up a theory does not make it fact.
    IF as you say the fossil record does not show evolution (which is blatently does as I keep pointing out)...
    Every single resource you have shown me uses evolution to prove evolution! I think there is a technical term for this type of logical fallacy...begging the question? They are saying that "because evolution happened, evolution happened."

    Mammals evolved from reptiles, a group of reptiles were geographically seperated, from then they adapted to whatever environment they were in gradually altering: at the point where they are no longer compatable with the group they split from they are a new species, that does not stop them changing though, as long as their is selective pressure they will continue to adapt, so in their case their skull gradually changed into a more mammalian skull, their teeth gradually changed to more mammalian teeth, they began to regulate their own temperature, etc. etc. And a few million years later we have modern mammals.
    Exactly my point. I asked you to explain evolution, and you give me, basically, a description of how it happened if it did happen. Maybe we should use the same tactic in out judicial system!
    For a full debunking of him go here:
    To debunk the paper mentioned, you rely upon two things: Ad hominem and a book review of a book none of us (probably) have ever read, and is thus free to take quotes out of context, fabricate, and misconstrue (i'm not saying that did happen).
    So the paper is invalid because Wells does not like the idea of evolution and some review says that his book is unreliable? I have to give you full marks for that one, Clyde.
    Speciation is INEVITABLE from microevolution
    You are still providing no proof and precious little evidence.

    If you do not believe in creationism then it doesn't matter whether or not there are problems with evolution (which there aren't as i keep pointing out) it would still be the best theory available. Since from style of your posts it seemed you did not believe evolution occured the only rational conclusion would be that you believed in an alternative, the only alternative to evolution that has been cited so far is creationism.
    My God, Clyde. Read what I posted. It is clear that I think evolution is a reasonable theory, considering that I have stated it directly at least once.
    Errm name one theory other than evolution that does account for the imperfections, you can't because there isn't one.
    Okay...here is one. God created existence and guided the evolutonary process. God created existence and provided evidence for evolution. Martians are conducting research on genetics. Invisible unicorns periodically introduce new species bred in laboratories with defects to study natural selection/microevolution. Reasonable or not, they still explain the imperfections.
    Since when did you answer my objection to the Nilsson eye model? I must have missed it.

    That's all for now, folks. I'll be busy cramming for AP tests this week, so I probably will not post on this thread, thus letting it fade back into blessed oblivion.
    I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.

    Windows XP consists of 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

  8. #203
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,403
    "http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/arc...1900salmon.html
    Note that he does not presume that they will evolve into separate species. I should think that it would be fairly obvious that they are not now separate species?"

    Fair enough, point taken, though it should also be fairly obvious, that it is indeed the same process. But it seems you are correct, and Dr. Jones was in error.

    "I am astounded. I gave you the complete context!"

    Ah, but you didn't at all, you have no idea whatsoever as to what he means when he says "gradual", as has been pointed out several times in this thread, the term gradual can mean several different things depending on context, when people talk of gradual with regards to the cambrian era they mean that several species appear to have come out of no-where, this is probably what he is talking about and IF YOU DECIDED TO QUOTE WHAT HE WENT ON TO SAY, he would no doubt explain why that occured by explaining punctuated equilibrium, but of course you stop before he does that....... naturally.

    " Perhaps he is what some would deem a hypocrite. Perhaps he is emotionally attached to Darwinism as a sort of "religion.""

    LOL, yea right, or maybe just maybe, like all your other quotes he is not saying what you think he is saying.

    "Except for the slight difference that darwinism is not an empirical fact, as is the acceleration of matter towards earth"

    Wrong, there is no such thing as "empirical fact", it does not exist, look up Decarte, there is no difference. They should both be considered "fact" because they both have truly gargantuan amounts of evidence supporting them.

    "I'm not saying that we shouldn't to listen to scientists-I am saying that because they back up a theory does not make it fact."

    Irrelevant, the ignorant populace is better off believeing what the scientists tell them, because the scientists are in far better position to form conclusions.

    "Every single resource you have shown me uses evolution to prove evolution! I think there is a technical term for this type of logical fallacy...begging the question? They are saying that "because evolution happened, evolution happened." "

    What nonsense! Instead making vague, wishy-washy claims show me a LINK to a page, and a paragraph specifically showing your claims, oh wait you can't, NONE of the sites I have shown you have said "because evolution happened, evolution happened".

    "Exactly my point. I asked you to explain evolution, and you give me, basically, a description of how it happened if it did happen. Maybe we should use the same tactic in out judicial system"

    What are you asking for!?? I've already explained HOW and WHY the changes occur in my explanation of evolution, you said you didn't see how they could turn lizards into mammals, so I gave you a description of how the process would have occured, what more do you want?

    "To debunk the paper mentioned, you rely upon two things: Ad hominem and a book review of a book none of us (probably) have ever read, and is thus free to take quotes out of context, fabricate, and misconstrue (i'm not saying that did happen).
    So the paper is invalid because Wells does not like the idea of evolution and some review says that his book is unreliable? I have to give you full marks for that one, Clyde. "

    No....... all the points the book raises, all the questions it asks are all answered, further-more as we can see, he is not taking an objective viewpoint, so his conclusions should be treated dubiously anyway.

    "You are still providing no proof and precious little evidence. "

    What part about INEVITABLE did you not understand? Go back, re-read my explanation of how evolution proceeds, to become a new species all that needs to happen is for two groups to become genetically dissimimilar enough so that they cannot interbreed, given that they WILL become genetically dissimilar as they adapt to differing environments speciation is inevitable if given enough time (assuming that they both do not find their ideal niche very shortly after splitting which is beyond improbable)

    But if you want even more proof hows this:

    "Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved"

    And i'll give you link charting many many MANY different examples of evidence for macroevolution (though i'm wondering if you do actually read these links)

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    "Okay...here is one. God created existence and guided the evolutonary process. God created existence and provided evidence for evolution. Martians are conducting research on genetics. Invisible unicorns periodically introduce new species bred in laboratories with defects to study natural selection/microevolution. Reasonable or not, they still explain the imperfections. "

    You just invented those theories specifically to fit the observation of imperfections. Evolution was not designed to explain the existance of redundant phenotypic features, as a byproduct of the theory the explanation becomes obvious though, so much so that we would predict their presence. We consider that acceleration towards the Earth as evidence for gravity, by your reasoning, that conclusion is invalid because we could easily invent any scenario to explain it. The key property is that one theory explains many different phenomenon.

    "My God, Clyde. Read what I posted. It is clear that I think evolution is a reasonable theory, considering that I have stated it directly at least once. "

    Yes indeed, yet you speak like creationist, you twist people's quotes like a creationist, you have argued strongly against evolution for quite a few pages, could suddenly claiming to believe in evolution be an attempt to gain some credability?

    If as you say you are approaching this subject from a rational perspective you should already be comvinced it is fact simply by reading the various links i have given you.

    "Since when did you answer my objection to the Nilsson eye model? I must have missed it. "

    LOL are you reading the thread!?

    Fyodor: "Take a good look at the last sentence. Basically, the experiment is set up so that harmful mutations cannot occur, but it is well known that most mutations are deleterious"

    Clyde: "I suggest you read my explanation of evolution; harmfull mutations DO occur but they get REMOVED from the gene pool, because they are selected against. Hence the results of the program are NOT altered by the fact they ignore negative mutaitons, negative mutations do not get passed on. "

    "That's all for now, folks. I'll be busy cramming for AP tests this week, so I probably will not post on this thread, thus letting it fade back into blessed oblivion."

    Au revoir, I hope for your sake whatever those AP tests are on, they're not on biology.
    Last edited by Clyde; 05-07-2002 at 07:13 AM.

  9. #204
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    559
    Originally posted by fyodor

    Every single resource you have shown me uses evolution to prove evolution! I think there is a technical term for this type of logical fallacy...begging the question? They are saying that "because evolution happened, evolution happened."
    I believe the error you describe is called a tautology. Begging the question would be more along the lines of denying the big bang because something can't come from nothing, but claiming that God just is and always was. Where did God come from is the question left hanging.

    Exactly my point. I asked you to explain evolution, and you give me, basically, a description of how it happened if it did happen. Maybe we should use the same tactic in out judicial system!
    Who says we don't! Just ask John Ashcroft. Why is Abdul arrested? Because he's a terrorist. Why is he a terrorist? Because we arrest terrorists. Where's the evidence? Well, you have to take that on faith.

    Good luck on your AP's, whatever those are.
    Truth is a malleable commodity - Dick Cheney

  10. #205
    Unregistered
    Guest
    "Errm name one theory other than evolution that does account for the imperfections, you can't because there isn't one. "


    umm... okay genius, its called original sin. Since the beginning of religion its been held as the reason for all the imperfections not only in man but in nature.

  11. #206
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    132
    All right guys I'm back, sorry I missed so much I've been busy all weekend working, school, etc.

    "The bible being literally true, is contrary to everything we have discovered about the universe, there are stars so far away that the light takes millions of years to reach us, yet the bible says the universe is 6,000 years old.... WOOPS. "

    Actually, no it does not. You have ignored the fact that the grammer does not require it to literally be days, the Hebrew word "Yom" also means age, for example, Moses also wrote "in the "Day" that the Lord made the earth..." Also, the earth "was" formless and void, is also correctly translate "became" formless and void. ie, it could have been around a long time before God created man.

    "And i think you'll find that the bible says that men have one less rib than women....... when actualy they er... don't. "

    Sorry, it just says that God took a rib from Adam, not from every man. Unless you'd like to quote a verse saying otherwise?

    Not only is the sequence of creation different, but the time span is different as well.

    You make it too easy. The first story is chronological, the second is topical. I already dealt with the translation issue above.

    "Hows that for a wopping internal contradiction"

    Not very good, its just two different descriptions of the same event.

    About the water above, and the water below: where do you think the water for the flood came from? An orbiting canopy of water was (probably) used to diffuse the light from the sun and create an equally temperate earth.

  12. #207
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    132
    Also, you don't seem to understand that the 6000 years is the minimum time it must have been, since that is the age derived from all the geneologies. However, it's obvious to any student of the bible that the genealogies in the bible are not completely inclusive of everyone, but just provide an overview. And the 6000 or more years are just time man has been around, not the earth.


    Finally, how do we know the earth is millions of years old? Well because the universe is expanding (we know this because light is red shifted, implying velocity) Therefore, we extrapolate backwards until it was all together, and we have the beginning of the universe. However, this ignores that fact that God could just as easily created the universe close to its position today. for example, if I'm driving north through Ontario, that doesn't mean I came from Texas.

  13. #208
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    132
    "Were pairs of every species living on Earth taken aboard the Ark? All living and extinct species?"

    No, probably not.

    "All 50 billion or so species that have ever lived on Earth?" Nope.

    "Or only land animals and birds that couldn't survive by swimming for several months?" Yup.

    "We're still talking many millions of species." Mmm hmm. Most are tiny little bugs and stuff. The bigger animals would probably just be infants, to maximise storage space. Also, they would most likely have been put into a supernatural coma, to preserve food supplies and space.

    "And while we're at it, why does my Bible state clearly and unambiguously that two of each kind of animal were taken aboard, then immediately afterwards it seems to correct itself by informing us that seven of each "clean" animal were boarded, and then immediately after THAT it insists that two of every kind
    were loaded?" The two of each kind were for repopulation, the seven were for food. Where do they get these questions from? Don't they even READ the passages they're criticising?


    "How did Noah know which species were clean several thousand years before God imparted those laws to Moses?" Umm... God told him.

    "And if Noah knew about "clean" animals, why wasn't that knowledge passed down through the generations?" How do you know it wasn't? Just because later it was formalised by a scribe doesn't mean it wasn't already known.

    Is it possible that the whole business about "clean" animals necessary for sacrifices was tacked on later by a bungling editor who forgot to check the context for obvious contradictions? No.

    This website is insulting in its arrogance and ignorance. More to follow.

  14. #209
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    132
    "Did ALL those people deserve brutal and terrifying deaths? "

    "Who are you to judge God?" - Paul the Apostle

    And yes they did.

    Then when his thoughtful son Ham tried to help him out by covering his bare butt, Noah cursed him and his descendants forever (and God, apparently, backed up that curse [and biblical literalists have used that as a justification for slavery and segregation of blacks {whom they imagine to be "Hamites"}, among other atrocities]). Was that mean drunk the best of the human race that God could come up with?

    Noah got drunk because the climate changes produced unexpected result - fermentation. Ham did not try to help him, but mocked him, and ran to show him to his brothers. His brothers, on the other hand, covered him, walking in backwards so they wouldn't even see him.

  15. #210
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    132
    Then there's the rainbow. If you want to hear some really creative additions to Genesis, ask a young-Earther how there could be no rainbows for a couple thousand years, until after the Flood.

    The rainbow is cause by diffraction of the sun from water particles in the air. This means their can never be a flood over the WHOLE EARTH again, because the water canopy is no longer there to fall down.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Staying vs Leaving the Middle East
    By BobMcGee123 in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 05-01-2007, 08:15 PM
  2. New source of oil in the middle east?
    By Lionmane in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-02-2006, 03:59 AM
  3. the definition of a mathematical "average" or "mean"
    By DavidP in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-03-2002, 11:15 AM
  4. Binary searches
    By Prezo in forum C Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-10-2002, 09:54 PM
  5. trying to sort a middle value
    By Led Zeppelin in forum C Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-27-2002, 12:05 PM