"A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it

[nick humphrey]

Talkorigins' response to claim CH001:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html

includes the following:
"A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."

Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?

(just being the devil's advocate here)

Nick

[J. J. Lodder]

nick humphrey <nick.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html
>
> includes the following:
> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing,
> because it does not rule out any possibilities."

Probably some third hand Popper arguing against Freud.

> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"?
> Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?

'Rule out' should be understood here as 'not falsifiable',

Jan

[Syamsu]

On Aug 16, 6:37 am, nick humphrey <nick.c.humph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html
>
> includes the following:

> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilitCreaties."

>
> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
>
> (just being the devil's advocate here)
>
> Nick

Creationism positively explains nothing, creatio ex nihilo.
Creationism rules out impossibilities. Impossibilities are
configurations of the universe which do not total nothing. So the
meaning of forces is to rule out the impossble. Every action has an
equal and opposite reaction is such a force principle by which the
totality remains nothing. Within the possible the organization is
chosen in freedom. Which means things exist of bits. The earth
consists of chosen alternatives. Meaning that in principle we might
change iron into gold by flipping the bits in iron atoms, and as need
be add or substract some bits.

The same way DNA CATG is also inherently alternative in nature, a C is
not just a C, but it is a C instead of A.

[jillery]

Assuming 'creationist' means 'one who believes in Creationism, then
IIUC some creationists simply wave away the evidence of natural
selection and evolution. Other creationists claim the evidence of
natural selection properly interpreted actually demonstrates the Hand
of God, as stated in your cite. Of this latter group, there are
creationists who claim that evidence of natural selection was planted
by God, perhaps to test Man's faith, and there are creationists who
claim that natural selection is the instrument God used to mold the
living world.

So I give you partial credit.

[Slow Vehicle]

I love it! A morning full of intentional comedy posts! (Although
Attila's was funnier...)

[Syamsu]

This is ofcourse not intended as funny. This theory is in use, and is
the correct theory of everything. Referenced at talk origins.

[Slow Vehicle]

> the correct theory of everything. Referenced at .

No, it works _much_ better as intentionally funny. (but still not as
funny as Attila's)

[Harry K]

Great! A funny post followed by an even funnier one trying to defend it!!

Harry K

[Kalkidas]

Of course creationists rule out evolution by natural selection. And they
also provide evidence against it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:33:24 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 8/15/2012 9:37 PM, nick humphrey wrote:
>> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html
>>
>> includes the following:
>> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
>>
>> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
>>
>> (just being the devil's advocate here)

>Of course creationists rule out evolution by natural selection. And they
>also provide evidence against it.

Can you provide a cite to the evidence you claim they
provide?

Thanks.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Kalkidas]

On 8/16/2012 12:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:33:24 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>
>> On 8/15/2012 9:37 PM, nick humphrey wrote:
>>> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001:
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html
>>>
>>> includes the following:
>>> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
>>>
>>> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
>>>
>>> (just being the devil's advocate here)
>
>> Of course creationists rule out evolution by natural selection. And they
>> also provide evidence against it.
>
> Can you provide a cite to the evidence you claim they
> provide?

www.google.com

> Thanks.

You're welcome.

[Boikat]

I guess that's a "No".

Boikat

[Slow Vehicle]

Cool! Another comedy post!

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

Thank you for your honesty in acknowledging that you cannot provide
any evidence against natural selection.

[Kalkidas]

Wow, what a clever riposte. I didn't expect that kind of intelligence
from one who can't figure out how to do a google search.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 16, 11:47�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

Hmmm you didnt acknowledge my explanation of the nil-potency rewrite
system of Rowlands etc., the theory of everything, also not
intelligent of you.

[Boikat]

On Aug 16, 4:47�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

The question wasn't if "Google" could present evidence against NS, but
if *you* could. But rather than present any, you opted to run away,
and expect anyone interested in your little game to do your work for
you.

BTW, https://www.google.com/, has some nice evidence that supports NS
(if you are smart enough to do a google search), while
"www.google.com" gets a nice "Error 404 (Not Found)", which is what
one would expect if "www.google.com" is supposed to be "evidence
against NS".

Boikat

[Kalkidas]

Since clicking on "www.google.com" works just fine in my 21st century
browser and in my 21st century newsreader, I am even more convinced that
technological illiteracy is the reason why you and Bob Casanova and
johnethompson can't manage to do a web search, and why you still follow
19th century dogma.

The 1850's are over, dude.

[Robert Camp]

The "...rule out..." bit needs to be considered in the context of
"...theory that accommodates anything..."

An example of a theory that can accommodate anything would be
something like, "Human anatomy is evidence for Intelligent design -
there is so much intricacy and complexity and ingenuity. Additionally,
anything that looks like sub-optimal design to us (vestigiality,
kludges etc.) just indicates that we don't understand the design well
enough to recognize its perfection."

There is no possibility for falsification in this thesis. There is no
observation that one can offer as evidence against it, it accounts for
any datum, as well as the obverse condition. The theory, in
"explaining" everything, actually explains nothing at all, because it
does not present one set of observations to prefer, which means we
cannot as a result "rule out" any other set of observations.

Creationists like to think they rule out evolution, but they
misunderstand the nature of evidence and explanation, mistaking these
things for "whatever confirms or comports with my preconceived
notions."

RLC

[Ron O]

> BTW,https://www.google.com/, has some nice evidence that supports NS

> (if you are smart enough to do a google search), while
> "www.google.com" gets a nice "Error 404 (Not Found)", which is what
> one would expect if "www.google.com" is supposed to be "evidence
> against NS".
>
> Boikat

The saddest thing is that it is all anyone expected out of him.

Ron Okimoto

[Slow Vehicle]

...not as funny as your first post...running jokes are hard to keep up.

[Slow Vehicle]

> > BTW,https://www.google.com/, has some nice evidence that supports NS

> > (if you are smart enough to do a google search), while
> > "www.google.com" gets a nice "Error 404 (Not Found)", which is what
> > one would expect if "www.google.com" is supposed to be "evidence
> > against NS".
>
> Since clicking on "www.google.com" works just fine in my 21st century
> browser and in my 21st century newsreader, I am even more convinced that
> technological illiteracy is the reason why you and Bob Casanova and
> johnethompson can't manage to do a web search, and why you still follow
> 19th century dogma.
>
> The 1850's are over, dude.

Unless you are claiming that www.google.com _is_ a citation to
evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.
Even you can see that www.google.com is a cite to a browser, where
might be found things that creationists (and other evolution deniers
of various stripes) might _claim_ were "evidence against natural
selection", but those would not be "provided by creationists" but
provided by me (_not_ a "creationist").

So, I think it's a fair question: what "evidence against natural
selection","provided by creationists" do you, personally, find
congruent, fruitful, and luminous? Cites would be nice...

[Syamsu]

Another creationist, you would be wise to check out the nil potency
universal rewrite system theory, the theory of everything. I wonder
what atheists are going to do when the theory of everything is
aconowledged, are they then going to develop their subjectivity
finally and cultivate some beliefs?

[Syamsu]

To add:
I read that in dna the A = T is the create funcion and G = C is the
conserve function. That way the body is created from dna.

[chris thompson]

On Aug 16, 5:47�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

Let's start with a particular example, then.

And yes, I did the Google search, and found a nice little study
(available free as a pdf from Duke University) that points to
evolution via natural selection in genetically inbred lines of a
single species of plant.

What's the problem with this study, please?

http://www.biology.duke.edu/donohuelab/Publications_files/Heschel%20et%20al%202002.pdf

Chris

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 16, 5:59�pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> To add:
> I read that in dna the A = T is the create funcion and G = C is the
> conserve function. That way the body is created from dna.

Out of curiosity...where did you read such a silly thing? Would you
mind providing a citation?
Because a www.google.com search using those terms does not appear to
produce anything like what you said...

[Kalkidas]

A fair question is one not posed by someone who, while styling himself
as an expert champion of Darwinism and an intractable foe of
creationism, indulges in childish feigned ignorance of any arguments
against evolution by natural selection.

You want serious answers? Ask serious questions.

[Slow Vehicle]

> > Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.com�_is_ a citation to

> > evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
> > your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

> > Even you can see thatwww.google.com�is a cite to a browser, where

> > might be found things that creationists (and other evolution deniers
> > of various stripes) might _claim_ were "evidence against natural
> > selection", but those would not be "provided by creationists" but
> > provided by me (_not_ a "creationist").
>
> > So, I think it's a fair question: what "evidence against natural
> > selection","provided by creationists" do you, personally, find
> > congruent, fruitful, and luminous? �Cites would be nice...
>
> A fair question is one not posed by someone who, while styling himself
> as an expert champion of Darwinism and an intractable foe of
> creationism, indulges in childish feigned ignorance of any arguments
> against evolution by natural selection.
>
> You want serious answers? Ask serious questions.

OK, big boy: come on out and show me where _I_ styled _myself_ "an
expert champion of Darwinism", or an "intractable foe of creationism",
or "feigned" "childish ignorance"...or admit that's your
construction,and stop with the scurrilous dishonesty.

Most of the "support" for any kind of "creationsim" I have ever seen
amounts to:

1." I say the bible says the biblegodiddit"
2." Well, things were different back then"
3. "Were you there?"
4. "Jack Chick says all you guys are going to hell."
5. "And I personally know at least six examples where C-14 dating
couldn't date rocks"

So, I think it's _still_ a fair question: what "evidence against

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 16, 5:36�pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Another creationist, you would be wise to check out the nil potency
> universal rewrite system theory, the theory of everything. I wonder
> what atheists are going to do when the theory of everything is
> aconowledged, are they then going to develop their subjectivity
> finally and cultivate some beliefs?

No, see, now you're trying too hard. You have to let a joke sell
itself--you can't force it...
I applaud your effort at humor, but, really--let it go. Try again
another day.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:22:30 -0400, Kalkidas wrote
(in article <k0k2t7$b5v$1...@dont-email.me>):

I certainly have never styled myself as an expert champion of anything in
particular, and I'm not an intractable foe of creationism, as without
creationists I'd lack some of my fav entertainment, and I would like to see
you answer the question "What evidence do _you_, _personally_, find to be
persuasive against evolution by natural selection?" It's not what evidence
_I_ could find if I went looking, it's what evidence _you_ found to support
your position. If you have such evidence, it should be simple to trot it out,
with the proper citations to support it, of course.

And, yes, I am perfectly serious in asking this.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Kalkidas]

I made no claim in this thread about anything *I personally* find
persuasive. I merely stated that creationists do reject evolution by
natural selection, and that there is evidence against evolution by
natural selection.

If anyone wants to see this evidence, it is a simple matter to do a
google search.

[chris thompson]

On Aug 16, 9:12�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 8/16/2012 6:02 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:22:30 -0400, Kalkidas wrote

> > (in article <k0k2t7$b5...@dont-email.me>):

> >>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.com�_is_ a citation to

> >>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
> >>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

> >>> Even you can see thatwww.google.com�is a cite to a browser, where

Wrong.

That's not how things work. It is not your debating opponents' job to
do your homework for you.

Chris

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 16, 7:12�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

<snip>

> If anyone wants to see this evidence, it is a simple matter to do a
> google search.

...I have done so, repeatedly...and a Google search comes up with a
lot of non-science, a lot of "evolution just can't be so", and a lot
of, "well, maybe light was faster, and atoms decayed different; maybe
there were forces at work that aren't there any more; probably it was
a miracle, and besides, Second Law of Thermodynamics!"

A whole host of the claims that are made over and over are here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html, listed ina logical
order, with cites to refutations. I hoped that you might have
something new, which is why I asked "What evidence do _you_,

_personally_, find to be persuasive against evolution by natural
selection?"

You could have simply said that you were not willing to engage;
instead, you chose to tell lies about me. Personal attacks are
sooo1850s, sirrah! We have codes against such behavior!

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:12:07 -0400, Kalkidas wrote
(in article <k0k5pe$o24$1...@dont-email.me>):

I have done a search. I have found many, many, MANY creationist arguments.
None of them have been evidence which can be in any way persuasive against
evolution by natural selection. Perhaps I've missed something. What evidence
do _you_ find persuasive?

And, yes, you really do need to produce something if you intend to actually
convince anyone, as right now you have no supporting evidence whatsoever. We
have just your bare word... and this is suspiciously similar to the words of
a multitude of creationists, none of which, not even ONE, have been able to
provide any support whatsoever. Will you be the first?

[Syamsu]

On Aug 17, 4:14�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:12:07 -0400, Kalkidas wrote

> (in article <k0k5pe$o2...@dont-email.me>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/16/2012 6:02 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:22:30 -0400, Kalkidas wrote

> >> (in article <k0k2t7$b5...@dont-email.me>):

> >>>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.com�_is_ a citation to

> >>>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
> >>>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

> >>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.com�is a cite to a browser, where

That freedom is real, and freedom would not be irrellevant in the
universe.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:16:11 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-7bb16757-443a-4...@p11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):

>>>>>>>> if *you* could. ï¿œBut rather than present any, you opted to run away,

>>>>>>>> and expect anyone interested in your little game to do your work for
>>>>>>>> you.
>>
>>>>>>>> BTW,https://www.google.com/, has some nice evidence that supports NS
>>>>>>>> (if you are smart enough to do a google search), while
>>>>>>>> "www.google.com" gets a nice "Error 404 (Not Found)", which is what
>>>>>>>> one would expect if "www.google.com" is supposed to be "evidence
>>>>>>>> against NS".
>>
>>>>>>> Since clicking on "www.google.com" works just fine in my 21st century
>>>>>>> browser and in my 21st century newsreader, I am even more convinced
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> technological illiteracy is the reason why you and Bob Casanova and
>>>>>>> johnethompson can't manage to do a web search, and why you still follow
>>>>>>> 19th century dogma.
>>
>>>>>>> The 1850's are over, dude.
>>

>>>>>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.comￜ_is_ a citation to

>>>>>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
>>>>>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

>>>>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.comï¿œis a cite to a browser, where

>>>>>> might be found things that creationists (and other evolution deniers
>>>>>> of various stripes) might _claim_ were "evidence against natural
>>>>>> selection", but those would not be "provided by creationists" but
>>>>>> provided by me (_not_ a "creationist").
>>
>>>>>> So, I think it's a fair question: what "evidence against natural
>>>>>> selection","provided by creationists" do you, personally, find

>>>>>> congruent, fruitful, and luminous? ï¿œCites would be nice...

Err... that's not evidence, and it doesn't contain a citation or any support
whatsoever. And, frankly, your opinion _is_ irrelevant to the universe.
Indeed, your opinion is irrelevant to virtually everyone, including all
posters on t.o with the possible exception of yourself.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 17, 3:16�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> That freedom is real, and freedom would not be irrellevant in the
> universe.

OK, see, you're still trying too hard...random unresponsive nonsense
can be funny, but not if that's _all you say...

"The optimist says the glass is half full"
"The pessimist says that drinking half a glass of water will only
prolong your life."
"The engineer says the glass is the wrong size."
" 'Nando says half the water was stolen by a proven liar about the
Holocaust while the weather made up its mind in the moment of
freedom".
"The surrealist says the giraffe is eating the bowtie."

Dadaism can be fun, but it cloys after a while.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 17, 1:28�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:16:11 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-7bb16757-443a-4c5f-aeef-35183a1a7...@p11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):

> >>>>>>>> if *you* could. But rather than present any, you opted to run away,

> >>>>>>>> and expect anyone interested in your little game to do your work for
> >>>>>>>> you.
>
> >>>>>>>> BTW,https://www.google.com/, has some nice evidence that supports NS
> >>>>>>>> (if you are smart enough to do a google search), while
> >>>>>>>> "www.google.com" gets a nice "Error 404 (Not Found)", which is what
> >>>>>>>> one would expect if "www.google.com" is supposed to be "evidence
> >>>>>>>> against NS".
>
> >>>>>>> Since clicking on "www.google.com" works just fine in my 21st century
> >>>>>>> browser and in my 21st century newsreader, I am even more convinced
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> technological illiteracy is the reason why you and Bob Casanova and
> >>>>>>> johnethompson can't manage to do a web search, and why you still follow
> >>>>>>> 19th century dogma.
>
> >>>>>>> The 1850's are over, dude.
>

> >>>>>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.com_is_ a citation to

> >>>>>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
> >>>>>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

> >>>>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.comis a cite to a browser, where

> >>>>>> might be found things that creationists (and other evolution deniers
> >>>>>> of various stripes) might _claim_ were "evidence against natural
> >>>>>> selection", but those would not be "provided by creationists" but
> >>>>>> provided by me (_not_ a "creationist").
>
> >>>>>> So, I think it's a fair question: what "evidence against natural
> >>>>>> selection","provided by creationists" do you, personally, find

> >>>>>> congruent, fruitful, and luminous? Cites would be nice...

Kalkidas, Chris,.Ron, is freedom real and relevant in the universe?

[Steven L.]

On 8/16/2012 6:10 AM, jillery wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:37:52 -0700 (PDT), nick humphrey
> <nick.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html
>>
>> includes the following:
>> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
>>
>> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
>>
>> (just being the devil's advocate here)
>>

>> Nick
>
>
> Assuming 'creationist' means 'one who believes in Creationism, then
> IIUC some creationists simply wave away the evidence of natural
> selection and evolution. Other creationists claim the evidence of
> natural selection properly interpreted actually demonstrates the Hand
> of God, as stated in your cite. Of this latter group, there are
> creationists who claim that evidence of natural selection was planted
> by God, perhaps to test Man's faith, and there are creationists who
> claim that natural selection is the instrument God used to mold the
> living world.

Sounds like you're including theistic evolutionists as creationists
here. you might even be including Deists as creationists, the way
you've phrased it.

Your list is too all-inclusive.

Creationists (as the term is generally defined) do not believe that the
variety of life on Earth can be explained through natural processes such
as biochemistry and natural selection. Theistic evolutionists don't
have a problem with that idea.



--
Steven L.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:00:22 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-1f9780e5-20fc-4...@z3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>):

You _still_ have not presented any _evidence_.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 17, 6:00�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Kalkidas, Chris,.Ron, is freedom real and relevant in the universe?

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/freedom

...as defined by those who know what it means, and who are not in
thrall to their own peculiar subjective definitions (incorporating
their superstitions)?

Yes, see Learner's Dictionary cite, above.

[Syamsu]

This says that you had to look in a dictionary to see what freedom
means.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 17, 6:49�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> This says that you had to look in a dictionary to see what freedom
> means.

You're still trying to be funny, aren't you.

I _know_ what 'freedom" means. _You_ clearly do not, so I offered you
a simple, accessible dictionary entry to show that freedom does _not_
include any of the superstitious baggage you try to fasten to it.

That's the way _evidence_ works--not just bald assertions, but
objective support.

I don't expect you to get that, or to admit it if you did...

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:49:26 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-0d547420-b5eb-4...@t12g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>):

It says a lot about you that you don't know what 'evidence' or 'support'
mean.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 17, 3:11�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:49:26 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-0d547420-b5eb-4999-8b34-19d564945...@t12g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 2:36 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 17, 6:00 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> Kalkidas, Chris,.Ron, is freedom real and relevant in the universe?
>
> >>http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/freedom
>
> >> ...as defined by those who know what it means, and who are not in
> >> thrall to their own peculiar subjective definitions (incorporating
> >> their superstitions)?
>
> >> Yes, see Learner's Dictionary cite, above.
>
> > This says that you had to look in a dictionary to see what freedom
> > means.
>
> It says a lot about you that you don't know what 'evidence' or 'support'
> mean.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

It says a lot that you dont have any theories which focus on freedom.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:58:17 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-260d03fe-2c46-4...@v12g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>):

Your problem is that my idea of freedom and yours do not match... and that,
thanks to my idea of freedom, I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling
doughnut on the deck of a tanker in a thundering typhoon about yours.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 17, 4:40�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:58:17 -0400, Syamsu wrote
> (in article

> <nando-260d03fe-2c46-4b22-b833-e3c9df9fe...@v12g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>):

You have no theory focusing on freedom at all, not my concept of
freedom, not your concept, you just ignore freedom, as if it isnt
relevant.

[jillery]

No, it doesn't just sound like it. I explicitly include theists as
creationists. Since the OP was non-specific, I thought it important
to avoid being too exclusive. As to how 'creationist' is generally
defined, from Wiktionary:

1.A proponent or supporter of creationism.

and for creationism:

1.(Christian theology) The doctrine that each individual human soul is
created by God, as opposed to traducianism.

2.Any creationary belief, especially a belief that the origin of
things is due to an event or process of creation brought about by the
deliberate act of any divine agency, such as a Creator God (creator
god).

3.The belief that a deity created the world, especially as described
in a particular religious text, such as the Book of Genesis.

This is a perennial argument in T.O. You seem to believe that (3) is
the only true creationist. For purposes of discussing anti-evolution,
such an opinion might be good enough. However, theists comfortably
incorporate (1) and (2). And since ToE doesn't have anything to do
with the creation of the Universe or of abiogenesis, different
concepts of creationism can reasonably be considered separate from
questions about evolution.

So I absolutely disagree with arguments which insist that creationism
and evolution are mutually exclusive. I also disagree that
incorporating both in one worldview causes cognitive dissonance. When
it appears to me that the context is clear what kind of creationism is
meant, and therefore what kind of creationist, I go along. When it
doesn't, as in this case, I try to be more comprehensive.

[chris thompson]

> > >>>>>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.com_is_a citation to

> > >>>>>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
> > >>>>>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

> > >>>>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.comisa cite to a browser, where

Yes, but not in the way you define it and (mistakenly) attempt to
apply it.

Chris

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 17, 8:58�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> You have no theory focusing on freedom at all, not my concept of
> freedom, not your concept, you just ignore freedom, as if it isnt
> relevant.

See? You _didn't_ get it, not will you admit it.

SSDD.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:58:25 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-bcff1240-ea02-4...@p12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):

Which part of 'I don't give a fuck about your opinion' was unclear?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:09:56 -0400, Slow Vehicle wrote
(in article
<3a96374a-bdab-4493...@rq1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

He doesn't get it and never will. He is, after all, just a bot written in
Forth and running on a Commodore 64, so there's insufficient storage and
processing power available to do anything other than what he's always done.

[RAM]

On Aug 16, 9:14�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:12:07 -0400, Kalkidas wrote

> (in article <k0k5pe$o2...@dont-email.me>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/16/2012 6:02 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:22:30 -0400, Kalkidas wrote

> >> (in article <k0k2t7$b5...@dont-email.me>):

> >>>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.com�_is_ a citation to

> >>>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
> >>>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

> >>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.com�is a cite to a browser, where

No he will not. He is an intellectual coward. He had the same
weakness when he posted here as Chris Devol the Christian
creationist. Only his religion has changed; and it is clear, while he
professes religion beliefs, his practice is decidedly unreligious
verging on intentional deception. It confirms many atheists beliefs
about the moral quality of creationists of any religious orientation.

[Kalkidas]

I didn't say anything about evidence being "persuasive" to your mind or
to my mind. I said, in answer to the OP, that creationists provide
evidence against evolution by natural selection. that's all.

[Syamsu]

On Aug 17, 5:10�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > > >>>>>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.com_is_acitation to

> > > >>>>>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
> > > >>>>>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

> > > >>>>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.comisacite to a browser, where

Where is this freedom in the universe then?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:18:18 -0400, Kalkidas wrote
(in article <k0lucu$f2l$1...@dont-email.me>):

Fine. Where do they do this? I've found lots of arguments, but NO EVIDENCE.
None. Zero. Nada. Not a damn thing.

Perhaps you could point out this evidence, as I can't find it, and yes, I've
looked?

>
> Perhaps I've missed something. What evidence
>> do _you_ find persuasive?
>>
>> And, yes, you really do need to produce something if you intend to actually
>> convince anyone, as right now you have no supporting evidence whatsoever. We
>> have just your bare word... and this is suspiciously similar to the words of
>> a multitude of creationists, none of which, not even ONE, have been able to
>> provide any support whatsoever. Will you be the first?
>>
>

[Syamsu]

Your moral authority is empty because of not supporting subjectivity,
you dont even acknowledge my human spirit. You have some authority on
objective matters of fact.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:27:55 -0400, Syamsu wrote
(in article
<nando-bd322865-afb2-4...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 17, 6:20ï¿œpm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>> if *you* could. ï¿œBut rather than present any, you opted to run away,

>>>>>>>>> and expect anyone interested in your little game to do your work for
>>>>>>>>> you.
>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW,https://www.google.com/, has some nice evidence that supports NS
>>>>>>>>> (if you are smart enough to do a google search), while
>>>>>>>>> "www.google.com" gets a nice "Error 404 (Not Found)", which is what
>>>>>>>>> one would expect if "www.google.com" is supposed to be "evidence
>>>>>>>>> against NS".
>>
>>>>>>>> Since clicking on "www.google.com" works just fine in my 21st century
>>>>>>>> browser and in my 21st century newsreader, I am even more convinced
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> technological illiteracy is the reason why you and Bob Casanova and
>>>>>>>> johnethompson can't manage to do a web search, and why you still
>>>>>>>> follow
>>>>>>>> 19th century dogma.
>>
>>>>>>>> The 1850's are over, dude.
>>

>>>>>>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.comￜ_is_ a citation to

>>>>>>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
>>>>>>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

>>>>>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.comï¿œis a cite to a browser, where

>>>>>>> might be found things that creationists (and other evolution deniers
>>>>>>> of various stripes) might _claim_ were "evidence against natural
>>>>>>> selection", but those would not be "provided by creationists" but
>>>>>>> provided by me (_not_ a "creationist").
>>
>>>>>>> So, I think it's a fair question: what "evidence against natural
>>>>>>> selection","provided by creationists" do you, personally, find

>>>>>>> congruent, fruitful, and luminous? ï¿œCites would be nice...

>> No he will not. ï¿œHe is an intellectual coward. ï¿œHe had the same

>> weakness when he posted here as Chris Devol the Christian

>> creationist. ï¿œOnly his religion has changed; and it is clear, while he

>> professes religion beliefs, his practice is decidedly unreligious

>> verging on intentional deception. ï¿œIt confirms many atheists beliefs

>> about the moral quality of creationists of any religious orientation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>
> Your moral authority is empty because of not supporting subjectivity,
> you dont even acknowledge my human spirit.

That's 'cause you're a bot, running on a Commodore 64.

> You have some authority on
> objective matters of fact.
>
>
>

[Kermit]

On 16 Aug, 10:33, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 8/15/2012 9:37 PM, nick humphrey wrote:
>
> > Talkorigins' response to claim CH001:
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html
>
> > includes the following:
> > "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
>
> > Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
>
> > (just being the devil's advocate here)
>

> > Nick

>
> Of course creationists rule out evolution by natural selection. And they
> also provide evidence against it.

As here, they claim to do so, but never quite get around to it. It
usually consists of
1. Risible misunderstandings of basic science,
2. Links to papers or more often, church pamphlets, which describe
examples of bad science at best,
3. Fraudulent science misrepresented as research,
4. Alleged support by anybody with a graduate degree, including
lawyers and dentists, but no evidence, or
5. A vague hand-waving accompanied by "Isn't it obvious?".

Kermit

[Boikat]

> > >>>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.com_is_ a citation to

> > >>>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
> > >>>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

> > >>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.comis a cite to a browser, where

That depends on how you use the word "freedom", and what hidden
meaning you are attatching to it. But anyone that has bothered to
read you "freedom" rants already know that you attatch all sorts of
hidden baggage to it, including "properly acknowledging the spiritual
domain", and linking it to "free will", and demanding free will
"properly acknowledges the human spirit", by which you mean the soul
(in the religious context), along with attatching "freedom" to rocks
and other lumps of inanimate matter, demanding that rocks can decide
or choose alternitive states from moment to moment, implying that
rocks can think, and therefore, also must have souls, therefore,
creationism is correct, and anyone who does not agree with you is
suffering from the Mad Evil Scientist Syndrome, lies about the
Holocaust, is attempting to destroy the knowledge of freedom, and is
an evil social darwinist because (you claim) Haekel and Darwin said
"love" and "hate" is a fact.

Did I leave anything out?

Boikat

[Syamsu]

All evidence against natural selection is generally of the form; there
are many alternatives possible which dont lead to organisms, therefore
it is unlikely that organisms have been formed by natural selection.

[Boikat]

Or, it was ment to show how screwed up your personal use and
definition is unrelated to the actual use and definition of
"freedom". But you are too in love with your little pet usage to see
that.

Boikat

[Boikat]

> > >>>>>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.com_is_a citation to

> > >>>>>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
> > >>>>>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

> > >>>>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.comisa cite to a browser, where

Only to things that are capable of "freedom" as commonly used, but not
to the Universe, in and of itself. In other words, not to planets,
stars, asteroids, comets, nebula, star clusters, galaxies, or other
clumps, lumps or bits of inanimate matter, and for living organisms,
only those with minds capable of concious thought and capabilities to
learn from past experiance and predict possible outcomes of options
and make choices, based upon past experiance and predicted outcomes.
"Freedom" is relevant to an almost vanishingly small percentage of te
Universe. If you think about it, that should make you feel "special",
in a context besides "special" in the "rode the short bus to school"
context of "special".

Boikat

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:19:28 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 8/16/2012 12:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:33:24 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>>
>>> On 8/15/2012 9:37 PM, nick humphrey wrote:
>>>> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001:
>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html
>>>>
>>>> includes the following:
>>>> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
>>>>
>>>> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
>>>>
>>>> (just being the devil's advocate here)
>>
>>> Of course creationists rule out evolution by natural selection. And they
>>> also provide evidence against it.
>>
>> Can you provide a cite to the evidence you claim they
>> provide?
>
>www.google.com

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

>> Thanks.
>
>You're welcome.
>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Boikat]

On Aug 17, 8:58�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The way you use the word, no. But that's because the way you use the
term has little to do with reality. But there are plenty of essays, or
writings of a *philosophical* nature that address "freedom" and "free
will". I haven't seen any that supports you possition, however. If
you think there are, please present one that states that "feedom"
supports your claim that weather can be "loving" or "hateful", in and
of itself (that weather has the capabilities of expressing emotions),
rather than someone's subjective opinion of the weather.

Boikat
Boikat

[Syamsu]

> > > >>>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.com_is_a citation to

> > > >>>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
> > > >>>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

> > > >>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.comisa cite to a browser, where

If you had any facts about how freedom works, you would reference it.
You have no facts, you are just attributing freedom to brains
exclusively, because you are the owner of one.

What is it that you subjectively identify, if not the spirit?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:47:06 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 8/16/2012 1:43 PM, johnetho...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 12:19 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2012 12:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:33:24 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>>>
>>>>> On 8/15/2012 9:37 PM, nick humphrey wrote:
>>>>>> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001:
>>>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html
>>>
>>>>>> includes the following:
>>>>>> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
>>>
>>>>>> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
>>>
>>>>>> (just being the devil's advocate here)
>>>
>>>>> Of course creationists rule out evolution by natural selection. And they
>>>>> also provide evidence against it.
>>>
>>>> Can you provide a cite to the evidence you claim they
>>>> provide?
>>>
>>> www.google.com
>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>
>> Thank you for your honesty in acknowledging that you cannot provide
>> any evidence against natural selection.
>
>Wow, what a clever riposte.

It was an observation, not a riposte (unless, of course, you
considered your post to be an attack, which is required for
"riposte" to have any meaning). Or didn't you know what
"riposte" actually means? FYI:

"ri�poste (r�-p�st�) n. 1. Sports. A quick thrust given
after parrying an opponent's lunge in fencing. 2. A
retaliatory action, maneuver, or retort."

> I didn't expect that kind of intelligence
>from one who can't figure out how to do a google search.

Your assertion; your responsibility to support it. And
handing over an encyclopedia isn't "support"; you have to
actually provide a pointer to the evidence you claim
supports you.

Or retract.

Or ignore and run away.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 17, 11:21�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > Yes, but not in the way you define it and (mistakenly) attempt to
> > apply it.
>
> > Chris
>
> Where is this freedom in the universe then?

Did you even _read_ the definition of "freedom"?

(hint: "freedom" is _not_ in the weather making decisions...)

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:22:30 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 8/16/2012 3:52 PM, Slow Vehicle wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 4:33 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2012 3:08 PM, Boikat wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>> On Aug 16, 4:47 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>>>>> On 8/16/2012 1:43 PM, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 16, 12:19 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/16/2012 12:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:33:24 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/15/2012 9:37 PM, nick humphrey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> includes the following:
>>>>>>>>>> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (just being the devil's advocate here)
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course creationists rule out evolution by natural selection. And they
>>>>>>>>> also provide evidence against it.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you provide a cite to the evidence you claim they
>>>>>>>> provide?
>>>
>>>>>>> www.google.com
>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>>>>> You're welcome.
>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your honesty in acknowledging that you cannot provide
>>>>>> any evidence against natural selection.
>>>

>>>>> Wow, what a clever riposte. I didn't expect that kind of intelligence

>>>>> from one who can't figure out how to do a google search.
>>>

>>>> The question wasn't if "Google" could present evidence against NS, but
>>>> if *you* could. But rather than present any, you opted to run away,
>>>> and expect anyone interested in your little game to do your work for
>>>> you.
>>>
>>>> BTW,https://www.google.com/, has some nice evidence that supports NS
>>>> (if you are smart enough to do a google search), while
>>>> "www.google.com" gets a nice "Error 404 (Not Found)", which is what
>>>> one would expect if "www.google.com" is supposed to be "evidence
>>>> against NS".
>>>
>>> Since clicking on "www.google.com" works just fine in my 21st century
>>> browser and in my 21st century newsreader, I am even more convinced that
>>> technological illiteracy is the reason why you and Bob Casanova and
>>> johnethompson can't manage to do a web search, and why you still follow
>>> 19th century dogma.
>>>
>>> The 1850's are over, dude.
>>

>> Unless you are claiming that www.google.com _is_ a citation to

>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

>> Even you can see that www.google.com is a cite to a browser, where

>> might be found things that creationists (and other evolution deniers
>> of various stripes) might _claim_ were "evidence against natural
>> selection", but those would not be "provided by creationists" but
>> provided by me (_not_ a "creationist").
>>
>> So, I think it's a fair question: what "evidence against natural
>> selection","provided by creationists" do you, personally, find
>> congruent, fruitful, and luminous? Cites would be nice...
>
>A fair question is one not posed by someone who, while styling himself
>as an expert champion of Darwinism and an intractable foe of
>creationism, indulges in childish feigned ignorance of any arguments
>against evolution by natural selection.

Who would that be? Certainly not me, since I only asked what
evidence *you* know of which supports your claim:

"Can you provide a cite to the evidence you claim they

provide?" (against natural selection)

It's not up to me to guess; it's up to you to say what
evidence you're thinking of.

>You want serious answers? Ask serious questions.

Asking for evidence supporting such a claim is serious; none
more so.

[Boikat]

On Aug 17, 11:35�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:09:56 -0400, Slow Vehicle wrote
> (in article

> <3a96374a-bdab-4493-9cc5-45ba7e176...@rq1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > On Aug 17, 8:58�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> You have no theory focusing on freedom at all, not my concept of
> >> freedom, not your concept, you just ignore freedom, as if it isnt
> >> relevant.
>
> > See? �You _didn't_ get it, not will you admit it.
>
> > SSDD.
>
> He doesn't get it and never will. He is, after all, just a bot written in
> Forth and running on a Commodore 64, so there's insufficient storage and
> processing power available to do anything other than what he's always done.

He reminds me of one of those dolls with the pull-string. Pull the
string, and it plays one of a random selection of one-liners.

<pulls string>

You lie about the Holocaust!

<Pull string>

You're destroying knowledge of freedom!

<Pull string>

You're a mad evil scientist!

<pull string>

It's okay to lie if you lie with love!

<Pull string>

Hi! My name is Chuckie! What's yours?

<Pull string>

Etchi-etchie-etchi-etchi-b'zoing-gnaaa..ah


Boikat

[Syamsu]

> > > >>>>>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.com_is_acitation to

> > > >>>>>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
> > > >>>>>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

> > > >>>>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.comisacite to a browser, where

I know it makes you feel special to be among the few free entities in
the universe, that is a reasonable moral argument. Dont change your
mind about this if it makes you devalue human life.

But what about those papers which conclude there is an inherent
property of material to have alternative states available from moment
to moment?

[Boikat]

So, you agree that "morality" is subjective? Why am I not surprised?

> you dont even acknowledge my human spirit.

That's his choice, isn't it?

> You have some authority on
> objective matters of fact.

Is that bad, according to your "philosophy"?

Boikat

[Boikat]

> > > > >>>> Unless you are claiming thatwww.google.com_is_acitation to

> > > > >>>> evidence against natural selection, provided by creationists, then
> > > > >>>> your hasty answer takes some of the funny out of your comedy post.

> > > > >>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.comisacite to a browser, where

Define "freedom" in a rational manner, first.

>
> What is it that you subjectively identify, if not the spirit?

What makes you think I have to subjectively identify "the spirit"?
Besides, your question assumes that "the spirit" exits, and in that
context is as meaningless as asking, "What is it you subjectively
identify, if not a rock?"

Boikat

[Kalkidas]

Evidence is evidence. It means "that which is evident". Evident to whom?
To *someone*. Maybe not to you, but to someone.

You may not agree with the interpretation of evidence, but that doesn't
give you the right to say it's not evidence.

[Boikat]

> > > > >>>>>> Even you can see thatwww.google.comisaciteto a browser, where

Like I needed you blessing, asshole?

>
> But what about those papers which conclude there is an inherent
> property of material to have alternative states available from moment
> to moment?

*THAT* is not the same context as the freedom applied to humans.
*THAT* is not *free will*. All *THAT* is saying is that alternate
states can exist, and is usually do to an external application of
energy, or, on the atomic level, due to some quantum effect. *No
thoughts were involved or decisions made*. It's a *CONTEXT* thing,
fool.

Boikat

[Boikat]

So, there is no actual evidence that refutes NS as part of the process
of evolution. At the very least, none that is *rational*.

Boikat

[Ernest Major]

In message <k0m37k$eio$1...@dont-email.me>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> writes

Have you become a Martinezian anevolutionist? Or you applying a
non-standard interpretation of the words "evolution by natural
selection"? (You seem to be claiming that creationists provide evidence
against the existence of differential reproductive success causally
correlated with genotype.)

>
>> Perhaps you could point out this evidence, as I can't find it, and yes, I've
>> looked?
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps I've missed something. What evidence
>>>> do _you_ find persuasive?
>>>>
>>>> And, yes, you really do need to produce something if you intend to actually
>>>> convince anyone, as right now you have no supporting evidence
>>>>whatsoever. We
>>>> have just your bare word... and this is suspiciously similar to the
>>>>words of
>>>> a multitude of creationists, none of which, not even ONE, have been able to
>>>> provide any support whatsoever. Will you be the first?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:40:49 -0400, Kalkidas wrote

(in article <k0m37k$eio$1...@dont-email.me>):

Then POINT IT OUT.

>
> You may not agree with the interpretation of evidence, but that doesn't
> give you the right to say it's not evidence.

POINT IT OUT.

>
>> Perhaps you could point out this evidence, as I can't find it, and yes, I've
>> looked?
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps I've missed something. What evidence
>>>> do _you_ find persuasive?
>>>>
>>>> And, yes, you really do need to produce something if you intend to
>>>> actually
>>>> convince anyone, as right now you have no supporting evidence whatsoever.
>>>> We
>>>> have just your bare word... and this is suspiciously similar to the words
>>>> of
>>>> a multitude of creationists, none of which, not even ONE, have been able
>>>> to
>>>> provide any support whatsoever. Will you be the first?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:42:04 -0400, Ernest Major wrote
(in article <WMOal0Rc...@meden.invalid>):

Nah. He's just dodging like crazy 'cause he has no evidence whatsoever for
his position and he knows it.

>>
>>> Perhaps you could point out this evidence, as I can't find it, and yes,
>>> I've
>>> looked?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I've missed something. What evidence
>>>>> do _you_ find persuasive?
>>>>>
>>>>> And, yes, you really do need to produce something if you intend to
>>>>> actually
>>>>> convince anyone, as right now you have no supporting evidence
>>>>> whatsoever. We
>>>>> have just your bare word... and this is suspiciously similar to the
>>>>> words of
>>>>> a multitude of creationists, none of which, not even ONE, have been able
>>>>> to
>>>>> provide any support whatsoever. Will you be the first?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>



--

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:21:50 -0400, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article <lm2t28h6685gep9r2...@4ax.com>):

He knows this. He's put a lot of effort into running away from that little
thing. He's the Usain Bolt of t.o, he is.

>
>> You want serious answers? Ask serious questions.
>
> Asking for evidence supporting such a claim is serious; none
> more so.

He knows that, too.

[Slow Vehicle]

There are many explanations of the weather that do _not_ involve
pretending that the weather "makes decisions"...by your "evidence"
than it is highly unlikely that your subjective superstition about the
weatehr describes objective demonstrable reality in any way...

BTW:
"maybegoddidit"
"I dont _beleive_ in evolution"
"were you there?"
"things were different back then"
and
"Panspermia! Really! Horny ailens jizzbombing the planet"
...do _not_ serve as evidence against natural selection.

Do _you_ have any persuasive evidence to offer, that explains nested
hierarchies, deep homolgies, and shared derived characteristics
_better_ that common descent modified by natural selection?
I'd love to read it...

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 17, 12:15�pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> If you had any facts about how freedom works, you would reference it.
> You have no facts, you are just attributing freedom to brains
> exclusively, because you are the owner of one.

See, sweetie, _that's_ why I referenced a widely available dictionary,
written at a level that even you could understand, for a working
definition of "freedom". The definition provides all the facts needed
as a starting point, and excludes many silly things (such as insisting
that rocks, and weather, but, oddly enough, _not_ thermostats, have
"freedom"".
You chose the <sarcasm> "moral high ground" </sarcasm> of being
insultingly dismissive rather than admitting that you did not, in
fact, understand the simple definition...

> What is it that you subjectively identify, if not the spirit?

As I have said before, "subjective opinions".

...not that I expect you to get it this time, either...

[Slow Vehicle]

*bing!*

[Kalkidas]

It's much simpler than that. I just won't participate in discussions
where the opposing argument is "I don't agree with your interpretation
of the evidence, therefore there's no evidence".

As a corollary, I won't answer loaded questions like "where is the
evidence for X" in a newsgroup where the evidence for X has been cited,
described, discussed and debated hundreds of times a day for 20 years.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 17, 12:21�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:22:30 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

<snip>
<quote Slowvehicle>

> >> So, I think it's a fair question: what "evidence against natural
> >> selection","provided by creationists" do you, personally, find
> >> congruent, fruitful, and luminous? �Cites would be nice...

<?quote>

<quote Kalkidas>

> >A fair question is one not posed by someone who, while styling himself
> >as an expert champion of Darwinism and an intractable foe of
> >creationism, indulges in childish feigned ignorance of any arguments
> >against evolution by natural selection.

<quote>

> Who would that be? Certainly not me, since I only asked what
> evidence *you* know of which supports your claim:
>
> "Can you provide a cite to the evidence you claim they
> provide?" (against natural selection)
>
> It's not up to me to guess; it's up to you to say what
> evidence you're thinking of.
>
> >You want serious answers? Ask serious questions.
>
> Asking for evidence supporting such a claim is serious; none
> more so.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>
> - McNameless

...I _think_ he's talking about me...(or he thinks he thinks is
talking about me...)
Kind of puzzling, as I pointed out earlier...and distinctly dishonest,
but there you have it.

I was actually interested in reading any actual evidence he might
have.
Gotta keep learning...

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 17, 12:40�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

<snip>

> Evidence is evidence. It means "that which is evident". Evident to whom?
> To *someone*. Maybe not to you, but to someone.
>
> You may not agree with the interpretation of evidence, but that doesn't
> give you the right to say it's not evidence.

Which makes my original question even more pertinent..."What evidence
against natural selection do _you_ find persuasive?"

..And, if you would, be so kind as to leave out the misplaced
character assassination...unless you would care to point out where I
have "styled myself" the ...odd...things you said I did, I wouold
apprecitate is.
I would much rather hear about actual evidence against natural
selection.

Or, keep playing the North/Liddy card...

<snip>

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 17, 5:04 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:

<snip>

> Nah. He's just dodging like crazy 'cause he has no evidence whatsoever for
> his position and he knows it.

Pity...

<snip>

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 17, 5:40 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

<snip>

> It's much simpler than that. I just won't participate in discussions
> where the opposing argument is "I don't agree with your interpretation
> of the evidence, therefore there's no evidence".

So you are a mind reader? You can predict what i am going to say, how
I am going to respond?
Given your inaccurate take on how you say I have "styled myself", I
find this at best egoistic, at worst, flatly dishonest.

I have the elephant's child's problem..i was interested in what _you_
thought was persuasive evidence against natural selection.

> As a corollary, I won't answer loaded questions like  "where is the
> evidence for X" in a newsgroup where the evidence for X has been cited,
> described, discussed and debated hundreds of times a day for 20 years.

So, what "evidence for X" do _you_ find persuasive?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:40:50 -0400, Kalkidas wrote
(in article <k0mkti$rik$1...@dont-email.me>):

But how do you know that this will be the answer if you REFUSE TO PROVIDE THE
EVIDENCE?

>
> As a corollary, I won't answer loaded questions like "where is the
> evidence for X" in a newsgroup where the evidence for X has been cited,
> described, discussed and debated hundreds of times a day for 20 years.
>

Won't, or can't?

[jillery]

It would be characteristic of Kalkidas if he said essentially the same
thing 20 years ago, and every year since then. I have to admit, It's
a handy excuse.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 17, 12:23�pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I know it makes you feel special to be among the few free entities in
> the universe, that is a reasonable moral argument. Dont change your
> mind about this if it makes you devalue human life.

SSDD

> But what about those papers which conclude there is an inherent
> property of material to have alternative states available from moment
> to moment?

Which papers? You wouldn't care to provide a citation or two, would
you?
Or is this just more of your special take on things, like your
"Universal Impotence of Rewriting Zero" theme?

SSDD

[jillery]

The T.O. Archive has done all the work for you. There are literally
hundreds of creationist clams organized in the T.O. Archive:

<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html>

Here's an idea: pick one, and argue it. Or continue to run away.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 17, 11:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 6:20 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > No he will not.  He is an intellectual coward.  He had the same
> > weakness when he posted here as Chris Devol the Christian
> > creationist.  Only his religion has changed; and it is clear, while he
> > professes religion beliefs, his practice is decidedly unreligious
> > verging on intentional deception.  It confirms many atheists beliefs
> > about the moral quality of creationists of any religious orientation.
>

> > > --
> > > email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>

> Your moral authority is empty because of not supporting subjectivity,

> you dont even acknowledge my human spirit. You have some authority on
> objective matters of fact.

...it is odd, as always, to read someone of your moral flaccidity and
situational honesty even +pretend_ to judge (much less being wothy to
judge) the "moral authority" of another.

But I guess being honest is, in you subjective opinion, _much less
important that being "right" (which you define as swalloing the Syamsu
screed, hook, lie and stinker).

...Stopped being funny a while back, sweetie.

[Ernest Major]

In message <k0mkti$rik$1...@dont-email.me>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> writes

You claimed that creationists present evidence against evolution by
natural selection, which carries the implication that a substantial
number of creationists reject evolution by natural selection, although
the great majority of creationists accept it (they call it
microevolution or adaptation).

Your claim that there is evidence against evolution by natural selection
is presented suggests that you believe that such evidence exists. Hence
the inference that you might have become a Martinezian anevolutionist.

Given your record of using an extremely narrow conception of what
evidence is it is doubly surprising to find you claiming that there is

evidence against the existence of differential reproductive success
causally
correlated with genotype.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Nashton]

On 12-08-16 1:37 AM, nick humphrey wrote:
> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html
>
> includes the following:
> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
>

> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?

>
> (just being the devil's advocate here)
>

> Nick
>

"Accommodating all possibilities also makes a theory exactly useless."

And the ToE is exactly that.

[Boikat]

Only to the dim of mind, and short sighted. Which are you? Or are you
simply an knee-jerk anti-evolution cheerleader? Or maybe, just a
troll?

Boikat

[Slow Vehicle]

...evidence suggest a combination of the three...

[Syamsu]

You are morally decrepid, your idea that what you subjectively
identify are subjective opinions is nonsense which you thought up on
the spot. You have no idea about subjectivity, not cultivated any
subjectivity, your moral authority is empty. What is subjectively
identified is spiritual, the result of the identification is an
opinion about what is in the spiritual domain. It could be an opinion
about what is in somebody's heart, but it could also be an opinion
about the spirit in which the rocky mountains were created. Those
people who cultivate their opinion have moral authority, who have a
deep and just feeling. Darwinists have said they acknowledge the line
between science and religion, and that it is the line between is and
ought. But that is wrong the line is between what choses and what is
chosen. And if love and hate is identified as what choses, then ought
and ought not automatically follow from that. Darwinists have
asserted, and cotinue to assert what love and hate consist of, thereby
creating a great pressure to derive morality from science. And then
with the holocaust the bough broke, the line to cross into ought and
ought not was overrun en masse in Germany. And then the Darwinists say
that was a fallacy, but they put the border wrong, they were guilty
then, and they are guilty now. The evidence is plain on talk.origins,
people without cultivated opinion claiming moral authority in a vile
way, surpression of knowledge about freedom, and failure to
acknowledge the human spirit. It is very sure that darwinist political
leaders under pressure will follow the ought and ought not which
automatically follows from what their pseudoscience asserts love and
hate consists of. China is the clear example, with its eugenic laws
since the 1990's, including forced sterilization, forced abortion.
With the pressures of governing a country darwinists rely on social
darwinism, having destroyed religion.

[Boikat]

Look who's talking.

> You have no idea about subjectivity, not cultivated any
> subjectivity, your moral authority is empty.

That's ironic, comming from someone who says it's okay to lie if the
lie is told "lovingly".

> What is subjectively
> identified is spiritual,

Says who? By who's definition and usage? Yours?

> the result of the identification is an
> opinion about what is in the spiritual domain.

Is the "spiritual domain" somewhere neer Middle Earth, or Oz?

> It could be an opinion
> about what is in somebody's heart, but it could also be an opinion
> about the spirit in which the rocky mountains were created.

Here's your problem, again. One can certainly have an opinion of the
motives (heart) of another persons actions, or whatever, since humans
are internally self motivated, for the most part. But, when it comes
to the orogenisis of the Rocky Mountains, any talk of the "spirit in
which the mountains were created" is nothing but pure inane
foolishness.

> Those
> people who cultivate their opinion have moral authority, who have a
> deep and just feeling.

Like Hitler?

> Darwinists have said they acknowledge the line
> between science and religion, and that it is the line between is and
> ought. But that is wrong the line is between what choses and what is
> chosen.

No, it's the line between what can be tested in some way, and what
cannot be tested in any way.

> And if love and hate is identified as what choses, then ought
> and ought not automatically follow from that. Darwinists have
> asserted, and cotinue to assert what love and hate consist of, thereby
> creating a great pressure to derive morality from science.

Science is not about morality, it's about answering questions.

> And then
> with the holocaust the bough broke,

Because of people like you, who could not distinguish their subjective
values from objective fact.

> the line to cross into ought and
> ought not was overrun en masse in Germany.

By people with your mindset.

> And then the Darwinists say
> that was a fallacy, but they put the border wrong, they were guilty
> then, and they are guilty now.

Nope. Fanatical nitwits, like you, were the cause of the Holocaust.

> The evidence is plain on talk.origins,
> people without cultivated opinion claiming moral authority in a vile
> way, surpression of knowledge about freedom, and failure to
> acknowledge the human spirit.

The only perswon around here trying to suppress the 'knowledge of
freedom" is you. You want to change the definition of "freedom" from
it's current meaning into your demented meaning, which means one *has
to* acknowledge religious concepts, such as the soul and the
"spiritual domain". If that's what *you* want to define freedom as,
that's fine. But do not expect anyone else with a working mind to do
so.

> It is very sure that darwinist political
> leaders under pressure will follow the ought and ought not which
> automatically follows from what their pseudoscience asserts love and
> hate consists of. China is the clear example, with its eugenic laws
> since the 1990's, including forced sterilization, forced abortion.
> With the pressures of governing a country darwinists rely on social
> darwinism, having destroyed religion.

And you are attempting to impose your religion of everyone else.

Boikat

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 18, 7:13 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

SSDD

> You are morally decrepid,

Do you mean "decrepit"? If so, here is a link to a very simple
dictionary, written at a level that you can understand with some
effort--you probably should not use words, the meaning an use of which
you are ignorant...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/decrepit

(BTW, it is my personal, subjective opinion that you are not worthy to
judge me. Your stance that a lie is not a lie if told "lovingly"
disqualifies you from judging anyone, under any circumstances.)

>your idea that what you subjectively
>identify are subjective opinions
>is nonsense

Here is a link to a very simple dictionary, written at a level that
you can understand with some effort--you probably should not use
words, the meaning an use of which you are ignorant...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonsense

>which you thought up on
> the spot.

Would you care to provide evidence for this claim? You have _never_
accurately described a single one of my thoughts, or thought
processes...not your continues dishonest prattle about "lying about
the Holocaust", not your ongoing foolishness about "destroying
emotion", nor your idiocies about anything else. You cannot guess
what is in my mind, or in my heart, and you do not bother to try to
understand the things I post. It is so much easier for you to revert
to your stock lies and nonsense.

>You have no idea about subjectivity,

This is a lie. I have explained my ideas about subjectivity
repeatedly...that fact is, you are not capable of dealing with a
rational thought.

> not cultivated any subjectivity,

You mean, I won't goose-step in your sweaty little parade...

>your moral authority is empty.

...says the boy who thinks absolute demonstrable falsehood is not a
"lie" if told "lovingly".
*snerk*

>What is subjectively identified is spiritual,

...in _your_ subjective opinion, unsupported and unsupportable. You
may believe whatever little superstition you need to get you through
the day (I hereby give you full permission). That does _not_ give you
leave, permission, authority, suasion, or privilege to tell me what
_I_ "have to believe"...

You used to believe, to cling to , to arrogantly flaunt, a different
set of superstitions. Why is _this_ set supposed to be more correct,
more "true", than the previous set was?

What I identify as subjective are...my subjective opinions. This has
been so since the late sixties, evidenced by my journals from those
years.

>the result of the identification is an
> opinion about what is in the spiritual domain.

...Since I flatly deny your superstition about what you call the
"spiritual domain", I make no such "identification". If you are
describing the way _you_ "reach decisions", well and good--but don't
even try to pretend that your approach is normative, or even
demonstrably functional (given the silly, silly things you spew as
"truths"...you're a big Colbert fan, aren't you?)

>It could be an opinion
> about what is in somebody's heart,

...how can _you_ even pretend to know what is in someone _else's_
heart?

>but it could also be an opinion
> about the spirit in which the rocky mountains were created.

...if you buy into the superstition that the Rocky Mountains were
"created"... I do not. There is no evidence of a "spirit" in which
the Rocky Mountains were "created"...there is no evidence that the
Rocky Mountains have, or express, emotions.
You are welcome to your subjective opinion, no matter how
superstitious...but you do err when you pretend that your
superstitions represent objective reality just because you believe
them.

I know you do not understand that.

> Those people who cultivate their opinion have moral authority,

Thank you! However, as much as it galls you, my morals, and my "moral
authority", are as independent of your approbation as they are of your
opprobrium.
I need no sanction from an admitted liar.

>who have a deep and just feeling.

Thank you! But I _still_ do not need, seek, or welcome you
approval...

>Darwinists have said they acknowledge the line
> between science and religion, and that it is the line between is and
> ought.

Demonstrate on "darwinist" saying so, or identify this swill as your
personal opinion...

> But that is wrong the line is between what choses and what is
> chosen.

In you demonstrably dysfunctional subjective opinion...

>And if love and hate is identified as what choses, then ought
> and ought not automatically follow from that.

...in your demonstrably dysfunctional subjective opinion.

>Darwinists have
> asserted, and cotinue to assert what love and hate consist of,

Demonstrate a "darwinist" objectively asserting the objective nature
of love and hate, or admit that this is just something else you
invented...

>thereby creating a great pressure to derive morality from science.

...in your demonstrably dysfunctional subjective opinion.

>And then with the holocaust the bough broke,

...and here come this tired lie...sweetie, Darwin did not cause the
Holocaust.

>the line to cross into ought and
> ought not was overrun en masse in Germany. And then the Darwinists say
> that was a fallacy, but they put the border wrong, they were guilty
> then, and they are guilty now.

...in you demonstrably dysfunctional subjective opinion. Do you ever
get tired of telling lies?

>The evidence is plain on talk.origins,

Wait--now you are saying that talk.origins "caused the Holocaust"? No
temporal, or causal, problems there, hey?

> people without cultivated opinion claiming moral authority in a vile
> way,

...so you should stop doing this...

>surpression of knowledge about freedom,

...so you should stop doing this...

>and failure to acknowledge the human spirit.

...you cannot define "the human spirit"; you cannot demonstrate "the
human spirit", you are not consistent about "the human spirit"...
SSDD

> It is very sure

...in your demonstrably dysfunctional subjective opinion...

> that darwinist political
> leaders under pressure will follow the ought and ought not

Demonstrate one actually doing so, or admit that this is your
creation,,,another "loving lie"...

> which
> automatically follows from what their pseudoscience

Here is a link to a very simple dictionary, written at a level that
you can understand with some effort--you probably should not use
words, the meaning an use of which you are ignorant...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pseudoscience

>asserts love and hate consists of.

Another demonstrable lie...

China is the clear example, with its eugenic laws

Darwin opposed eugenics...

> since the 1990's, including forced sterilization, forced abortion.
> With the pressures of governing a country darwinists

Eugenics is _not_ a tenet of ToE...

>rely on social darwinism, having destroyed religion.

If ToE has "destroyed religion" why are so many people who understand
that ToE explains observable reality people of faith? Even here on ng
there are several such...

I realize you will ignore my questions, again.
I realize you will respond with lies, more lies, personal attacks,
vituperation, falsehoods, and lies.

SSDD