Conversation with an Evolutionist (part 1)
All-Seeing-I
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
CR: evidence?
EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
tests. Are you stupid?
CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
CR: But what about books like the bible?
EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
about 1200 years old?
EV: Do not argue with me. Science is right. We have all the tests. The
tests say the bible was written by bronze aged goat herders 1200 years
ago.
CR: But..
EV: NO BUTS. Science is always right. To think other wise is stupid.
Your God does not exist. Science says so.
CR: OK then, what about the supernatural events that so many people
have seen or been a part of.
EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural even though we have
definitions for the word supernatural.
CR: Why is there no such thing?
EV: Because science cannot make a test for it
CR: What kind of test does science need?
EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
talking about.
CR: So your tests are incomplete? Maybe flawed because humans are
flawed?
EV: No. Science is always right. You are just being stupid. Science
can never be wrong. We have the tests. The tests are never wrong until
we need a revision.
CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?
EV: No. Evolution is an explanation of what happened after life began.
CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
evolved?
EV: Shut up. You are just too stupid to understand. Evolution is just
an explanation of what happened after life got here. We do not care if
it originated with a god or not. In fact we are sure it did not
originate with a God because science says God does not exist because
we cannot test for god.
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
EV: We do see that. We got some bones from millions of years ago that
tells us so. As long as we can make up stories about these bones and
bully everyone into thinking we know what we are talking about we are
right
CR: Millions?
EV: Yes.
CR: That is a lot of time right?
EV: Yes, we know what we know because we have the tests. The tests say
so even though the tests can be revised at any moment. Science is
never wrong see? We know what we are doing see? We have the tests see?
Our tests show us everything until we find out the tests was wrong
see? That makes US right and the creationist wrong.
CR: [shaking head in amazement]
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>CR = creationist
>EV = evolutionist
>
>
>CR: God created man
>
>EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
>
>CR: evidence?
>
>EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
>tests. Are you stupid?
well let's see
-evolution does not depend on abiogenesis...a common enough mistake
among creationists...but it shows they don't understand science
-no scientist says we have 'plenty of evidence' about abiogenesis
and creationism? where's it's proof of anything at all? let's look at
creationism's record. creationists said 'god did it' for
-earthquakes
-disease
-insanity
-stars
-weather
-volcanoes
in every case....they were wrong.
>
>CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
what is 'common design'? we can test ideas about abiogenesis.
how does one test 'common design'?
this is a reason why creationism is a failure. it's meaningless
>
>EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
>stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
hmmm...if we have all the answers...
then why are scientists still doing research?
seems 'all seeing' has created a whole post filled with distortions..
>
>EV: Do not argue with me. Science is right. We have all the tests. The
>tests say the bible was written by bronze aged goat herders 1200 years
>ago.\\
really? anyone say this?
oh...another distortion. figures
>
>EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural even though we have
>definitions for the word supernatural.
>
>CR: Why is there no such thing?
>
>EV: Because science cannot make a test for it
>
>CR: What kind of test does science need?
well it should be up to the creationist to tell us, shouldn't it?
and in the time creationists HAVE tried the supernatural...it's ALWAYS
been wrong.
for 2000 years. wrong. every time.
>
>EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
>stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
>talking about.
>
>CR: So your tests are incomplete? Maybe flawed because humans are
>flawed?
so flawed that they invented religion, perhaps? so religion is the
first error of man...
>
>EV: No. Science is always right. You are just being stupid. Science
>can never be wrong. We have the tests. The tests are never wrong until
>we need a revision.
>
>CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?
>
>EV: No. Evolution is an explanation of what happened after life began.
>
>CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
>even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
>evolved?
because we can see the daily changes in the sun...without every
knowing where the sun comes from. we can see change without knowin
origins.
>
>EV: Shut up. You are just too stupid to understand. Evolution is just
>an explanation of what happened after life got here. We do not care if
>it originated with a god or not. In fact we are sure it did not
>originate with a God because science says God does not exist because
>we cannot test for god.
>
>CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
>produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
>rise to another?
>
>EV: We do see that. We got some bones from millions of years ago that
>tells us so. As long as we can make up stories about these bones and
>bully everyone into thinking we know what we are talking about we are
>right
>
>CR: Millions?
>
>EV: Yes.
>
>CR: That is a lot of time right?
>
>EV: Yes, we know what we know because we have the tests. The tests say
>so even though the tests can be revised at any moment. Science is
>never wrong see? We know what we are doing see? We have the tests see?
>Our tests show us everything until we find out the tests was wrong
>see? That makes US right and the creationist wrong.
>
>CR: [shaking head in amazement]
this post is the equivalent of saying all religious people are
ignorant bigots who want to destroy civilization...
only the fundamentalists do. like 'all seeing'
John Harshman
[snip]
Did that help you feel better? It sure is easier when you make up both
sides of the argument, isn't it?
bpuharic
kind of like a large, creationist belch...
Reddfrogg
> CR = creationist
> EV = evolutionist
>
> CR: God created man
>
> EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
Actually the "EV" would say: The evidence shows that humans are the
result of long process of evolution. No one claims that humans, or
any life evolved from a "single moleucule".
>
> CR: evidence?
>
> EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
> tests
And would give you the evidence.
> Are you stupid?
Not a bad assumption there, but rather premature.
>
> CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
What would "common design", and how would it be different from what
evolution looks like?
>
> EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
> stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
Oddly enough, it's ASI who claims to have all the answers, and the
revealed truth..... No scientist ever claimed to have all the
answers, or says that science can't be questioned.
>
> CR: But what about books like the bible?
>
The books of the Bible aren't science.
> EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
Of course, being written by "bronze age" goat herders doesn't make it
wrong. It's not, however scientific, and expecting it to be
scientific would be absurd.
>
> CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
> said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
> about 1200 years old?
How does that contradict the fact that it's a non scientific
accumulation of religious writings, oral tradition, legends, and folk
tales? None of the "revisions" were corraborated with actual
observations, and it's largely made up of untestable statements.
>
> EV: Do not argue with me. Science is right. We have all the tests. The
> tests say the bible was written by bronze aged goat herders 1200 years
> ago.
Again, no scientist would ever claim to have "all the tests", nor
would that scientist claim that "tests" establish the Bible as being
unscientific.
>
> CR: But..
>
first sensible statement by the "CR".
> EV: NO BUTS. Science is always right. To think other wise is stupid.
> Your God does not exist. Science says so.
No scientist, or anyone who understands science would claim that
science is always right, or that science says God doesn't exist.
>
> CR: OK then, what about the supernatural events that so many people
> have seen or been a part of.
What about them? Stories, legends, and folk tales don't amount to
evidence.
>
> EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural even though we have
> definitions for the word supernatural.
Again, it's beyond the scope of science to say that the supernatural
does not exist. Why having definition of the word makes a difference
is anyone's guess.
>
> CR: Why is there no such thing?
No one claims there isn't a belief in the supernatural. There just
isn't any evidence for it.
>
> EV: Because science cannot make a test for it
Which means that science doesn't say it does, or does not exist.
>
> CR: What kind of test does science need?
Science can only test what's in the natural world. That's why no
scientist would be so rash as to claim that science can tell if the
supernatural exists or not.
>
> EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
> stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
> talking about.
Sounds like the CR is having a inferiority complex.... "Fancy words"
are what scientists use to talk to each other, and have specific
meanings. They aren't employed to try to make anyone feel stupid.
If you don't understand those "fancy words", you can always get an
education.
>
> CR: So your tests are incomplete? Maybe flawed because humans are
> flawed?
That humanity is flawed does not mean that no one can know anything.
This is taking refuge in nihilism. No scientific tests are
"complete" and there's no way to determine if the supernatural is
there, or not. Appealing to the supernatural is useless, when it
comes to finding things out about the world.
>
> EV: No. Science is always right. You are just being stupid. Science
> can never be wrong. We have the tests. The tests are never wrong until
> we need a revision.
Again, no scientist would ever make such a claim.
>
> CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is
One can try, but there's presently not enough information to make a
confident statement. What one can say, is that life's origin was
most likely a natural event, as appeals to the supernatural are
pointless.
>
> EV: No. Evolution is an explanation of what happened after life began.
Correct.
>
> CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
> even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
> evolved?
Because evolution can be observed, and has been observed. How life
began is irrelevant to the fact that it evolved.
>
> EV: Shut up. You are just too stupid to understand. Evolution is just
> an explanation of what happened after life got here. We do not care if
> it originated with a god or not. In fact we are sure it did not
> originate with a God because science says God does not exist because
> we cannot test for god.
Again, scientists don't claim that science can tell about God. If
life did originate with God, then he went to a lot of trouble to make
it look like it evolved.
>
> CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
> produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
> rise to another?"
"We" see one form of life giving rise to another on a daily basis.
Whenever a baby is born, a chick is hatched, or cell divides. One
has never seen a supernatural being "poof" any life into existence.
>
> EV: We do see that. We got some bones from millions of years ago that
> tells us so. As long as we can make up stories about these bones and
> bully everyone into thinking we know what we are talking about we are
> right
The fossil record does show quite clearly how life has changed over
time. No 'bullying' is needed, except for the creationists who try to
bully school boards and teachers into presenting religious beliefs as
if they were science.
>
> CR: Millions?
Yes, millions. Is that a problem?
>
> EV: Yes.
>
> CR: That is a lot of time right?
Yes. Is that a problem?
>
> EV: Yes, we know what we know because we have the tests.
Which allow scientists to study the "old bones" and make conclusions
from that study.
>The tests say
> so even though the tests can be revised at any moment.
Actually, the tests aren't revised, it's the conclusions that can be
revised, as more evidence is collected. This allows one to make more
correct conclusions. Much better than relying on old stories and
legends.
>Science is
> never wrong see?
No scientist would ever make that claim. I recall someone said that
ancient records don't lie, which would be like saying they can't be
wrong......
>We know what we are doing see? We have the tests see?
And science and it's "tests" have been very successful in finding
things out. Relying on old stories and legends..... no so much.
> Our tests show us everything until we find out the tests was wrong
> see? That makes US right and the creationist wrong.
What makes creationists wrong is that they have a set idea of the
"truth" and don't bother to revise it once their beliefs don't match
the evidence. They would rather cling to old stories, legends, and
folk tales than make the effort to find out about the Earth around
them.
>
> CR: [shaking head in amazement]
It's easy to "win" when you can make up false assertions and strawman
positions for your opponent. It's a lot easier than actually
facing, and replying to reasonable objections to your claims.
I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
DJT
johnetho...@yahoo.com
<snip lies>
What a surprise - take out the lies and nothing is left. Typical post
for ASI.
All-Seeing-I
>
> I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
THAT would be you.
Free Lunch
Yet he still didn't manage to win.
Free Lunch
>CR = creationist
>EV = evolutionist
>
>
>CR: God created man
>
>EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
Bad start.
>CR: evidence?
>
>EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
>tests. Are you stupid?
>
>CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
You can claim that everything looks like design if you don't develop a
hypothesis of design.
>EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
>stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
>
>CR: But what about books like the bible?
They are religious texts.
>EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
>
>CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
>said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
>about 1200 years old?
I'm not sure who made that claim, but the stories are old and the ones
you care about are shown by physical evidence not to be historically
accurate.
>EV: Do not argue with me. Science is right. We have all the tests. The
>tests say the bible was written by bronze aged goat herders 1200 years
>ago.
>
>CR: But..
>
>EV: NO BUTS. Science is always right. To think other wise is stupid.
>Your God does not exist. Science says so.
>
>CR: OK then, what about the supernatural events that so many people
>have seen or been a part of.
Strangely, there is no evidence that they happened.
>EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural even though we have
>definitions for the word supernatural.
>
>CR: Why is there no such thing?
Where is the evidence that any of these things ever happened?
>EV: Because science cannot make a test for it
>
>CR: What kind of test does science need?
>
>EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
>stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
>talking about.
Even when you cheat when you put false claims in the mouths of the
supporters of science you still make yourself look like a fool.
>CR: So your tests are incomplete? Maybe flawed because humans are
>flawed?
Scientific tests are always retestable. You have the physical capability
to redo any test that scientists have done.
>EV: No. Science is always right. You are just being stupid. Science
>can never be wrong. We have the tests. The tests are never wrong until
>we need a revision.
>
>CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?
Scientists don't yet know how life arose on earth yet, but we do know
that life is a self-sustaining biochemical process.
>EV: No. Evolution is an explanation of what happened after life began.
It is, but we have answered your other questions. It's a shame that you
feel the need to lie about what we have told you.
>CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
>even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
>evolved?
Your question shows a clear lack of understanding of evolution. Have you
considered learning something about science rather than wasting your
time here spewing your ignorance? We don't need to know how the universe
began to know how it works today. Newton had a pretty good approximation
of mechanics long before we knew fundamentals that forced us to make
minor changes in the way mechanics are done.
>EV: Shut up. You are just too stupid to understand. Evolution is just
>an explanation of what happened after life got here. We do not care if
>it originated with a god or not. In fact we are sure it did not
>originate with a God because science says God does not exist because
>we cannot test for god.
>
>CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
>produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
>rise to another?
We do see changes. When you ask questions that include false claims in
them, you have shown that you do not deserve to be treated with respect
because you have chosen not to treat science or scientists with respect.
>EV: We do see that. We got some bones from millions of years ago that
>tells us so. As long as we can make up stories about these bones and
>bully everyone into thinking we know what we are talking about we are
>right
Another answer that you never received, you hypocrite.
>CR: Millions?
Please try to learn.
>EV: Yes.
>
>CR: That is a lot of time right?
Clearly more than you comprehend. That must be why you lost all of the
other interesting information that has been provided to you about this.
>EV: Yes, we know what we know because we have the tests. The tests say
>so even though the tests can be revised at any moment. Science is
>never wrong see? We know what we are doing see? We have the tests see?
>Our tests show us everything until we find out the tests was wrong
>see? That makes US right and the creationist wrong.
>
>CR: [shaking head in amazement]
Yes, I am amazed that you can spend so much time here and be as ignorant
as you have demonstrated here.
You've denied being Christian, what poor religion is stuck with your
fool claims?
All-Seeing-I
How typical. Cut out everything you cannot refute and nothing is left.
Typical post for johnethompson
T Pagano
>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:28:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
><allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>>CR = creationist
>>EV = evolutionist
>>
>>
>>CR: God created man
>>
>>EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
>>
>>CR: evidence?
>>
>>EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
>>tests. Are you stupid?
>
>well let's see
>
>-evolution does not depend on abiogenesis...a common enough mistake
>among creationists...but it shows they don't understand science
>-no scientist says we have 'plenty of evidence' about abiogenesis
All-Seeing-I is presenting the overall framework of purely
naturalistic evolution accurately. The purely naturalistic framework
of evolutionism is composed of (at least) Abiogenesis AND Common
Descent coupled to Random Mutations/Natural Selection (that is,
neoDarwinism).
The mistake some creationists make is to accuse neoDarwinian theory of
failing to explain abiogenesis or in rare instances leaping from
Abiogenesis's complete failure to the failure of neoDarwinism. Nowhere
does All-Seein-I fall into these errors.
However, bpuharic is seriously mistaken when he asserts that
neoDarwinism does NOT depend upon Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a
"necessary" initial condition of the neoDarwinian processes. If
Abiogenesis did not occur it doesn't matter whether neoDarwinian
theory works or not----IT CAN'T GET STARTED. bpuharic must be
ignorant of the fact that "initial conditions" are neither irrelevent
nor dispensible.
Regards,
T Pagano
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:42:18 -0500, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:28:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>><allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>>CR = creationist
>>>EV = evolutionist
>>>
>>>
>>>CR: God created man
>>>
>>>EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
>>>
>>>CR: evidence?
>>>
>>>EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
>>>tests. Are you stupid?
>>
>>well let's see
>>
>>-evolution does not depend on abiogenesis...a common enough mistake
>>among creationists...but it shows they don't understand science
>>-no scientist says we have 'plenty of evidence' about abiogenesis
>
>All-Seeing-I is presenting the overall framework of purely
>naturalistic evolution accurately.
Tony, you aren't nearly as stupid as madman, why embarrass yourself here
with such nonsense.
> The purely naturalistic framework
>of evolutionism is composed of (at least) Abiogenesis AND Common
>Descent coupled to Random Mutations/Natural Selection (that is,
>neoDarwinism).
So says someone engaging in special pleading, not someone who
understands what the theory of evolution covers.
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>CR = creationist
>EV = evolutionist
>
>
>CR: God created man
>
>EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument
Try again.
bpuharic
>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:42:18 -0500, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>-evolution does not depend on abiogenesis...a common enough mistake
>>among creationists...but it shows they don't understand science
>>-no scientist says we have 'plenty of evidence' about abiogenesis
>
>All-Seeing-I is presenting the overall framework of purely
>naturalistic evolution accurately. The purely naturalistic framework
>of evolutionism is composed of (at least) Abiogenesis AND Common
>Descent coupled to Random Mutations/Natural Selection (that is,
>neoDarwinism).
>
really? other than pagano, who sez? does pagano have a reference that
evolution rises or falls on abiogenesis?
in addition, the intellectual isolationism of creationism destroys
itself in its inability to put forth ANY answers whatsoever about how
life got started other than invoking magic
>The mistake some creationists make is to accuse neoDarwinian theory of
>failing to explain abiogenesis or in rare instances leaping from
>Abiogenesis's complete failure to the failure of neoDarwinism. Nowhere
>does All-Seein-I fall into these errors.
IOW he requires abiogenesis except when he doesn't
makes as much sense as anything else in creationism
and abiogenesis can't be a failure because we have no idea how it
happened. it's a rare failure that fails before it gets started.
creationism, OTOH...well it has a 2000 year history of failure.
>
>However, bpuharic is seriously mistaken when he asserts that
>neoDarwinism does NOT depend upon Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a
>"necessary" initial condition of the neoDarwinian processes.
that is true. however a THEORY of abiogenesis is not needed.
pagano, having never spent a day in a lab, and being scientifically
uneducated, doesn't know that a theory of abiogenesis is absolutely
irrelevant to evolution
nor does he prove its relevance beyond asserting that it IS relevant
because, after all, he says so
If
>Abiogenesis did not occur it doesn't matter whether neoDarwinian
>theory works or not----IT CAN'T GET STARTED. bpuharic must be
>ignorant of the fact that "initial conditions" are neither irrelevent
>nor dispensible.
>
pagano is simply wrong and a brief example from thermodynamics will
show why
in calculating the change in entropy of a chemical reaction, no
scientist uses the ABSOLUTE entropy of the reactance vs the ABSOLUTE
entropy of the products. we simply calculate the CHANGE in entropy of
a reaction
much of science is that way; it;'s about change. the absolute origin
is irrelevant
but, then, for 2000 years creationism has had its flying monkeys
approach to the world...a world of ghosts and goblins
it hasnt worked out for the creationists...which is why they're left
as latter day theological streetwalkers, begging to be let back into
the course of rational discussion
careful, pagano, your fishnet stockings have a runner in them
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:ea5d0fb9-b031-4d4b...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> CR = creationist
> EV = evolutionist
First, the minsamed moniker ........... an "all seing eye" can see nothing
if his head is deeply imbedded up his ass.
>
>
> CR: God created man
EV: Evidence?
(Crickets)
>
> EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
>
> CR: evidence?
EV: You made the first claim, the job is yours to provide your evidence
supporting your claim first.
(Crickets).
>
> EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
> tests. Are you stupid?
Rhetorical question.
>
> CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
EV: Then, using sceitific standards and scientific processes and scientific
methods - provide ANY evidence!
(Crickets)
>
> EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
> stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
While exposes of creationist ignorance are common; NO scientist EVER said
"do not question science", or" We have all the answers".
Those phrases and attitudes come from arrognat creatinoists: "Do not
question god) (Though it is not god who is being quetioned - it is
fanatical, uneducated creationist- most of whm have no idea what teh bible
actually says.
"The bible (and the creationists who warp and distort the bible) arwe the
ones pretending they (and their god) have all the answers.
>
> CR: But what about books like the bible?
EV: What about all the other books from other nations and religions?
What about the many parts o the bible and books from other religons that are
nothing more than fairy tales?
What about the many parts of the bible that creationists totally distort or
ignore?
The bible is no better than any ancient, quasi-religious, book that has only
a scant amount of reality included.
>
> EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
>
> CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
> said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
> about 1200 years old?
EV: Is that comment supposed to mean anyting rational or important?
>
> EV: Do not argue with me. Science is right. We have all the tests. The
> tests say the bible was written by bronze aged goat herders 1200 years
> ago.
Again - NO scientist ever said such a thing. such as "the test is right -
don't argue with me!"
Goat hearding didn't stop, or start, or have anything to do with the
invention and use of bronze.
The bronze age did not start on a Thursday, and end on a monday many decades
later.
>
> CR: But..
>
> EV: NO BUTS. Science is always right. To think other wise is stupid.
> Your God does not exist. Science says so.
EV: More invented, qand insane, bull shit without evidence!
>
> CR: OK then, what about the supernatural events that so many people
> have seen or been a part of.
EV: What about them?
Do you have any valid evidence?
Since you don't - they have no meaning.
>
> EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural even though we have
> definitions for the word supernatural.
Again, an invented claim, made by a total loser, that has absolutely nothing
to do with what ANY scientist voiced.
>
> CR: Why is there no such thing?
>
> EV: Because science cannot make a test for it
EV: You cannot make a test for something that isn't there.
>
> CR: What kind of test does science need?
(cough - cough) A supernateral being Detector; obviously.
>
> EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
> stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
> talking about.
Neither scientist nor evolutionists publications or conversations have
ANYTHING to do with the insane,psychotic crap you bellow about them.
You don't even have the ability to lie convincingly.
>
> CR: So your tests are incomplete? Maybe flawed because humans are
> flawed?
Using that logic, your bible MUST be nothing more than outrageously sick,
distorted, fraudulent lies and other propaganda.
"Tests" weren't talked about ..... just one specific test that is impossible
to make - because a detector has to have SOMETHING to detect.
>
> EV: No. Science is always right. You are just being stupid. Science
> can never be wrong. We have the tests. The tests are never wrong until
> we need a revision.
NO scientists EVER said science can never be wrong.
Again, that is a psychotic delusion shared bybrain dead religios zealots
........... like some christians and some (same ilk) Muslims!
>
> CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?
Not right now .... I'm still waiting for evidence that supports your First
claim! " CR: God created man."
>
> EV: No. Evolution is an explanation of what happened after life began.
>
> CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
> even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
> evolved?
Wow!
Talk about deranged and distorted logic.
How can you believe in a bible, when you have no idea when, where and how
the bible came to be?
>
> EV: Shut up. You are just too stupid to understand. Evolution is just
> an explanation of what happened after life got here. We do not care if
> it originated with a god or not. In fact we are sure it did not
> originate with a God because science says God does not exist because
> we cannot test for god.
Once again; scietists do NOT stand by the idea that god doesn't exists.
All they may state is the truth - that there is ABSOLUTELY NO valid evidence
to support the existance of ANY god ......
so it is, obviously, less likely that there would be anay evidence to
support this one specific god - because your babble tells you so.
>
> CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
> produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
> rise to another?
>
> EV: We do see that. We got some bones from millions of years ago that
> tells us so. As long as we can make up stories about these bones and
> bully everyone into thinking we know what we are talking about we are
> right
It's amazing how Mr. EV: is constantly accused of fraudulent, uneducated,
"holier than thou", arrogant practices more commonly originating with
ignorant creationists.
>
> CR: Millions?
>
> EV: Yes.
>
> CR: That is a lot of time right?
>
> EV: Yes, we know what we know because we have the tests. The tests say
> so even though the tests can be revised at any moment. Science is
> never wrong see? We know what we are doing see? We have the tests see?
> Our tests show us everything until we find out the tests was wrong
> see? That makes US right and the creationist wrong.
>
> CR: [shaking head in amazement]
Don't shake too hard - you'll irritate your hemorrhoids.
Reddfrogg
Yet I'm not the one claiming that folk tales are fact...
Not as easy to defend against a real person, is it?
DJT
Reddfrogg
Ironic. You cut the entire of my rebuttal of your post to make a
playground level taunt. Now you complain that John didn't address
your screed.
> Typical post for johnethompson
I could say "that would be you" but that is a childish, and
unresponsive thing to do.
DJT
Andre Lieven
> CR = creationist
> EV = evolutionist
>
> CR: God created man
>
> EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
2 lines, and 2 lies. No need to read more ignorant lies.
Sux to be you.
Andre
Caranx latus
> CR = creationist
> EV = evolutionist
>
>
> CR: God created man
<snip>
> CR: [shaking head in amazement]
Why don't you *actually* try having a conversation with a real
evolutionist rather than creating your own strawman? Oh, wait. Don't
tell me. It's because a real evolutionist wouldn't say the things that
you want your strawman to say, right?
John Vreeland
wrote:
He should experiment with sock puppets.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
Boikat
> CR = creationist
> EV = evolutionist
>
> CR: God created man
>
> EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
>
<Snip fantasies>
>
> CR: [shaking head in amazement]
EV [shakes head in amazement] Like making up bullshit strawman
arguments demonstrates anything other than your ignorance?
Boikat
John Vreeland
wrote:
Darwin's theory no more depends on Abiogenesis than Newton's theories
depend on Darwin.
The source of the first replicating body is irrelevant, and is not
addressed by the theory. Perhaps the first replicator appeared
spontaneously or was seeded by alien oocytes. It's an entirely
different question. Even if God appeared in the sky and claimed
credit for the first replicator Darwin's theory would not be affected.
Darwin's theory addresses what came after that, with inheritance,
mutation and selection.
--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.
Boikat
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:48:32 -0800, John Harshman
>
> >All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
> >Did that help you feel better? It sure is easier when you make up both
> >sides of the argument, isn't it?
>
> kind of like a large, creationist belch...
It may have been hot air, but it was not a belch. (It came from the
other end)
Boikat
Boikat
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:42:18 -0500, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:28:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> ><allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >>CR = creationist
> >>EV = evolutionist
>
> >>CR: God created man
>
> >>EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
>
> >>CR: evidence?
>
> >>EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
> >>tests. Are you stupid?
>
> >well let's see
>
> >-evolution does not depend on abiogenesis...a common enough mistake
> >among creationists...but it shows they don't understand science
> >-no scientist says we have 'plenty of evidence' about abiogenesis
>
> All-Seeing-I is presenting the overall framework of purely
> naturalistic evolution accurately.
<snip blathercrap>
No, he's not. If you think he is, you're prettyscrewed up in the
brain department.
> Regards,
> T Pagano-
Boikat
chris thompson
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:46:05 -0500, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:42:18 -0500, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:28:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> >><allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >>>CR = creationist
> >>>EV = evolutionist
>
> >>>CR: God created man
>
> >>>EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
>
> >>>CR: evidence?
>
> >>>EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
> >>>tests. Are you stupid?
>
> >>well let's see
>
> >>-evolution does not depend on abiogenesis...a common enough mistake
> >>among creationists...but it shows they don't understand science
> >>-no scientist says we have 'plenty of evidence' about abiogenesis
>
> >All-Seeing-I is presenting the overall framework of purely
> >naturalistic evolution accurately.
>
> Tony, you aren't nearly as stupid as madman, why embarrass yourself here
> with such nonsense.
Uhh, yes he is. He's at least as stupid as Madman. He just uses nine
times as many words to prove it as Madman. Tony is the most pathetic
blowhard on t.o.
Chris
All-seeing-I
The folk tales had an origin. Grounded in real events,
You cannot say the same.
Evolution begins with the LUCA, (Last Universal Common Ancestor) but
you cannot establish what the damn thing is. Even if you could, you
cannot answer how it came to life.
Wanna see what your fairy tale looks like?
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:42:18 -0500, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:28:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>><allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>>CR = creationist
>>>EV = evolutionist
>>>
>>>
>>>CR: God created man
>>>
>>>EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
>>>
>>>CR: evidence?
>>>
>>>EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
>>>tests. Are you stupid?
>>
>>well let's see
>>
>>-evolution does not depend on abiogenesis...a common enough mistake
>>among creationists...but it shows they don't understand science
>>-no scientist says we have 'plenty of evidence' about abiogenesis
>
>All-Seeing-I is presenting the overall framework of purely
>naturalistic evolution accurately. The purely naturalistic framework
>of evolutionism is composed of (at least) Abiogenesis AND Common
>Descent coupled to Random Mutations/Natural Selection (that is,
>neoDarwinism).
>
>The mistake some creationists make is to accuse neoDarwinian theory of
>failing to explain abiogenesis or in rare instances leaping from
>Abiogenesis's complete failure to the failure of neoDarwinism. Nowhere
>does All-Seein-I fall into these errors.
You're missing the point by a wide margin. The error the M/adman is
being called on is a strawman misrepresentation of scientific opinion.
>
>However, bpuharic is seriously mistaken when he asserts that
>neoDarwinism does NOT depend upon Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a
>"necessary" initial condition of the neoDarwinian processes. If
>Abiogenesis did not occur it doesn't matter whether neoDarwinian
>theory works or not----IT CAN'T GET STARTED. bpuharic must be
>ignorant of the fact that "initial conditions" are neither irrelevent
>nor dispensible.
By asserting that abiogenesis is necessary for evolution you are
implicitly arguing for the factuality of abiogenesis. Common descent
with modification through the agency of natural selection and other
processes is supported by voluminous evidence. Therefore, if abiogenesis
is necessary for evolution, we would infer that abiogenesis did happen.
(And we do, but I suspect that we consider more alternatives under the
rubric of abiogenesis that you do, since from the context you appear to
be talking about spontaneous abiogenesis.)
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
--
alias Ernest Major
richardal...@googlemail.com
> CR = creationist
> EV = evolutionist
>
> CR: God created man
EV: That's fine. Believe that if you want to, but don't pretend to
yourself or anyone else that such a belief is supported by science.
Some scientists believe that God created man, but that he used
billions of years of evolution to do so.
>
> EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
Wrong. We don't know the conditions under which abiogenesis occurred.
If you chose to believe that it occurred when God breathed life into
clay, that's fine, but don't pretend to yourself or anyone else that
such a belief is supported by science.
>
> CR: evidence?
>
> EV: We have plenty of evidence.
> Science says so.
Wrong. No scientist would say such a stupid thing. Science is a tool
of enquiry, not an oracular authority./
> We have all sorts of
> tests.
Wrong. A test is not evidence. Test theories by the acquisition of
evidence.
> Are you stupid?
I suggest that we leave that to the reader to decide.
>
> CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
EV: So how do you propose to test that assertion? What potential
observation or measurement could *not* be explained by "common
design"? If you chose to believe in a "common designer", that's fine
but don't pretend to yourself or anyone else that such a belief is
supported by science.
>
> EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
> stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
Wrong. Science most certainly does *not* claim to have all the
answers. If we had all the answers there'd be no need for science.
What science demands is testable hypotheses. "Common design" is not
testable because it sets no constraints on possible outcomes. That's
what makes it useless as science.
>
> CR: But what about books like the bible?
The bible is not a scientific book, and few Christian churches claim
that it is. Why should it be any more reliable than any other holy
book?
>
> EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
Wrong. The Bible is not "wrong", but it's not a book of science, and
it cannot be treated as a literal account of the history of life on
this planet.
>
> CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
> said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
> about 1200 years old?
Historians of the Bible will tell you that it has been edited
drastically over the centuries to suit the religious and political
pressures of the time.
>
> EV: Do not argue with me. Science is right. We have all the tests. The
> tests say the bible was written by bronze aged goat herders 1200 years
> ago.
Wrong. The Bible was assembled in something resembling it's modern
form in about the 4th century AD. It has been subject to a lot of
revision since. This shows that it is not foundational to Christian
faith.
>
> CR: But..
>
> EV: NO BUTS. Science is always right.
No scientist would say such a stupid thing. Science is frequently
wrong, but because scientific theories are based on evidence and
testable, they can be proved to be wrong. This is what makes "common
design" useless as a scientific explanation.
> To think other wise is stupid.
Actually, to think that science is always right would be stupid.
> Your God does not exist. Science says so.
Science cannot be used to test for the existence of God.
>
> CR: OK then, what about the supernatural events that so many people
> have seen or been a part of.
>
> EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural even though we have
> definitions for the word supernatural.
Wrong again. Science deals with phenomena which can be observed and
measured. Unless there is something to observe and measure, it cannot
be investigated using the tools of science.
>
> CR: Why is there no such thing?
>
> EV: Because science cannot make a test for it
>
> CR: What kind of test does science need?
>
> EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
> stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
> talking about.
No, a scientific test needs evidence which can be observed and
measured. Scientists may use technical terms, but that is because they
are useful. Scientists in general *do* know what they are talking
about, but science also contains many concepts which are hard to
grasp.
Mind you, evolutionary biology can be explained quite simply, and
there are many excellent and accessible books out there which do so.
>
> CR: So your tests are incomplete? Maybe flawed because humans are
> flawed?
>
> EV: No. Science is always right.
No scientist would ever make such a stupid assertion.
> You are just being stupid.
Ignorant might be a better term.
> Science
> can never be wrong.
No scientist would ever make such a stupid assertion.
> We have the tests. The tests are never wrong until
> we need a revision.
No scientist would ever make such a stupid assertion.
>
> CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?
>
> EV: No. Evolution is an explanation of what happened after life began.
Quite so.
>
> CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
> even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
> evolved?
Because we can observe it in action in populations of living
organisms. It is a fact that evolution happens. Evolutionary theory
seeks to explain *how* it happens.
>
> EV: Shut up. You are just too stupid to understand.
I suggest that it is not so much stupidity as a rigid adherence to a
crabbed and literal interpretation of scripture coupled with an
uncritical acceptance of the distortions, misrepresentations and
outright falsehoods peddled in creationists literature.
> Evolution is just
> an explanation of what happened after life got here. We do not care if
> it originated with a god or not. In fact we are sure it did not
> originate with a God because science says God does not exist because
> we cannot test for god.
If we cannot test for God, how can we say that God does not exist?
Many scientists believe in God. Many don't.
>
> CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
> produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
> rise to another?
>
> EV: We do see that. We got some bones from millions of years ago that
> tells us so.
Actually, we have observed speciation events in nature and replicated
them in the laboratory.
> As long as we can make up stories about these bones and
> bully everyone into thinking we know what we are talking about we are
> right
The fossil record is not and has never been the primary evidence for
evolution. However, evolutionary theory provides the only scientific
explanation for the fossil record, and makes predictions about fossils
we have not yet found. If any creationist has a better, testable
explanation they are free to offer it. "Common design" is not an
explanation because there is no observation or measurement which could
*not* be "explained" by "common design".
>
> CR: Millions?
>
> EV: Yes.
>
> CR: That is a lot of time right?
>
> EV: Yes, we know what we know because we have the tests.
No, we know that because it is confirmed by many independent strands
of evidence, and forms part of a consistent and coherent theory.
> The tests say
> so even though the tests can be revised at any moment. Science is
> never wrong see?
No scientist would ever make such as stupid assertion.
> We know what we are doing see? We have the tests see?
> Our tests show us everything until we find out the tests was wrong
> see? That makes US right and the creationist wrong.
No, what makes science right and creationists wrong is that
creationists insist that they religious beliefs are supported by
science, but demonstrate a profound ignorance of science - as this
post shows. They are also wrong because they are unable to present an
honest argument to support their cause - as this posts shows.
>
> CR: [shaking head in amazement]
Perhaps you should learn something about science rather than making it
up as you go along.
RF
Burkhard
there would be no evolution, and we would not be here to discuss it either.
Iain
> Your evidence looks like common design to me
No it doesn't. Common design wouldn't create a nested hierarchy. It
would create an assortment of similar beings with similar themes, but
no particualr hierarchical pattern.
--Iain
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 15, 8:49 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 6:29 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 15, 7:17 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
>>
>> > THAT would be you.
>>
>> Yet I'm not the one claiming that folk tales are fact...
>>
>> Not as easy to defend against a real person, is it?
>>
>> DJT
>
>The folk tales had an origin. Grounded in real events,
which is hardly science. and those 'real events' could have been
political, moral, cultural, etc...
hardly historical
>
>You cannot say the same.
>
>Evolution begins with the LUCA, (Last Universal Common Ancestor) but
>you cannot establish what the damn thing is. Even if you could, you
>cannot answer how it came to life.
which is irrelevant. it's not relevant to evolution
creationism, however, REQUIRES its common designer to be some ghost
that uses magic to make stuff
how's that working out for you guys?
Eric Root
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:42:18 -0500, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
(snip)
> However, bpuharic is seriously mistaken when he asserts that
> neoDarwinism does NOT depend upon Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a
> "necessary" initial condition of the neoDarwinian processes. If
> Abiogenesis did not occur it doesn't matter whether neoDarwinian
> theory works or not----IT CAN'T GET STARTED. bpuharic must be
> ignorant of the fact that "initial conditions" are neither irrelevent
> nor dispensible.
>
So what? That's like saying religion and football depend on
abiogenesis.
(snip)
Eric Root
TomS
<hdrami$4j3$2...@news.albasani.net>, Burkhard stated..."
I suggest that there is an equivocation involved with two senses of
the word "evolution": Evolution as the process which occurs in the
world of life; and evolution as the study of that process, or our
knowledge about that process.
The process which is evolution is dependent upon there being life,
and presumably, therefore, an origin of life. Just as the mechanics
of the solar system depends upon there being an origin of the solar
system, or chemical reactions depend on the elements having come
about somehow or other.
Evolution, in the sense of the science which treats that process,
is not dependent upon our having knowledge of the origins of life.
No more than the Copernicus-Newton-Einstein description of the
mechanics of the solar system depends upon our having a description
of the origins of the solar system. No more than there is something
incomplete about the science of chemistry if it does not describe
the origins of the elements.
(Of course, if there had been no origin of chemical elements, or
origin of the solar system, or origin of life, then we wouldn't
be here and we wouldn't have those sciences. That's yet another
issue.)
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 15, 8:49 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 6:29 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 7:17 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
>>
>>> THAT would be you.
>>
>> Yet I'm not the one claiming that folk tales are fact...
>>
>> Not as easy to defend against a real person, is it?
>>
>> DJT
>
> The folk tales had an origin.
Yes, they did. They were stories told to explain what was otherwise
inexplicable.
> Grounded in real events,
That claim is not supported by any actual evidence.
>
> You cannot say the same.
Sure I can say the same. "Folk tales had an origin". It doesn't mean
that folk tales have any scientific worth. All scientific work is based
on observations. Ancient Humans made up stories rather than conducted
science.
>
> Evolution begins with the LUCA, (Last Universal Common Ancestor) but
> you cannot establish what the damn thing is.
Science can establish that such a thing existed, however.
> Even if you could, you
> cannot answer how it came to life.
Not yet, but there are some promising lines of inquiry. Much better than
giving up and saying "it must have been magic".
>
> Wanna see what your fairy tale looks like?
Again, ironic, as your own beliefs come from folk tales, legends and
campfire stories.
>
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/63314/origins-of-life
What part of the above do you find implausable, or impossible?
DJT
jcon
> CR = creationist
> EV = evolutionist
>
> CR: God created man
>
> EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
>
> CR: evidence?
>
> EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
> tests. Are you stupid?
>
>
> EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
> stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
>
>
>
> said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
> about 1200 years old?
>
> tests say the bible was written by bronze aged goat herders 1200 years
> ago.
>
>
> EV: NO BUTS. Science is always right. To think other wise is stupid.
> Your God does not exist. Science says so.
>
> have seen or been a part of.
>
> EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural even though we have
> definitions for the word supernatural.
>
>
> EV: Because science cannot make a test for it
>
> CR: What kind of test does science need?
>
> EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
> stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
> talking about.
>
> flawed?
>
> can never be wrong. We have the tests. The tests are never wrong until
> we need a revision.
>
> CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?
>
> EV: No. Evolution is an explanation of what happened after life began.
>
> even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
> evolved?
>
> an explanation of what happened after life got here. We do not care if
> it originated with a god or not. In fact we are sure it did not
> originate with a God because science says God does not exist because
> we cannot test for god.
>
> produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
> rise to another?
>
> EV: We do see that. We got some bones from millions of years ago that
> bully everyone into thinking we know what we are talking about we are
> right
>
>
> EV: Yes.
>
> CR: That is a lot of time right?
>
> so even though the tests can be revised at any moment. Science is
> Our tests show us everything until we find out the tests was wrong
> see? That makes US right and the creationist wrong.
>
No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. You're supposed to have
the "Evolutionist" begin to tremble and sweat, and finally
collapse in tears as he realizes his whole life has been a lie.
Oh, this *was* a script for a Jack Chick tract, wasn't it?
-jc
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:88d7e500-d195-4b83...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 15, 8:49 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 6:29 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 7:17 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
>
> > THAT would be you.
>
> Yet I'm not the one claiming that folk tales are fact...
>
> Not as easy to defend against a real person, is it?
>
> DJT
"The folk tales had an origin. Grounded in real events,
You cannot say the same."
The events themselves were real, like the existence of the universe, but the
explanations are all myth.
.
Boikat
> On Nov 15, 8:49 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 6:29 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 15, 7:17 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
>
> > > THAT would be you.
>
> > Yet I'm not the one claiming that folk tales are fact...
>
> > Not as easy to defend against a real person, is it?
>
> > DJT
>
> The folk tales had an origin. Grounded in real events,
Evidence?
>
> You cannot say the same.
Genetics, detailed morphology, temporal distribution of species in the
fossil record, geographical distribution of species, observed cases of
speciation, transitional forms....
>
> Evolution begins with the LUCA, (Last Universal Common Ancestor) but
> you cannot establish what the damn thing is.
It was most likely a single celled, very simple cell. Expecting to
identify it in the fossil record is siply stupid on your part.
> Even if you could, you
> cannot answer how it came to life.
Irrelevent to the ToE. But tht's been explained to you before, you
dishonest little piece of shit.
>
> Wanna see what your fairy tale looks like?
>
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/63314/origins-of-life
I noticed that you did not mention how any part of it was a "fairy
tale", but I imagine that "arguments od ignorance", "arrogance ",
Incredulity" and "Imbicilty" would play a major part in your critique.
Boikat
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> CR: God created man
No evidence: *DISMISSED!*
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Kermit
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:41:24 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:48:32 -0800, John Harshman
>
> >>All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> >>[snip]
>
> >>Did that help you feel better? It sure is easier when you make up both
> >>sides of the argument, isn't it?
>
> >Yet he still didn't manage to win.
>
> He should experiment with sock puppets.
Um, no. You imply that he could learn something from observing, and he
has not only shown every indication of being incapable of that, he has
stated his intention to not learn (from reality).
Even in a solo "two-way argument", which is merely a physical
representation of his imagination, he would have to actually listen to
what he is saying and try to imagine what it would sound like to a
listener. This is dangerously close to considering the consequences of
an event or assertion, and Creationists are taught from toddlerhood to
never, ever, do this.
> --
> My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Nov 15, 8:49 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 6:29 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 15, 7:17 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
>
> > > THAT would be you.
>
> > Yet I'm not the one claiming that folk tales are fact...
>
> > Not as easy to defend against a real person, is it?
>
> > DJT
>
> The folk tales had an origin. Grounded in real events,
Yes. Rome had an origin, also: Romulus and Remus. Do you really think
they were raised by a wolf? How could we confirm this unlikely event?
Does the nature of the twins, including their very existence, make any
differenc ein the asusmption that Rome had a beginning, and was
probably the result of perfectly ordinary events?
>
> You cannot say the same.
Correct. Perhaps the first replicating cell on Earth was a special
miracle of Yahweh, or simply written into the program of our virtual
reality as the beginning of the game, or planted by aliens, instead of
the results of ordinary chemistry in the early Earth environment over
several hundred million years.
We are, however, developing hypotheses which fit all the known data
about chemistry and the Early Earth.
However it came about, evolution happened, and the diversity of life
grew into the biosystem we are currently familiar with.
>
> Evolution begins with the LUCA, (Last Universal Common Ancestor) but
> you cannot establish what the damn thing is. Even if you could, you
> cannot answer how it came to life.
Not yet, with a high degree of confidence. But probably soon (within
30 years).
>
> Wanna see what your fairy tale looks like?
I don't believe in fairy tales.
>
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/63314/origins-of-life
Kermit
All-seeing-I
> On Nov 16, 12:38 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 8:49 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 15, 6:29 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 15, 7:17 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
>
> > > > THAT would be you.
>
> > > Yet I'm not the one claiming that folk tales are fact...
>
> > > Not as easy to defend against a real person, is it?
>
> > > DJT
>
> > The folk tales had an origin. Grounded in real events,
>
> Yes. Rome had an origin, also: Romulus and Remus. Do you really think
> they were raised by a wolf? How could we confirm this unlikely event?
> Does the nature of the twins, including their very existence, make any
> differenc ein the asusmption that Rome had a beginning, and was
> probably the result of perfectly ordinary events?
Why do you have such trouble with metaphors?
>
> > You cannot say the same.
>
> Correct. Perhaps the first replicating cell on Earth was a special
> miracle of Yahweh, or simply written into the program of our virtual
> reality as the beginning of the game, or planted by aliens, instead of
> the results of ordinary chemistry in the early Earth environment over
> several hundred million years.
>
> We are, however, developing hypotheses which fit all the known data
> about chemistry and the Early Earth.
>
> However it came about, evolution happened, and the diversity of life
> grew into the biosystem we are currently familiar with.
>
Partly due to evolution. You cannot show speciation ---but more
important you cannot duplicate it.
While otoh, even someone like yourself can show variation in your own
garden
>
> > Evolution begins with the LUCA, (Last Universal Common Ancestor) but
> > you cannot establish what the damn thing is. Even if you could, you
> > cannot answer how it came to life.
>
> Not yet, with a high degree of confidence. But probably soon (within
> 30 years).
Yeah Right.
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:28:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
I would expect nothing short of an answer like this on such a complex
topic from someone like yourself.
Boikat
> On Nov 16, 11:06 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 12:38 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 15, 8:49 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 15, 6:29 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 15, 7:17 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
>
> > > > > THAT would be you.
>
> > > > Yet I'm not the one claiming that folk tales are fact...
>
> > > > Not as easy to defend against a real person, is it?
>
> > > > DJT
>
> > > The folk tales had an origin. Grounded in real events,
>
> > Yes. Rome had an origin, also: Romulus and Remus. Do you really think
> > they were raised by a wolf? How could we confirm this unlikely event?
> > Does the nature of the twins, including their very existence, make any
> > differenc ein the asusmption that Rome had a beginning, and was
> > probably the result of perfectly ordinary events?
>
> Why do you have such trouble with metaphors?
Irony, thy name is All Seeing-I(diot).
<snip>
Boikat
Sapient Fridge
<88d7e500-d195-4b83...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>On Nov 15, 8:49�pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 6:29�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 15, 7:17�pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
>>
>> > THAT would be you.
>>
>> Yet I'm not the one claiming that folk tales are fact...
>>
>> Not as easy to defend against a real person, is it?
>>
>> DJT
>
>The folk tales had an origin. Grounded in real events,
>
>You cannot say the same.
>
>Evolution begins with the LUCA, (Last Universal Common Ancestor)
Incorrect. Evolution began with the *first* replicator, which was
probably several hundred million years before the LUCA. Life was
clearly well evolved by the time the LUCA came on the scene.
>but
>you cannot establish what the damn thing is.
Actually we can get a reasonably clear idea of what the LUCA was like by
looking to see what all life has in common. What we don't know is what
the first replicator was and precisely how it evolved into the LUCA.
Lots of research going into that though.
> Even if you could, you
>cannot answer how it came to life.
Define "life" and explain how it differs from chemistry.
Or, to put another way, if I have a chemical in a test tube which makes
copies of itself given the right raw materials in its environment then
is it alive?
>Wanna see what your fairy tale looks like?
>
>http://www.hulu.com/watch/63314/origins-of-life
>
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Caranx latus
Complex topic? A fabricated conversation between yourself and
yourself? Complex?
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>CR: God created man
>
>EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
And that is all there is to say on the subject.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Davej
Let's try it again.
CR = creationist, EV = evolutionist
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
CR: God created man
EV: evidence?
CR: We have plenty of evidence. Bible says so. We have all sorts of
Bibles. Are you stupid?
EV: Sorry. Your evidence looks like folklore to me.
CR: Folklore? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
stupid. Do NOT question Biblical authority. We have ALL the answers.
OK.
EV: But what about all the extinct fossilized animals?
CR: The Great Flood.
EV: How can the Great Flood explain Koalas and Kangaroos traveling
from Mt. Ararat to Australia? Did they swim?
CR: Do not argue with me. The Bible is right. Almighty God is the only
answer.
EV: But..
CR: NO BUTS. The Bible is always right. To think otherwise is stupid
and immoral.
Evolution does not happen. The Bible says so and remember all the
supernatural
events that so many people have seen or been a part of.
EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural. Even though we have
the word
supernatural we do not have objective evidence to support this
phenomena.
CR: Why is there no such thing?
EV: Because no one has ever demonstrated anything supernatural under
laboratory conditions.
CR: What kind of test does science need?
EV: If you can demonstrate the supernatural then contact a few
scientists and become instantly wealthy and famous. James Randi
offered a million dollar challenge for many years but finally grew
tired of the idiocy of the mentally ill people who contacted him.
CR: So the supernatural claims are always flawed? Maybe flawed because
humans are flawed?
EV: No one has been able to demonstrate anything supernatural.
CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?
EV: Chemistry happens. Molecules form spontaneously. Over billions of
years a variety of molecules can form through random chemical
interactions. Evolution is the explanation of what happened after life
began.
CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
evolved?
EV: Because we can look at the fossil record and see that almost all
species which have ever existed are now extinct, and because we can
see that the fossils form distinct lineages which branch from common
ancestors. For example we can see that the modern horse evolved from a
five-toed ancestor, but it did not suddenly lose four toes. It lost
the toes gradually over many, many generations. We can date these
fossils using trace radioactivity and see which animal came first. We
can also look at the distribution of plant and animal life in isolated
places in the world today and see how these species are related to
similar species found elsewhere. We can look at how the isolated
species have changed. We can also study organisms at the genetic level
and see what genetic changes have yielded morphological changes in the
organism. We know that in the wild it is a struggle to survive and
that each generation passes its genetic makeup on to the next
generation. We know the copying process is not exact and that children
resemble their parents but are not exact copies of their parents.
Animal husbandry has yielded clear and obvious changes to many
domesticated animals and the struggle for survival would operate in a
very similar manner.
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
EV: We do see that but it is a gradual process. We see small but very
distinct changes. For example a bacteria which had no ability to
utilize citrate was bred over many generations until it could indeed
survive on citrate alone. This required many years and many thousands
of generations of bacteria. We have also observed distinct changes in
macroscopic species. In a large animal this sort of significant change
might require millions of years.
CR: Millions?
EV: Yes.
CR: That is a lot of time right?
EV: Yes, we know what we know because we have scientific methods of
investigation. These methods allow us to date fossils using
radioactive trace elements. These methods allow us to compare fossil
anatomy. The methods allow us to sequence genetic code. That means we
have various lines of evidence to back up our claims while creationist
have nothing but claims of supernatural intervention which they have
no evidence to support.
raven1
There's nothing complex about it: either you have evidence for your
assertion, or you don't.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
<snip>
>If
>Abiogenesis did not occur it doesn't matter whether neoDarwinian
>theory works or not----IT CAN'T GET STARTED.
Really? Not even if God uses the evolutionary process after
the Creation?
From a quote several years ago by Louann Miller:
"Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working
universe complete with fake fossils in under a week - hey,
if you're not omnipotent, there's no real point in being a
god. But to start with a big ball of elementary particles
and end up with the duckbill platypus without constant
twiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to
Think Things Through: exactly the qualities I'm looking for
when I'm shopping for a Supreme Being."
Stop telling God what He's allowed to do, Tony; that's
documented to be one of His hot buttons, and you probably
won't like the result.
<snip>
Seems replacing "buharic" with "Tony Pagano" in the Subject:
field would yield a significant increase in accuracy...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
<lu...@nofreelunch.us>:
>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:46:05 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote in talk.origins:
>>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:42:18 -0500, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:28:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>><allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>>CR = creationist
>>>>EV = evolutionist
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>CR: God created man
>>>>
>>>>EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
>>>>
>>>>CR: evidence?
>>>>
>>>>EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
>>>>tests. Are you stupid?
>>>well let's see
>>>
>>>-evolution does not depend on abiogenesis...a common enough mistake
>>>among creationists...but it shows they don't understand science
>>>-no scientist says we have 'plenty of evidence' about abiogenesis
>>All-Seeing-I is presenting the overall framework of purely
>>naturalistic evolution accurately.
>
>Tony, you aren't nearly as stupid as madman, why embarrass yourself here
>with such nonsense.
Interesting question: Is willful blindness in support of
unsupported belief equivalent to stupidity? I'd say it is,
but YMMV.
<snip>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>Partly due to evolution. You cannot show speciation ---but more
>important you cannot duplicate it.
we don't have to duplicate it. we have to explain it
which evolution does...and creationism doesn't
>
Kermit
> On Nov 16, 11:06 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 12:38 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 15, 8:49 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 15, 6:29 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 15, 7:17 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
>
> > > > > THAT would be you.
>
> > > > Yet I'm not the one claiming that folk tales are fact...
>
> > > > Not as easy to defend against a real person, is it?
>
> > > > DJT
>
> > > The folk tales had an origin. Grounded in real events,
>
> > Yes. Rome had an origin, also: Romulus and Remus. Do you really think
> > they were raised by a wolf? How could we confirm this unlikely event?
> > Does the nature of the twins, including their very existence, make any
> > differenc ein the asusmption that Rome had a beginning, and was
> > probably the result of perfectly ordinary events?
>
> Why do you have such trouble with metaphors?
Eh? I'm not the one who thinks that the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the
Tower of Babel, and Methuselah's long life were literally true.
While Romulus and Remus may have been people at one point, I assume
the story is fable, used to personify the ferocity of Rome, to help
characterize the traits of Roman citizens. One of those many
alternatives to concrete truth and lies, which you have so much
trouble admitting.
>
> > > You cannot say the same.
>
> > Correct. Perhaps the first replicating cell on Earth was a special
> > miracle of Yahweh, or simply written into the program of our virtual
> > reality as the beginning of the game, or planted by aliens, instead of
> > the results of ordinary chemistry in the early Earth environment over
> > several hundred million years.
>
> > We are, however, developing hypotheses which fit all the known data
> > about chemistry and the Early Earth.
>
> > However it came about, evolution happened, and the diversity of life
> > grew into the biosystem we are currently familiar with.
>
> Partly due to evolution. You cannot show speciation ---but more
> important you cannot duplicate it.
We have shown speciation, in the lab and in the field. More
importantly, we understand the mechanism and have much evidence from
many fields of science.
Science does not duplicate the phenomena it studies. What loon gave
you that idea? The *observations have to be verifiable, and the models
to explain them testable (they have to make predictions of some sort).
You and I can walk into a natural history museum, go online, visit a
geology college, open a book, and see the data.
>
> While otoh, even someone like yourself can show variation in your own
> garden
Yes. And as some plants survive, but most die under our tender loving
care, my sweetie and I are slowly watching the various species in our
garden evolve. They won't speciate, however; the time between
generations is at least a year, and the conditions will not select for
reproductive isolation in our lifetime, or more importantly, the
lifetime of the garden.
>
>
>
> > > Evolution begins with the LUCA, (Last Universal Common Ancestor) but
> > > you cannot establish what the damn thing is. Even if you could, you
> > > cannot answer how it came to life.
>
> > Not yet, with a high degree of confidence. But probably soon (within
> > 30 years).
>
> Yeah Right.
Yes. Right before the fusion power plants go on line, but after AI and
jet packs become available...
Kermit
Mark Isaak
Let's try this for real.
> CR = creationist
> EV = evolutionist
>
>
> CR: God created man
EV: What does that even mean? What's a god? How does the process work?
> CR: evidence [of evolution from a single ancestor]?
EV: We have plenty of evidence. The NCBI has hundreds of genome
sequences you can compare, for example. Look also at comparative
anatomy, the fossil record, and more. There is literally tons of
evidence, and it is well documented in thousands of books and probably
hundreds of thousands of articles. Why can't you find the answer for
yourself?
> CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
That's because you don't understand design, either. Designers aim for
simplicity and adapt concepts from completely different lineages; life
looks nothing like that. To the extent that life *does* look designed,
that is because evolution has much in common with the design process,
such as reproduction, variation, and selection.
> CR: But what about books like the bible?
Which books? Which bible? Why do you reject the Kalivala, Prose Edda,
Popol Vuh, Kumulipo, Watunna cycle, all the Vedas, Hesiod's Theogeny, and
hundreds more? Probably for the same reason why we take the Bible to be
folklore with some historical content but whose intent is actually lost
when one looks at it as a textbook.
> CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
> said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
> about 1200 years old?
The history of the Bible is far more complicated than you suppose. It
went through processes of gradual change, rejection of some parts for
various reasons, replication, more changes, more rejections,
translations, translations of translations, more selection, etc. It
evolved.
> CR: But..
Don't take my word for it. Look for yourself. A lot of the evidence is
in the Bible itself, but see also the different translations, the
Apocrypha, and any of several historical analyses of them.
> CR: OK then, what about the supernatural events that so many people
> have seen or been a part of.
You yourself have said that human perceptions are fallible, and we know
that there are common modes of failure which seem like supernatural
phenomena. Put something supernatural on a scientist's desk, and he or
she would be glad to investigate it. In fact, they have investigated the
purportedly supernatural, several times, and they have never found
anything that merits the label.
> CR: Why is there no such thing [as "supernatural"]?
Just look at the word: "Natural", in this context, means everything that
exists. "Super-" means "outside of, not a part of". So something that
is supernatural is outside that which exists; it is by definition
nonexistent.
In practice, the word is used to refer to phenomena with unknown but
presumably magic causes. As noted above, no such causes have been found.
> CR: What kind of test does science need?
A test that others can repeat. At the very least, others must be able to
look at the same phenomenon and come up with consistent measurements of
it.
Some phenomena, for various reasons, do not qualify for such testing.
That does not mean they do not exist, or even that they are unimportant,
just that they are not science.
> CR: So your tests are incomplete? Maybe flawed because humans are
> flawed?
Of course, but the repeatability means the tests can be double-checked,
and triple-, and quadruple-checked, and more. Plus, the tests are
subject to basic sanity checks for consistency and intelligibility.
Early scientific results very often warrant suspicion, but once two or
three or more teams repeat the experiment (or, even better, check the
same results with different experiments), the results may be accepted
with high degrees of confidence.
In particular, the various parts of evolution (common descent, change
over time, natural selection as a mechanism, etc.) have been checked over
and over and over by many different kinds of tests. It is extremely
unlikely that they are wrong.
> CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?
How life arose is an open question with many plausible hypotheses but so
far no clear answers.
Life is tricky to define exactly, but the same is true for almost every
other word in the language. Don't worry about it.
> CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
> even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
> evolved?
Do you need to see cars being made to understand that they roll? We see
evolution happening.
> CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
> produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
> rise to another?
We do see one form of life giving rise to another. For example, my chin
has a slightly different shape from either of my parents; I myself am
thus a different form. Your mistake is to insist that "different form"
must be hugely, unrecognizably different all at once. That's not
evolution; it is creation.
How do large differences form, then? A little at a time. Note that
creationists are generally agreed that there is no limit to the extent
to which the little changes can accumulate (at least, they have never
mentioned any). So little change + little change + ... for a few tens of
thousands of years, or even millions of years = big change.
> CR: Millions?
Yes. We have lots of different ways to measure time past, and they all
agree that a lot of time has past.
> CR: That is a lot of time right?
Is that too hard for you to comprehend?
> CR: [shaking head in amazement]
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> The folk tales had an origin. Grounded in real events,
So you really do believe that the earth is covered by a solid dome?
Earle Jones
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:51:44 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
> <lu...@nofreelunch.us>:
>
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:46:05 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
> >wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:42:18 -0500, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:28:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> >>><allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>CR = creationist
> >>>>EV = evolutionist
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>CR: God created man
> >>>>
> >>>>EV: Evidence?
(cue the crickets...)
earle
*
Grandbank
wrote:
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
(snip)
>
> > EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
>
> > CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
> > said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
> > about 1200 years old?
>
>
(snip)
It means that he can't differentiate between the concepts of *writing
and *compilation. Color me surprised.
KP
Ernest Major
<wf...@comcast.net> writes
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:56:34 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
><ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>Partly due to evolution. You cannot show speciation ---but more
>>important you cannot duplicate it.
>
>we don't have to duplicate it. we have to explain it
However speciation has been duplicated. See synthetic wheats and
Brassicas. See Arabidopsis suecica. See Helianthus anomalus. See
Nicotiana tabacum. See Verne Grant's work on Gilia.
If he means that we can't duplicate every single speciation event, then
we can point out that we can't duplicate every single supernova or every
single volcanic eruption, but that doesn't lead to the rejection of
astronomy and geology.
>
>which evolution does...and creationism doesn't
>
>>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 15, 8:49 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 6:29 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 15, 7:17 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
>>
>> > THAT would be you.
>>
>> Yet I'm not the one claiming that folk tales are fact...
>>
>> Not as easy to defend against a real person, is it?
>>
>> DJT
>
>The folk tales had an origin. Grounded in real events,
Prove it.
>
>You cannot say the same.
>
>Evolution begins with the LUCA, (Last Universal Common Ancestor) but
>you cannot establish what the damn thing is. Even if you could, you
>cannot answer how it came to life.
No need to.
>
>Wanna see what your fairy tale looks like?
>
>http://www.hulu.com/watch/63314/origins-of-life
Only available in the USA.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 16, 11:06 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 12:38 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 15, 8:49 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 15, 6:29 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Nov 15, 7:17 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > I can see why you prefer fantasy to reality.
>>
>> > > > THAT would be you.
>>
>> > > Yet I'm not the one claiming that folk tales are fact...
>>
>> > > Not as easy to defend against a real person, is it?
>>
>> > > DJT
>>
>> > The folk tales had an origin. Grounded in real events,
>>
>> Yes. Rome had an origin, also: Romulus and Remus. Do you really think
>> they were raised by a wolf? How could we confirm this unlikely event?
>> Does the nature of the twins, including their very existence, make any
>> differenc ein the asusmption that Rome had a beginning, and was
>> probably the result of perfectly ordinary events?
>
>Why do you have such trouble with metaphors?
Why do you have such trouble with reality?
>>
>> > You cannot say the same.
>>
>> Correct. Perhaps the first replicating cell on Earth was a special
>> miracle of Yahweh, or simply written into the program of our virtual
>> reality as the beginning of the game, or planted by aliens, instead of
>> the results of ordinary chemistry in the early Earth environment over
>> several hundred million years.
>>
>> We are, however, developing hypotheses which fit all the known data
>> about chemistry and the Early Earth.
>>
>> However it came about, evolution happened, and the diversity of life
>> grew into the biosystem we are currently familiar with.
>>
>Partly due to evolution. You cannot show speciation
Liar!
> ---but more
>important you cannot duplicate it.
>
>While otoh, even someone like yourself can show variation in your own
>garden
>
>>
>> > Evolution begins with the LUCA, (Last Universal Common Ancestor) but
>> > you cannot establish what the damn thing is. Even if you could, you
>> > cannot answer how it came to life.
>>
>> Not yet, with a high degree of confidence. But probably soon (within
>> 30 years).
>
>Yeah Right.
He is, you are not.
--
Bob.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product
of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No
interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
- letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind, Jan. 3, 1954.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion
Erwin Moller
I wonder why you must make up your own twisted evolutionist, while you
have so many around here, all perfectly able to defend their own views.
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Desertphile
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:59:19 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 16, 10:51 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:28:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> > CR: God created man
> >> No evidence: *DISMISSED!*
> >I would expect nothing short of an answer like this on such a complex
> >topic from someone like yourself.
All-Blinded-Eye wouldn't know a complex subject from finger
painting: it's all the same to Creationist rightard wankfucks.
The assertion that gods existed, let alone created anything, is
extremely simple: produce some evidence, or be laughed at.
> There's nothing complex about it: either you have evidence for your
> assertion, or you don't.
Evidence is a profane word when one ain't got any.
Desertphile
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
> Hi Madman,
>
> I wonder why you must make up your own twisted evolutionist, while you
> have so many around here, all perfectly able to defend their own views.
He knows it's impossible to defeat a defended position; far easier
to attack a position nobody defends, and then crow about
"winning."
> Erwin Moller
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:56:34 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >Partly due to evolution. You cannot show speciation ---but more
> >important you cannot duplicate it.
Golly, the ole "You can't duplicate a murder of the victim in the
lab, therefore the murder victim isn't dead" assertion. Sheeeish.
> we don't have to duplicate it. we have to explain it
> which evolution does...and creationism doesn't
Creationism has had tens of thousands of years to explain the
natural world and it has failed to add anything at all to human
knowledge, except perhaps to the field of abnormal psychology.
Eric Root
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:42:18 -0500, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:28:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> ><allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >>EV = evolutionist
>
> >>CR: God created man
>
>
> >>CR: evidence?
>
> >>EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
> >>tests. Are you stupid?
>
> >well let's see
>
> >-evolution does not depend on abiogenesis...a common enough mistake
> >among creationists...but it shows they don't understand science
> >-no scientist says we have 'plenty of evidence' about abiogenesis
>
> All-Seeing-I is presenting the overall framework of purely
> of evolutionism is composed of (at least) Abiogenesis AND Common
> Descent coupled to Random Mutations/Natural Selection (that is,
> neoDarwinism).
>
> The mistake some creationists make is to accuse neoDarwinian theory of
> failing to explain abiogenesis or in rare instances leaping from
> Abiogenesis's complete failure to the failure of neoDarwinism. Nowhere
> does All-Seein-I fall into these errors.
>
> However, bpuharic is seriously mistaken when he asserts that
> neoDarwinism does NOT depend upon Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a
> "necessary" initial condition of the neoDarwinian processes. If
> Abiogenesis did not occur it doesn't matter whether neoDarwinian
> ignorant of the fact that "initial conditions" are neither irrelevent
> nor dispensible.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
People are notoriously bad at determining how smart other people think
they are.
Eric Root
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Hey, Tony? Are you going to stop dictating to God?
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
John Harshman
[snip]
Hey, Tony probably isn't even as smart as *I* think he is. And that's an
extremely low bar.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
You may well be correct; he certainly never managed to
answer a couple of extremely simple and direct questions
regarding observed evidence vs. Scripture. Much blather and
waffling, but no actual answers.
John Harshman
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:57:15 -0800, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Hey, Tony probably isn't even as smart as *I* think he is. And that's an
>> extremely low bar.
>
> You may well be correct; he certainly never managed to
> answer a couple of extremely simple and direct questions
> regarding observed evidence vs. Scripture. Much blather and
> waffling, but no actual answers.
He has since gone into 100% post-and-run mode. Apparently, if you want
him to actually answer you, you have to start a new thread, chant "I
believe in Mary Worth" three times into a mirror, and find the Golden
Ticket.
T Pagano
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <apagano-ft91g5tdbbvv3...@4ax.com>, T
>Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:42:18 -0500, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:28:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>><allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>CR = creationist
>>>>EV = evolutionist
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>CR: God created man
>>>>
>>>>EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
>>>>
>>>>CR: evidence?
>>>>
>>>>EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
>>>>tests. Are you stupid?
>>>
>>>well let's see
>>>
>>>-evolution does not depend on abiogenesis...a common enough mistake
>>>among creationists...but it shows they don't understand science
>>>-no scientist says we have 'plenty of evidence' about abiogenesis
>>
>>All-Seeing-I is presenting the overall framework of purely
>>naturalistic evolution accurately. The purely naturalistic framework
>>of evolutionism is composed of (at least) Abiogenesis AND Common
>>Descent coupled to Random Mutations/Natural Selection (that is,
>>neoDarwinism).
>>
>>The mistake some creationists make is to accuse neoDarwinian theory of
>>failing to explain abiogenesis or in rare instances leaping from
>>Abiogenesis's complete failure to the failure of neoDarwinism. Nowhere
>>does All-Seein-I fall into these errors.
>
>You're missing the point by a wide margin. The error the M/adman is
>being called on is a strawman misrepresentation of scientific opinion.
In this instance of my previous post I was making a generalization
about some creationists and NOT about [M]adman in particular.
>>
>>However, bpuharic is seriously mistaken when he asserts that
>>neoDarwinism does NOT depend upon Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a
>>"necessary" initial condition of the neoDarwinian processes. If
>>Abiogenesis did not occur it doesn't matter whether neoDarwinian
>>theory works or not----IT CAN'T GET STARTED. bpuharic must be
>>ignorant of the fact that "initial conditions" are neither irrelevent
>>nor dispensible.
>
>By asserting that abiogenesis is necessary for evolution you are
>implicitly arguing for the factuality of abiogenesis.
Whether I do not is irrelevent to the logical mistake make by
bpuharic.
He mistakenly claimed that neoDarwinism does NOT depend upon
Abiogenesis. As I point out EVERY naturalistic process depends upon
specific initial conditions and Abiogenesis "is" an initial condition
of neoDarwinism. If every variation of Abiogenesis is contradicted
by law-like knowledge of biochemistry and organic chemistry---and so
far they all are----then neoDarwinism lacked the initial conditions to
even begin.
The fact that biological diversity exists is neither prima facie
evidence that neoDarwinism nor Abiogenesis occurred.
>Common descent
>with modification through the agency of natural selection and other
>processes is supported by voluminous evidence.
There is certainly voluminous evidence of the sort the animal breeders
and agricultural breeders can produce. And the sort of evidence that
Lenski's 40,000+ generations of E coli produce. Unfortunately none of
the evidence provided by these shows TRANSFORMATIONAL change. That is
how does a lung, wing, and an eye arise where it never existed in a
pedecessor population?
> Therefore, if abiogenesis
>is necessary for evolution, we would infer that abiogenesis did happen.
>(And we do, but I suspect that we consider more alternatives under the
>rubric of abiogenesis that you do, since from the context you appear to
>be talking about spontaneous abiogenesis.)
Your argument collapses because:
1. Solid biochemistry and organic chemistry contradict all current
versions of Abiogenesis.
2. Ernest Major argues in a cirlce that the mere existence of
biological diversity is prima facie evidence of the truthlikeness of
the theory which is supposed to explain how the diversity arose.
3. And while Ernest Major is correct that there is voluminous
evidence of minor variations of EXISTING genetic information, back and
forth, within limits. There is no empirical evidence, ANYWHERE, of
transformational change. This is most painfully apparent in Lenski's
20 year E coli experiment where he controlled environmental conditions
and protected variations for breeding. NO transformational change has
ever been observed. Behe has pointed out the same with the malaria
parasite and the rapidly mutating HIV viurs.
4. Finally, the fossil record shows nothing-but discrete, fully
formed populations that appear suddenly, exist in the record for
millions of years, and then disappear with little appreciable change.
Purely naturalistic processes----by necessity----follow linear-like,
overlapping paths. This is why Darwin placed no particular value in
Species and why Darwin knew that the fossil record's discrete (lack of
continuity) nature contradicted his theory.
Regards,
T Pagano
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:56:13 +0000, Ernest Major
>
>
>
> >In message <apagano-ft91g5tdbbvv34utfkg9s3nbfvm1do6...@4ax.com>, T
> >Pagano <not.va...@address.net> writes
FALSEHOOD #1
"neoDarwinism" does not depend on abiogenesis.
> As I point out EVERY naturalistic process depends upon
> specific initial conditions and Abiogenesis "is" an initial condition.
FALSEHOOD #2
..and trivially false. According to this argument, we would not be
able to predict the orbits of planets without knowing how they were
formed.
> of neoDarwinism. If every variation of Abiogenesis is contradicted
> by law-like knowledge of biochemistry and organic chemistry
FALSEHOOD #3
*ALL* theories of abiogenesis are based on the *known* "laws" of
chemistry.
> ---and so
> far they all are----then neoDarwinism lacked the initial conditions to
> even begin.
..which is utterly irrelevant, just as a robust theory of planetary
formation is irrelevant to a study of the orbits of planets.
>
> The fact that biological diversity exists is neither prima facie
> evidence that neoDarwinism nor Abiogenesis occurred.
Actually, the fact that life exists is evidence that abiogenesis
occurred.
Biological diversity is explained very well by evolutionary theory,
and there is no other scientific theory which explains it.
>
> >Common descent
> >with modification through the agency of natural selection and other
> >processes is supported by voluminous evidence.
>
> There is certainly voluminous evidence of the sort the animal breeders
> and agricultural breeders can produce. And the sort of evidence that
> Lenski's 40,000+ generations of E coli produce. Unfortunately none of
> the evidence provided by these shows TRANSFORMATIONAL change.
FALSEHOOD #4
You've been provided with examples of "transformational change". You
ignore them and repeat this outright falsehood.
Why do you think that such a blatant lie adds weight to your argument?
> That is
> how does a lung,
We have a pretty good "transformational series" in *existing*
organisms which show the path whereby lungs could evolve.
> wing,
You've been given the example of the intermediate stages by which the
bird wing evolved from the forelimbs of theropod dinosaurs. If this is
not an example of "transformational change", just what *would* you
accept as evidence?
> and an eye arise where it never existed in a
> pedecessor population?
This question was addressed by Darwin 150 years ago.
>
> > Therefore, if abiogenesis
> >is necessary for evolution, we would infer that abiogenesis did happen.
We infer that abiogenesis happened because we know that life exists.
> >(And we do, but I suspect that we consider more alternatives under the
> >rubric of abiogenesis that you do, since from the context you appear to
> >be talking about spontaneous abiogenesis.)
A scientific investigation of abiogenesis operates under the same
basic assumption of naturalism as every other investigation in every
other field of science.
>
> Your argument collapses because:
> 1. Solid biochemistry and organic chemistry contradict all current
> versions of Abiogenesis.
FALSEHOOD #5
richardal...@googlemail.com
>
>
> 1. Solid biochemistry and organic chemistry contradict all current
> versions of Abiogenesis.
FALSEHOOD #5
*ALL* theories of abiogenesis are based on a knowledge of chemistry.
> 2. Ernest Major argues in a cirlce that the mere existence of
> biological diversity is prima facie evidence of the truthlikeness of
> the theory which is supposed to explain how the diversity arose.
Does he?
> 3. And while Ernest Major is correct that there is voluminous
> evidence of minor variations of EXISTING genetic information, back and
> forth, within limits.
FALSEHOOD #6
There is no evidence for limits on evolutionary processes.
> There is no empirical evidence, ANYWHERE, of
> transformational change.
FALSEHOOD #7
You have been given several examples, but have not explained why they
are *not* "transformational change".
Why do you think that lying adds weight to your argument?
> This is most painfully apparent in Lenski's
> 20 year E coli experiment where he controlled environmental conditions
> and protected variations for breeding.
FALSEHOOD #8
The experment showed the evolution of new biological functions.
> NO transformational change has
> ever been observed.
FALSEHOOD #9
You have been given several examples, but have not explained why they
are *not* "transformational change".
> Behe has pointed out the same with the malaria
> parasite and the rapidly mutating HIV viurs.
Behe is lying in that case.
> 4. Finally, the fossil record shows nothing-but discrete, fully
> formed populations that appear suddenly, exist in the record for
> millions of years, and then disappear with little appreciable change.
FALSEHOOD #10
This is flatly false. For example, Brinkman's studies of Oxford Clay
ammonites showed statistically significant morphological variation
through the sedimentary sequence. There are many other studies of this
kind, such as those of Micraster in the Chalk.
Why do you think that an ignorance of the subject does anything other
than make you look dogmatically ignorant?
> Purely naturalistic processes----by necessity----follow linear-like,
> overlapping paths.
FALSEHOOD #11
What nonsense!
> This is why Darwin placed no particular value in
> Species
Excuse me? Have you ever *read* anything Darwin wrote?
> and why Darwin knew that the fossil record's discrete (lack of
> continuity) nature contradicted his theory.
FALSEHOOD #12
Darwin knew that the fossil record was very patchy. His theory was
vindicated by the discovery of Archaeopteryx only a few years after
"Origin of Species" was published.
By what criteria do you think that Archaeopteryx is *not* evidence for
"transformational change", and if not, what do you think evolutionary
theory *does* predict?
> Regards,
> T Pagano
...and a string of falsehoods as ever.
By the way, are you sticking with your assertion that the Pope is a
liar, or do you think that he is an atheist?
RF
Ernest Major
<2089bc34-6a8e-4c1b...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
"richardal...@googlemail.com" <richardal...@googlemail.com>
writes
>> 2. Ernest Major argues in a cirlce that the mere existence of
>> biological diversity is prima facie evidence of the truthlikeness of
>> the theory which is supposed to explain how the diversity arose.
>
>Does he?
I don't.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:56:13 +0000, Ernest Major
><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>By asserting that abiogenesis is necessary for evolution you are
>>implicitly arguing for the factuality of abiogenesis.
Exactly, since we observe evolution.
>Whether I do not is irrelevent to the logical mistake make by
>bpuharic.
>
>He mistakenly claimed that neoDarwinism does NOT depend upon
>Abiogenesis.
He's not mistaken; it doesn't.
>As I point out EVERY naturalistic process depends upon
>specific initial conditions
As with many of the things you "point out", this one is
wrong. The only initial condition required for evolution is
"living things with imperfect replication of heritable
traits exist". No more is required. It makes no difference
whether those living things were Specially Created, dropped
off by visiting aliens or developed naturally through
chemical reactions in situ. As an analogy (which you will
either ignore or attempt to twist to suit your purposes,
probably blathering something about the difference between
"created" and "natural") the on-track performance of a
Ferrari F1 racer in no way depends on the source of the ore
from which its engine was built or of the glass and carbon
in the body panels; it depends only on the processing and
fabrication of the resulting material.
You're wrong again, Tony, and anyone with even a modicum of
scientific or technical knowledge, plus at least a minimal
ability to think logically, knows you're wrong.
<snip>
John Harshman
But dontcha just love "truthlikeness"? Tony has a way with words. Not a
good way, but a way nonetheless.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:56:13 +0000, Ernest Major
><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>By asserting that abiogenesis is necessary for evolution you are
>>implicitly arguing for the factuality of abiogenesis.
>
>Whether I do not is irrelevent to the logical mistake make by
>bpuharic.
>
>He mistakenly claimed that neoDarwinism does NOT depend upon
>Abiogenesis.
pagano flatulently proclaims that you have to know the origin of atoms
before chemistry can be done. which is wrong
exactly analogous to saying you have to know the origin of life to
understand evolution.
pagano is a scientific...and theological illiterate. to him, every
catholic bishop is a heretic and every scientist is an atheist.
and we know that's true because he says it is.
>As I point out EVERY naturalistic process depends upon
>specific initial conditions
absolutely wrong. a simple example will suffice to show why
when we measure the entropy change in the reaction C + O2 > CO2 we do
not have to know how the C atom was formed, nor do we have to know the
process that formed the O2. it could have been by photosynthesis. it
could have been by an artificial process
the intial origins of the atoms are absolutely irrelevant to the
reaction
but pagano's not a scientist. he justs plays one in church.
he will, of course, ignore this because he's unable to rebut it. and
tomorrow he'll state the same lie.
the statement i just made is a fact of physics. it disproves his
statement. he's wrong.
but he's a creationist.
>and Abiogenesis "is" an initial condition
>of neoDarwinism.
irrelevant. the CHANGES that took place in the population between
initial abiogenesis and the current population under study are
irrelevant to the transitions under study
If every variation of Abiogenesis is contradicted
>by law-like knowledge of biochemistry and organic chemistry---and so
>far they all are----then neoDarwinism lacked the initial conditions to
>even begin.
gee pagano. i'm a chemist. explain to me why abiogenesis is
contradicted by the laws of chemistry.
go ahead. because if you CAN"T then you're just lying.
right?
>
>The fact that biological diversity exists is neither prima facie
>evidence that neoDarwinism nor Abiogenesis occurred.
correct. what IS relevant is that
1. we can SEE evolution take place
2 we can TEST its mechanism
we can do neither for creationism.
>
>
>>Common descent
>>with modification through the agency of natural selection and other
>>processes is supported by voluminous evidence.
>
>There is certainly voluminous evidence of the sort the animal breeders
>and agricultural breeders can produce. And the sort of evidence that
>Lenski's 40,000+ generations of E coli produce. Unfortunately none of
>the evidence provided by these shows TRANSFORMATIONAL change. That is
>how does a lung, wing, and an eye arise where it never existed in a
>pedecessor population?
anybody know what 'transformational change' is? creationists have a
1984 view of language. they figure the language of the bible is
infinitely plastic and can be molded into whatever shape their fairy
tale demands
so they apply the same rule to science
>
>
>> Therefore, if abiogenesis
>>is necessary for evolution, we would infer that abiogenesis did happen.
>>(And we do, but I suspect that we consider more alternatives under the
>>rubric of abiogenesis that you do, since from the context you appear to
>>be talking about spontaneous abiogenesis.)
>
>Your argument collapses because:
>1. Solid biochemistry and organic chemistry contradict all current
>versions of Abiogenesis.
again, i'm a chemist. explain this to me. otherwise you're lying
>2. Ernest Major argues in a cirlce that the mere existence of
>biological diversity is prima facie evidence of the truthlikeness of
>the theory which is supposed to explain how the diversity arose.
>3. And while Ernest Major is correct that there is voluminous
>evidence of minor variations of EXISTING genetic information, back and
>forth, within limits. There is no empirical evidence, ANYWHERE, of
>transformational change.
which is wrong. the fossil record shows change. genetics shows the
changes which occur in populations. comparative anatomy shows the
relationship between organisms which must be explained
creationism has no explanation beyond some magical view of nature
involving ghosts and demons.
science, however, has a different view.
This is most painfully apparent in Lenski's
>20 year E coli experiment where he controlled environmental conditions
>and protected variations for breeding. NO transformational change has
>ever been observed.
wrong, of course. the metabolism of citrate was a major
transformational change in the experiment pagano cites.
he ignores it.
Behe has pointed out the same with the malaria
>parasite and the rapidly mutating HIV viurs.
behe, as he admitted in the 'kitzmiller' trial, is unfamiliar with
evolution.
>4. Finally, the fossil record shows nothing-but discrete, fully
>formed populations that appear suddenly, exist in the record for
>millions of years, and then disappear with little appreciable change.
>Purely naturalistic processes----by necessity
pagano doesn't explain what he thinks evolution expects to find in the
fossil record. what would a NON 'fully formed' population look like?
dan diner, prof. of history at hebrew university, points out that
islamist fundamentalists are unable to understand concepts used in
current science. to them, the world is defined by the perfect arabic
of the qur'an
and creationists have the same problem. the world is perfectly defined
by their ghost and demon view of the world
it was useless 2000 years ago. it's useless today
RAM
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:56:13 +0000, Ernest Major
>
>
>
> >In message <apagano-ft91g5tdbbvv34utfkg9s3nbfvm1do6...@4ax.com>, T
Please provide the evidence for this assertion. It assumes either
you have a scientific citation which states this or you know all
detailed knowledge of "all current versions of Abiogenesis."
I'm confident neither are true.
Free Lunch
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in talk.origins:
I wonder it that's like Colbert's truthiness: an outrageously
over-the-top lie.
John Wilkins
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
One of my favourite comics shows Karl Rove at the feet of Plato,
saying, "But surely you accept that a lie becomes truth if repeated
often enough?"...
Rolf
WTF, wht do you mean by asking "Is there any unambiguous evidence of purely
naturalistic biological TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE?"
when you already have said
"Ernest Major puts the cart before the horse; There is NO evidence of
transformational change ANYWHERE"
meaning as far as you are concerned the case is settled. Whoy won't you
leave it at that? You have been going on about this for many years without
getting anywhere. You do not, will not accept evidence; you already have
determined that you do not want to accept science. You keep telling the
world what you think, it is common knowledge by now. Haven't you got
anything better to do with your life? Me, I have nothing better to do, I
just do it to pass time...
BTW, they didn't believe Jesus either, they kept asking for 'signs' ;-)
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Especially by the proper authorities?
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
No response, Tony?