What's with the personal attacks on Darwin?
Tom
negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
mathematician.
So stop it already.
Robert J. Kolker
Exactly! Darwin's theories stand or fall on how well they predict and
how well they fit the empirical evidence. That is the only criterion
that matters for a scientific theory.
Newton, for example, persecuated conterfeiters and had little regard
for their rights under English law (this was when he ran the mint). Does
this have anything to do with his theories on matter and motion? Not a
bit.
Bob Kolker
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Well, it's not as if they had anything SCIENTIFIC against evolution to
offer, ya know . . . .
(snicker) (giggle)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Ritsjoena
I guess that it has to do with how a lot (if not all, in a sense) of
people think. They think that the value of what a person said is
directly connected to the character of the person. Look at politics
for example, if a politician experimented with drugs in his youth and
it is found out he can go, regardless of how good a politician he is.
In church if the reverent can no longer be trusted to behave according
to the rules he promote he will no longer be followed. Well, some
found a way around that.
They try the same with Darwin. If people think he was a bad person, no
one will follow him and especially evolution anymore, they think. The
obvious mistake they make of course is that science does not work that
way (except sometimes in battles for positions). In science the ideas
of Darwin have a life of their own and these ideas are credited by a
completely different system, based on evidence not politics or
emotions.
Unfortunately, this is only the ideal situation. Although science
probably corrects itself in time it still sometimes happens that some
valuable research gets forgotten due to politics like this. So in some
cases a strategy like this (if done properly) might work to keep it
within a small circle of scientists.
Evolution however has been established by so much research and the
idea is around (almost) the entire scientific community that I would
not give this strategy a change within the scientific community in
case of evolution.
But scientists are not the only people out there who could be
influenced by this. There are also politicians, managers and of course
"common" people. These have only a little knowledge of evolution (at
best) and how science works. A lot of them grew up with trust in
authority (church/state). A lot of them might be much more sensitive
to this "Darwin is not to be trusted"-strategy.
So there they might win what they want. Among these "victims" are
politicians that have to make evolution-related decisions and of
course the people that should go to church every week and donate their
life to it.
Frank J
Unfortuately that fallacy, and several others that the scammers use at
every opportunity, sells to their target audience. And I don't just
mean fundamentalists, but anyone who will latch on to any sound bite
that allows them to wallow in their dislike and distrust of science.
While I agree 100% that they ought to stop, I also say "stop it
already" to those on our side who constantly refer to the *beliefs* of
"creationists" (lumping the scammers with the scammed), when they need
to be focusing on the *deeds* of *anti-evolution activists.* Deeds
that are considered *sins* in Judeo-Christian religions.
Tom
While most of what you say is true, I still don't understand the
point. Neither I nor science in general is asking anyone to trust
Darwin. In fact, scientists don't even trust Darwin. Many of his
original ideas have been ruled out by later scientific investigation.
You don't need to attack someone's character to get scientists to be
skeptical about the scientific work of others. Scientists are already
skeptics.
If the true reason for the personal attacks is to mislead lay people
who don't understand evolution, or science in general, then
creationists must truly be desperate. If a creationist understands the
theory of evolution, but resorts to personal attacks on scientists
rather than engaging in a debate about actual science, that says a
lot.
raven1
They don't have any actual evidence to present, so Argumentum ad
Hominem is about the best they can do. A good indication of the
soundness of their position.
Steven J.
> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
regard scientific theories that contradict their religious dogmas as,
themselves, alternate religious dogmas (I've seen this explicitly
asserted), and [b] regard religious dogmas as resting on the personal
authority, integrity, and holiness of those who propound them. The
whole question of evidence for evolutionary theory, or even what
evolutionary theory actually says or what would count as evidence for
it, is not so important to its opponents.
Note that recently there has been an increasing tendency to speak of
"Darwinism." There are various reasons for this (to imply that
evolutionary theory is just another 19th-century enthusiasm, like
Marxism or Freudianism, or to obscure just what you are condemning in
order to appeal to different sorts of creationists), but part of the
reason is to imply that evolutionary theory is limited to, and
inclusive of, everything Darwin ever said or thought, as opposed to,
say, actual facts about nature some of which Darwin uncovered.
>
> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> mathematician.
>
Fewer creationists oppose relativity than oppose common descent or
natural mechanisms for adaption and diversity. Even fewer, I think,
oppose calculus or even heliocentrism (although note that geocentrist
creationist Gerardus Bouw says terrible things about the character and
actions of Kepler).
>
> So stop it already.
-- Steven J.
Tom
Hmmm. More like Argumentum as Nauseum, if you ask me.
Wakboth
> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
When your entire worldview has been given to you, is backed by the
authority of the people giving to you, and has its validity linked
with the moral purity of this revealed source, it's mighty easy to
assume that everyone else thinks the same way, and that by attacking
the character of the originator of the idea, you are attacking the
validity of the idea itself.
-- Wakboth
Tokay Pino Gris
> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
It's called "ad hominem".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The idea is that to discredit the argument, you discredit the proponent
of that argument.
If any discussion resorts to that, it usually means the attacker has
lost the argument on a rational basis and now resorts to slandering the
opponents.
Silly of course, but creationists use it a lot. Other means of "debate"
in this context include quote mining, argument from ignorance and plain
lying, among others.
Tokay
--
The harder you fall,
the higher you bounce.
Anonymous
Ron O
The creationists that do this know that they do not have a scientific
argument. If they were not forced to obfuscate the issue, they would
stick to the science.
Ron Okimoto
Ray Martinez
Pretending that you are ignorant of the fact that evolutionists
automatically and routinely malign any source that does not support
their theory is as stupid as it gets. Apparently antievolutionists
retaliate. The Bible calls it "an eye for an eye." Slander,
unfortunately, is fact of reality and apparently a two-way street.
Ray
Tokay Pino Gris
> On May 4, 7:18 pm, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
>> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
>> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>>
>> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
>> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
>> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
>> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
>> mathematician.
>>
>> So stop it already.
>
> I guess that it has to do with how a lot (if not all, in a sense) of
> people think. They think that the value of what a person said is
> directly connected to the character of the person. Look at politics
> for example, if a politician experimented with drugs in his youth and
> it is found out he can go, regardless of how good a politician he is.
Not exactly true. From the outside it appears to be true for the USA.
Not true for Germany, really. Our former foreign minister and vice
chancellor was married .... om... five times? Was kind of a radical in
his youth as well (rumors of violent demonstrations, throwing stones...
rumors, mind you. Not actual facts). Do we care? Not really. Did a damn
good job as foreign minister (and he was from the "Greens". Was a
surprise in a way that he did such a good job).
Former chancellor.... married, IIRC three times? I don't really care. I
voted for him, not his wife or ex-wife(s).
(Actually, I have NO idea who is wife was.)
Current chancellor. A women. I "think" she is married. I think I read
something about her husband. Keeps out of politics, that one, far as I
know. Didn't vote for her, and equally, I don't care.
I am not quite sure if this is only a difference in degree, though.
There ARE crimes I would consider to render someone unsuitable for
political office. Having married more than once, having experimented
with drugs in youth or going on demonstrations are NOT among them.
Quite the contrary, actually. He/She then at least knows what he/she is
talking about.
>
> In church if the reverent can no longer be trusted to behave according
> to the rules he promote he will no longer be followed. Well, some
> found a way around that.
Can't speak for churches, of course. Political figures, I'd prefer
someone that knows what he's talking about.
Mind you, some crimes are off limits. A pedophile is NOT suitable for
political office in my eyes.
>
> They try the same with Darwin. If people think he was a bad person, no
> one will follow him and especially evolution anymore, they think.
Well, they can try. But it doesn't work.
The
> obvious mistake they make of course is that science does not work that
> way (except sometimes in battles for positions).
;-)
In science the ideas
> of Darwin have a life of their own and these ideas are credited by a
> completely different system, based on evidence not politics or
> emotions.
>
> Unfortunately, this is only the ideal situation. Although science
> probably corrects itself in time it still sometimes happens that some
> valuable research gets forgotten due to politics like this. So in some
> cases a strategy like this (if done properly) might work to keep it
> within a small circle of scientists.
Good thing then that these buggers aren't even good at it.
>
> Evolution however has been established by so much research and the
> idea is around (almost) the entire scientific community that I would
> not give this strategy a change within the scientific community in
> case of evolution.
No chance whatsoever.
Like I said at the top, when I began to get interested in this topic, I
thought it was "just" an american problem. Turns out we have the same
buggers over here. Not that many, and the system doesn't allow them to
go anywhere or get anything done. They CAN'T introduce their funky ideas
into the science curriculum, because that curriculum is discussed in the
"Kultusministerkonferenz", ONE gremium.
>
> But scientists are not the only people out there who could be
> influenced by this. There are also politicians, managers and of course
> "common" people. These have only a little knowledge of evolution (at
> best) and how science works. A lot of them grew up with trust in
> authority (church/state). A lot of them might be much more sensitive
> to this "Darwin is not to be trusted"-strategy.
Not so here. I have yet to meet one here that actually disagrees with
the theory of evolution. Of course, I don't ask anyone I meet about that
topic.
>
> So there they might win what they want. Among these "victims" are
> politicians that have to make evolution-related decisions and of
> course the people that should go to church every week and donate their
> life to it.
>
Tokay
Tom
I think I just realized that I was not specific enough in my post. Of
course I understand why creationists would attack Darwin on a personal
level in the media, and when trying to get a point across to the
masses. They will apparently do anything they can to get people to be
against the teaching of evolution, and calling Darwin gay, or a Nazi,
or a communist or a child molestor will definitely be effective with
some audiences.
But it isn't effective here, in this newsgroup. People here are
generally better informed about evolution than the general public.
Also, they tend to have a general interest in the debate, and they
tend to be able to easily spot logical fallacies.
So I guess my real question should have been "why do creationists
personally attack Darwin HERE?". It just seems pointless.
Tom
What do you mean by "evolutionsts"? Do you mean people who accept
evolution, or do you mean biologists? In the case of the latter, I
don't see that anyone automatically and routinely does anything like
that. Critical review by biologists (or by other scientists in related
fields) typically seems to be well-thought, and based on a thorough
reading and analysis of whatever work is being critiqued. Ideas about
creation and intelligent design are not simply dismissed out of hand
by the scientific community. They are dealt with scientifically, not
"automatically".
Of course, if by evolutionist, you mean "someone who accepts
evolution", well, you are talking about a huge pool of people who have
all kinds of different beliefs and behave in all kinds of different
ways. So it probably isn't fitting to generalize what they do or say.
Steven J.
routinely malign" creationists. I have already pointed out how, e.g.
Richard Dawkins has conceded that Kurt Wise is "an honest
creationist." Nor, of course, are all personal criticisms
"slander" (or "libel," for that matter): some very harsh criticisms
are entirely accurate.
Second, there is a difference between showing that someone has made
false and/or logically absurd claims, and concluding that he is either
a liar or a buffoon, and asserting that someone is a "racist" or proto-
Nazi puppy molester in order to avoid actually dealing with his claims
or showing that they are false. For example, no one is arguing that
because Ben Stein is a liar and a fool, _Expelled_ must be a bad,
dishonest movie; rather, because _Expelled_ can be shown on
independent grounds to be bad and dishonest, this rather casts doubt
on the character of its star and narrator.
Third, there is a difference between showing that someone who has been
cited as an authority is not really an authority, in order to
undermine a claim that rests solely on that person's authority, and
attacking someone when his claims are backed by evidence independent
of himself. If your entire argument on some point is that Gene Scott
said so, it is relevant to show that Gene Scott is no more an
authority on that topic that Lenny Flank's pizza delivery boy. This
would not show, by itself, that you were wrong, but only that you had
no reason to suppose you were right. On the other hand, evolutionary
theory has a century and a half of evidence backing it up; it has long
been irrelevant whether Darwin's expertise was sufficient to establish
him as an authority.
Fourth, did not Christ command you to return good for evil rather than
seek "an eye for an eye?" You have said that you would criticize
creationists where they were wrong; by your own standards they are
wrong when they behave this way, and even if evolutionists were also
wrong, that is no excuse for creationists' misbehavior. Why do you
seek to justify presenting lousy arguments against evolution, rather
than attempting to craft a valid one?
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Ron O
Well, heck, competence and the creationists that usually post here
don't go together. How many well thought out arguments that support
creationism have you seen from any of them in the last 5 years? You
probably don't even have to take your shoes off to show the
incompetent boobs a physical number that they might understand. Fore
finger and thumb clamped together for a big zero should be all that
you need to show them. Really, I can't recall a single well thought
out creationist argument supporting their view of creationism in the
last 5 years.
Ron Okimoto
*Hemidactylus*
the "water cure". How does that detract from evolutionary biology? He
also suffered the loss of a loved one as have many of us on both sides
of the aisle. He also had a mirror installed so he could see who was
walking up to encroach upon his private life. Sounds pretty much human
and imprefect to me.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom: I already said that you were stupid (re-read my post). Your
comments here simply confirm.
Ray
*Hemidactylus*
Judge not...
Tom
I will refrain from responding in kind to your comment. I will point
out, however, that I have yet to see one post of yours which indicates
that you even have a basic understanding of what the theory of
evolution is. So I am not at all concerned or insulted by you calling
me stupid.
Ritsjoena
I realized just after I had send my post that creationists are not
(really) interested in converting scientists or proving that
scientists are wrong. They try to do it where needed but it actually a
side-battle. I would not be surprised if a lot of creationists even
know that that is something that can never succeed.
What they try to do is on the one hand to get followers and power. To
"save" as many people as they can. On the other hand they try to shut
out all that (seemingly) contradicts their worldview. So they try to
get their worldview and only their taught in schools to their (and
your) children. They try to ban research they don't like. And they try
to convince the average person that science is bad and that they
should not listen to it.
If there is knowledge that contradicts your worldview the only way to
keep your following (even growing) is to destroy this knowledge. You
find behaviour like this throughout history. Hitler did it with his
book burning, communist China did it during the Cultural revolution
and creationists try to do it now. Luckily much less violently, but
still they use all kinds of tricks.
So it is not about those view scientists they might be able to
convince, it is about the rest of the world. And there this blackening
trick has a "positive" effect for their cause.
raven1
How's the view from that glass house, Ray?
Ray Martinez
> On May 4, 4:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 10:18 am, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
>
> > > I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> > > negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> > > If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
> > > his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> > > relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> > > were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> > > mathematician.
>
> > > So stop it already.
>
> > Pretending that you are ignorant of the fact that evolutionists
> > automatically and routinely malign any source that does not support
> > their theory is as stupid as it gets. Apparently antievolutionists
> > retaliate. The Bible calls it "an eye for an eye." Slander,
> > unfortunately, is fact of reality and apparently a two-way street.
>
> First of all, Ray, it is false that "evolutionists automatically and
> routinely malign" creationists. I have already pointed out how, e.g.
> Richard Dawkins has conceded that Kurt Wise is "an honest
> creationist." Nor, of course, are all personal criticisms
> "slander" (or "libel," for that matter): some very harsh criticisms
> are entirely accurate.
>
Dawkins is the worst offended. If you don't agree with him he breaks
out the "you are insane" or "you are a Fundamentalist" card.
But your comments simply imply that evolutionist slander is not
slander but creationist slander is slander. In other words your
comments lack any objective merit.
> Second, there is a difference between showing that someone has made
> false and/or logically absurd claims, and concluding that he is either
> a liar or a buffoon, and asserting that someone is a "racist" or proto-
> Nazi puppy molester in order to avoid actually dealing with his claims
> or showing that they are false. For example, no one is arguing that
> because Ben Stein is a liar and a fool, _Expelled_ must be a bad,
> dishonest movie; rather, because _Expelled_ can be shown on
> independent grounds to be bad and dishonest, this rather casts doubt
> on the character of its star and narrator.
>
In the context of the OP and my first reply to the OP these comments
simply attempt to say evolutuionists do not do what creationists are
predictably asserted to be guilty of. Again, this is a very biased and
predictable point lacking any objectivity whatsoever.
The issue is not perceived creationist slander but acknowledgement
that both creationists and evolutionists engage in slander in order to
poison the well. In other words human beings engage in slander,
whether they are creationists or evolutionists, do you understand?
The OP sought to establish a one-way street. It is, in fact, a two-way
street. Always has been.
> Third, there is a difference between showing that someone who has been
> cited as an authority is not really an authority, in order to
> undermine a claim that rests solely on that person's authority, and
> attacking someone when his claims are backed by evidence independent
> of himself. If your entire argument on some point is that Gene Scott
> said so, it is relevant to show that Gene Scott is no more an
> authority on that topic that Lenny Flank's pizza delivery boy. This
> would not show, by itself, that you were wrong, but only that you had
> no reason to suppose you were right. On the other hand, evolutionary
> theory has a century and a half of evidence backing it up; it has long
> been irrelevant whether Darwin's expertise was sufficient to establish
> him as an authority.
>
All this says is when an antievolutionist says something against
evolution it is a claim, but when a evolutionist says something it is
a fact based on evidence. This is ordinary and predictable bias or
supposition. Since you are an evolutionist your comments and their
suppositions are entirely predictable and, of course, reflect your
bias.
You seem unable to grasp the point: objectivity is a two way street.
> Fourth, did not Christ command you to return good for evil rather than
> seek "an eye for an eye?" You have said that you would criticize
> creationists where they were wrong; by your own standards they are
> wrong when they behave this way,
Christ said that in the context of one's neighbor, not impersonal
arguments with strangers.
> and even if evolutionists were also
> wrong, that is no excuse for creationists' misbehavior.
Vice-versa?
> Why do you
> seek to justify presenting lousy arguments against evolution, rather
> than attempting to craft a valid one?
>
What lousy agrument?
>
>
> > Ray
>
> -- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Tokay Pino Gris
I agree. It IS pointless. It's like wanting to fight a battle you know
you can't possibly win and - to use more warlike terms - doesn't benefit
the overall goal.
Some people in this thread made the point that for creationists, and the
way they came to their respective "belief", it is unimaginable that what
a person says can be unhinged on the person. So, from that
comprehension, it makes sense in a way to attack the galleons figure of
evolution.
In doing so they make the tactical mistake (more warlike terms, I am
afraid... and I've never been to the military at all) of thinking the
opponent thinks just like them. It probably comes as a surprise to them
that we do not really care about the actual person of Charles Darwin. We
care about his initial idea. In the same way we think about Albert
Einstein. Great mind, great thoughts.... but I don't care about his
private life.
Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Hawking.... what they do or did in their
private life is not important. To quote a famous fiction charakter:
"Personal is not the same as important".
In the past, we learned from atrocities. Not just never to let them
happen again, that goes without saying.
But do you know where we learned the most about the damages radiation
does? About what decompression does at high altitudes?
(Answer is Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Nazi Germany respectively)
I do not and will not attempt to excuse these atrocities. Unforgivable.
But we learned. We do not throw away what we learn because the people
that taught it to us or found out about it are criminals in a sense of
the word that goes beneath mere law.
(Please don't go into about whether or not the use of the atomic bomb
was justified or not. Would be a side issue and another topic)
(Personally I am not sure about that one anyway. But I AM DAMN sure the
experiments that were done in Nazi Germany were unforgivable.)
To a (much) lesser degree this applies to what Darwin or Einstein or
Newton or any other scientific big brain did in his private life.
Ye Old One
You still can't use the right word you moron.
>unfortunately, is fact of reality and apparently a two-way street.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Ritsjoena
> Ritsjoena wrote:
> > On May 4, 7:18 pm, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
> >> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> >> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> >> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
> >> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> >> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> >> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> >> mathematician.
>
> >> So stop it already.
>
> > I guess that it has to do with how a lot (if not all, in a sense) of
> > people think. They think that the value of what a person said is
> > directly connected to the character of the person. Look at politics
> > for example, if a politician experimented with drugs in his youth and
> > it is found out he can go, regardless of how good a politician he is.
>
> Not exactly true. From the outside it appears to be true for the USA.
When I wrote it I knew it as a dangerous example. But I needed
something that would bring home the point. I know it differs from
country to country, party to party, time to time and even person to
person. I.e. what one person gets away with one day might be the end
of another.
> Not true for Germany, really. Our former foreign minister and vice
> chancellor was married .... om... five times? Was kind of a radical in
> his youth as well (rumors of violent demonstrations, throwing stones...
> rumors, mind you. Not actual facts). Do we care? Not really. Did a damn
> good job as foreign minister (and he was from the "Greens". Was a
> surprise in a way that he did such a good job).
Similar examples can be found here in the Netherlands.
>
> Former chancellor.... married, IIRC three times? I don't really care. I
> voted for him, not his wife or ex-wife(s).
> (Actually, I have NO idea who is wife was.)
>
> Current chancellor. A women. I "think" she is married. I think I read
> something about her husband. Keeps out of politics, that one, far as I
> know. Didn't vote for her, and equally, I don't care.
>
> I am not quite sure if this is only a difference in degree, though.
I think that it is for a large part. Furthermore I think the political
climate of the moment, international pressure etc all have their
influence.
> There ARE crimes I would consider to render someone unsuitable for
> political office. Having married more than once, having experimented
> with drugs in youth or going on demonstrations are NOT among them.
>
> Quite the contrary, actually. He/She then at least knows what he/she is
> talking about.
>
I agree with you, but I have seen politicians forced to leave (or on
the border of it) for reasons I think we both agree are not enough.
>
>
> > In church if the reverent can no longer be trusted to behave according
> > to the rules he promote he will no longer be followed. Well, some
> > found a way around that.
>
> Can't speak for churches, of course. Political figures, I'd prefer
> someone that knows what he's talking about.
Not enough of those I'm afraid.
>
> Mind you, some crimes are off limits. A pedophile is NOT suitable for
> political office in my eyes.
I would not like it, but I'm not so sure about unsuitable per default.
Except for the fact that most people will think him so and therefor
prevent him from doing his job.
>
>
>
> > They try the same with Darwin. If people think he was a bad person, no
> > one will follow him and especially evolution anymore, they think.
>
> Well, they can try. But it doesn't work.
>
> The
>
> > obvious mistake they make of course is that science does not work that
> > way (except sometimes in battles for positions).
>
> ;-)
>
> In science the ideas
>
> > of Darwin have a life of their own and these ideas are credited by a
> > completely different system, based on evidence not politics or
> > emotions.
>
> > Unfortunately, this is only the ideal situation. Although science
> > probably corrects itself in time it still sometimes happens that some
> > valuable research gets forgotten due to politics like this. So in some
> > cases a strategy like this (if done properly) might work to keep it
> > within a small circle of scientists.
>
> Good thing then that these buggers aren't even good at it.
>
>
:)
>
> > Evolution however has been established by so much research and the
> > idea is around (almost) the entire scientific community that I would
> > not give this strategy a change within the scientific community in
> > case of evolution.
>
> No chance whatsoever.
>
> Like I said at the top, when I began to get interested in this topic, I
> thought it was "just" an american problem. Turns out we have the same
> buggers over here. Not that many, and the system doesn't allow them to
> go anywhere or get anything done. They CAN'T introduce their funky ideas
> into the science curriculum, because that curriculum is discussed in the
> "Kultusministerkonferenz", ONE gremium.
>
Same here in the Netherlands. But I see that they have more influence
than I would like. But that might be a combination of "normal"
christian influence (not evolution related) and the fact that I know/
knew quite a lot of hard-lined YEC's.
>
>
> > But scientists are not the only people out there who could be
> > influenced by this. There are also politicians, managers and of course
> > "common" people. These have only a little knowledge of evolution (at
> > best) and how science works. A lot of them grew up with trust in
> > authority (church/state). A lot of them might be much more sensitive
> > to this "Darwin is not to be trusted"-strategy.
>
> Not so here. I have yet to meet one here that actually disagrees with
> the theory of evolution. Of course, I don't ask anyone I meet about that
> topic.
>
What I have seen till now that falls for these tricks are American
(might be biased). But I do know some that grew up with this view on
Darwin and some that learned to look at Evolution with "unbelief"
later in life. But I do recognize this as completely biased by
coincidence. In reality the problem here is a lot smaller that it
seems (I hope).
Ritsjoena
That is another goal-post. I guess both version of the question
deserve an answer. Now this version.
First of all I don't see as many Darwin-bashing posts as you suggest
there are. But that is probably bias. I have not the time to read all
posts.
Secondly, it is the tricks they know and they use the same tricks here
as in the "outside"-world. They are not smart enough to see the
difference, so they just apply them. I'm a bit overgeneralizing here
but I hope you get the point.
Ritsjoena
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 14:00:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On May 4, 10:18 am, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
> >> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> >> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> >> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
> >> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> >> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> >> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> >> mathematician.
>
> >> So stop it already.
>
> >Pretending that you are ignorant of the fact that evolutionists
> >automatically and routinely malign any source that does not support
> >their theory is as stupid as it gets. Apparently antievolutionists
> >retaliate. The Bible calls it "an eye for an eye." Slander,
> >unfortunately, is fact of reality and apparently a two-way street.
>
> >Ray
>
> What do you mean by "evolutionsts"? Do you mean people who accept
> evolution, or do you mean biologists? In the case of the latter, I
It is ray. He means everyone that "believes" in evolution. In a lot of
cases he means everyone that does not believe the way he does.
Some characteristics he gives to evolutionists: atheists, lyers,
sometimes disguised as christians, even highly placed in Christian
organizations etc.
Ray Martinez
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 14:46:51 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since you are an evolutionist, I feel no insult or concern. You are
stupid since you attempted to argue, even after I pointed out that
slander is a two way street, that slander is a one-way street only
travelled by creationists.
I have every reason and motive to represent evolutionary theory
correctly in my paper. Why would I fail to represent evolution
correctly and jeopardize my refutation?
I let Darwin, Mayr, Dawkins, Gould and Ken Miller define evolutionary
theory right from their own published writings. This eliminates any
possibility of misrepresentation or errors that could occur if I did
it in my own words. This is why my recent blunder will not and cannot
have any effect on my paper.
Ray
Caranx latus
> On May 4, 2:31 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> On May 4, 4:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Fourth, did not Christ command you to return good for evil rather than
>> seek "an eye for an eye?" You have said that you would criticize
>> creationists where they were wrong; by your own standards they are
>> wrong when they behave this way,
>
> Christ said that in the context of one's neighbor, not impersonal
> arguments with strangers.
Really? Hunh, I did not know that. I have to wonder, then, what Luke
10:25-37 is all about. Is this, in your view, another heretical section
of the Bible?
Ritsjoena
I will not deny that both sides walk this path from time to time. But
the path more often walked is the path besides it that tells personal
things that are true, but not slander, although some might be seen as
thus. I think both sides need to be careful while judging from which
path something has been spoken.
Still it should not matter for the judgment of what someone has to
say.
>
> I have every reason and motive to represent evolutionary theory
> correctly in my paper. Why would I fail to represent evolution
> correctly and jeopardize my refutation?
>
Yes you do have reason to present evolution and "its refutation"
honestly. And I would like to see this rare exception.
> I let Darwin, Mayr, Dawkins, Gould and Ken Miller define evolutionary
> theory right from their own published writings. This eliminates any
> possibility of misrepresentation or errors that could occur if I did
> it in my own words. This is why my recent blunder will not and cannot
> have any effect on my paper.
Do you have any idea when we will be able to read your paper?
>
> Ray
Tom
I didn't realize you have authored a paper on this topic. I would like
to read it. Is it published anywhere? Or available online?
Anthropus
news:133bed7a-163f-4fcc...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Except, of course, when the 'moral lapse' is by someone on *the Christian
side*:..
So, for example, Ted 'gay whore and illegal drugs' Haggard is merely 'a poor
sinner like all of us', and 'a basically good man who was waylaid by Satan'.
*Darwin*, however, is on *the other side* -- so he was wrong because he was
evil, and evil because he was wrong ... and what's more, *he smelled of
wee*...
M.
Tom McDonald
...and the other guy will beat you to the punch and win.
Lee Jay
> I have every reason and motive to represent evolutionary theory
> correctly in my paper. Why would I fail to represent evolution
> correctly and jeopardize my refutation?
Because you don't understand it, that's why.
Lee Jay
Tom McDonald
Ray's paper has been in process for several years now. He has
(wisely, in my view) given up deadlines, letting the work take
the time it must take.
When complete, it will totally demolish evolution (both the
theory and the fact), and will put Darwin in his place once and
for all.
Rupert Morrish
> Tom wrote:
>> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
>> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>
> The idea is that to discredit the argument, you discredit the proponent
> of that argument.
>
> If any discussion resorts to that, it usually means the attacker has
> lost the argument on a rational basis and now resorts to slandering the
> opponents.
Not really. I dismiss Patriot Games' posts because he's an ignorant
fundy loon. I don't think that says anything about who is more rational,
or who is correct.
>
> Silly of course, but creationists use it a lot. Other means of "debate"
> in this context include quote mining, argument from ignorance and plain
> lying, among others.
>
>
> Tokay
>
>
>
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Rupert Morrish
I guess that makes Tony Pagano neighbour to many of us.
Cj
news:00491eaf-52cb-47f2...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Which recent blunder? Be specific because there a lot of them.
Cj
Rupert Morrish
[snip]
> All this says is when an antievolutionist says something against
> evolution it is a claim, but when a evolutionist says something it is
> a fact based on evidence.
No, it's the evidence that determines whether or not a statement is
based on evidence.
If you want to overthrow evolution, Ray, stop working on your paper,
which will just contain claims, and go find a lizard with dragonfly
wings. Then you'll have some evidence.
[snip]
Steven J.
> On May 4, 2:31 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > First of all, Ray, it is false that "evolutionists automatically and
> > routinely malign" creationists. I have already pointed out how, e.g.
> > Richard Dawkins has conceded that Kurt Wise is "an honest
> > creationist." Nor, of course, are all personal criticisms
> > "slander" (or "libel," for that matter): some very harsh criticisms
> > are entirely accurate.
>
> Dawkins is the worst offended. If you don't agree with him he breaks
> out the "you are insane" or "you are a Fundamentalist" card.
>
anyone who claims not to believe in evolution is either ignorant,
stupid, insane, or wicked (lying). Of course, all of us are born
ignorant of everything, and die ignorant of most things, and Dawkins
notes that ignorance, by itself, is a correctible corollary of the
human condition, not necessarily despicable. But even so, his article
at <http://scepsis.ru/eng/articles/id_2.php> describes Kurt Wise
without condemning him as ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. So you
are wrong.
>
> But your comments simply imply that evolutionist slander is not
> slander but creationist slander is slander. In other words your
> comments lack any objective merit.
>
truthful denigration of another's competence, knowledge, honesty, or
reasonableness is by necessity and definition NOT slander. Most of
the unkind things defenders of mainstream science say about
creationists or ID proponents is not slander.
>
> > Second, there is a difference between showing that someone has made
> > false and/or logically absurd claims, and concluding that he is either
> > a liar or a buffoon, and asserting that someone is a "racist" or proto-
> > Nazi puppy molester in order to avoid actually dealing with his claims
> > or showing that they are false. For example, no one is arguing that
> > because Ben Stein is a liar and a fool, _Expelled_ must be a bad,
> > dishonest movie; rather, because _Expelled_ can be shown on
> > independent grounds to be bad and dishonest, this rather casts doubt
> > on the character of its star and narrator.
>
> In the context of the OP and my first reply to the OP these comments
> simply attempt to say evolutuionists do not do what creationists are
> predictably asserted to be guilty of. Again, this is a very biased and
> predictable point lacking any objectivity whatsoever.
>
am not objective; it certainly does not show that I am wrong. You
have yet to identify any actual "slanders" made by "evolutionists"
against creationists. You have yet to show that "evolutionists" have
argued that creationism or ID is wrong merely *because* creationists
and ID proponents are ignorant, stupid, insane, or dishonest.
>
> The issue is not perceived creationist slander but acknowledgement
> that both creationists and evolutionists engage in slander in order to
> poison the well. In other words human beings engage in slander,
> whether they are creationists or evolutionists, do you understand?
>
> The OP sought to establish a one-way street. It is, in fact, a two-way
> street. Always has been.
>
_argumentum ad hominem_ is much more common from creationists than
from supporters of evolutionary theory.
>
> > Third, there is a difference between showing that someone who has been
> > cited as an authority is not really an authority, in order to
> > undermine a claim that rests solely on that person's authority, and
> > attacking someone when his claims are backed by evidence independent
> > of himself. If your entire argument on some point is that Gene Scott
> > said so, it is relevant to show that Gene Scott is no more an
> > authority on that topic that Lenny Flank's pizza delivery boy. This
> > would not show, by itself, that you were wrong, but only that you had
> > no reason to suppose you were right. On the other hand, evolutionary
> > theory has a century and a half of evidence backing it up; it has long
> > been irrelevant whether Darwin's expertise was sufficient to establish
> > him as an authority.
>
> All this says is when an antievolutionist says something against
> evolution it is a claim, but when a evolutionist says something it is
> a fact based on evidence. This is ordinary and predictable bias or
> supposition. Since you are an evolutionist your comments and their
> suppositions are entirely predictable and, of course, reflect your
> bias.
>
biased, and showing that I am biased does not show that I am wrong.
In point of fact, of course, supporters of evolutionary theory are
more likely to be factually correct than are creationists or ID
supporters.
>
> You seem unable to grasp the point: objectivity is a two way street.
>
the facts support your side. Creationists are wrong, both in their
conclusions and in the "evidence" and arguments they adduce to support
those conclusions.
>
> > Fourth, did not Christ command you to return good for evil rather than
> > seek "an eye for an eye?" You have said that you would criticize
> > creationists where they were wrong; by your own standards they are
> > wrong when they behave this way,
>
> Christ said that in the context of one's neighbor, not impersonal
> arguments with strangers.
>
Samaritan. Are you really arguing that because we have not physically
met, you feel free to lie to and about me, and call this Christian
conduct?
>
> > and even if evolutionists were also
> > wrong, that is no excuse for creationists' misbehavior.
>
> Vice-versa?
>
>
> > Why do you
> > seek to justify presenting lousy arguments against evolution, rather
> > than attempting to craft a valid one?
>
> What lousy agrument?
>
Nazis to conduct the Holocaust, and that therefore "Darwinism" ought
either be removed from schools, or at least countered with god-of-the-
gaps arguments.
>
> Ray
>
-- Steven J.
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 4, 3:01 pm, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
...
>> I will refrain from responding in kind to your comment. I will point
>> out, however, that I have yet to see one post of yours which indicates
>> that you even have a basic understanding of what the theory of
>> evolution is. So I am not at all concerned or insulted by you calling
>> me stupid.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Since you are an evolutionist, I feel no insult or concern. You are
>stupid since you attempted to argue, even after I pointed out that
>slander is a two way street, that slander is a one-way street only
>travelled by creationists.
Ray, do you understand what the rules are for a successful defamation
suit in the US? Because of the nature of physical evidence, it is much
more likely that the creationists, because they reject this evidence,
will defame scientists than scientists will be to defame creationists.
It's not a one way street, but at least 99.9% of the traffic is
defamation from the creationists.
>I have every reason and motive to represent evolutionary theory
>correctly in my paper. Why would I fail to represent evolution
>correctly and jeopardize my refutation?
It would be a change of pace from your writing here. We have seen you
misrepresent evolutionary theory here. Why would we expect you to
magically present it fairly and accurately in your long-delayed paper.
>I let Darwin, Mayr, Dawkins, Gould and Ken Miller define evolutionary
>theory right from their own published writings. This eliminates any
>possibility of misrepresentation or errors that could occur if I did
>it in my own words. This is why my recent blunder will not and cannot
>have any effect on my paper.
I do hope you have read the papers that you have quoted the scientists
from rather than rely on the quotes that creationists have ripped out of
context.
*Hemidactylus*
that...
John Vreeland
<tmcdon...@charter.net> opined:
That would require Ray to understand how Darwinian evolution works. To
date I have never seen any evidence that he does. This little problem
makes it difficult to take anything he writes very seriously.
Besides, I think he has enough problems.
--
Two Creation Scientists can hold an intelligent conversation, if one of them is a sock puppet.
---John Vreeland(IEEE.org)
Tom
Oh, I see. Well, I hope someone else doesn't beat him to the punch.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
To the morontheists the purpose is to have something, ANYTHING, to use
against Darwin. As they have no, literally no evidence they could use
against Darwin's theory, all what's left for them is attempting post-mortem
character assassination.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Tiny Bulcher
"Caranx latus" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:fvlduj$rut$1...@aioe.org...
Ask Ray's neighbours.
David Hare-Scott
> > negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
> >
> > his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> > relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> > were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> > mathematician.
> >
> > So stop it already.
>
> Pretending that you are ignorant of the fact that evolutionists
> automatically and routinely malign any source that does not support
> their theory is as stupid as it gets. Apparently antievolutionists
> retaliate. The Bible calls it "an eye for an eye." Slander,
> unfortunately, is fact of reality and apparently a two-way street.
>
> Ray
>
I love this. Complaining about the behaviour of others while you are doing
what you accuse them of. Stunning!
David
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<f0732e8b-0642-4658...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com> :
>On May 4, 2:31 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Why do you
>> seek to justify presenting lousy arguments against evolution, rather
>> than attempting to craft a valid one?
>>
>
>What lousy agrument?
Your claim that "Darwin was an atheist" comes to mind. Darwin's
religion, or lack thereof, has no bearing on evolution.
er...@swva.net
> On May 4, 10:18 am, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
>
> > I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> > negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> > If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
> > his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> > relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> > were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> > mathematician.
>
> > So stop it already.
>
> Pretending that you are ignorant of the fact that evolutionists
> automatically and routinely malign any source that does not support
> their theory is as stupid as it gets. Apparently antievolutionists
> retaliate. The Bible calls it "an eye for an eye." Slander,
> unfortunately, is fact of reality and apparently a two-way street.
>
> Ray
So, you don't have an answer to Tom's question, and think a
smokescreen of incoherent babble is the functional response?
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 22:52:07 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris
>
>
>
> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> >> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>
> >The idea is that to discredit the argument, you discredit the proponent
> >of that argument.
>
> >If any discussion resorts to that, it usually means the attacker has
> >lost the argument on a rational basis and now resorts to slandering the
> >opponents.
>
> >in this context include quote mining, argument from ignorance and plain
> >lying, among others.
>
> >Tokay
>
> course I understand why creationists would attack Darwin on a personal
> level in the media, and when trying to get a point across to the
> masses. They will apparently do anything they can to get people to be
> against the teaching of evolution, and calling Darwin gay, or a Nazi,
> or a communist or a child molestor will definitely be effective with
> some audiences.
>
> But it isn't effective here, in this newsgroup. People here are
> generally better informed about evolution than the general public.
> Also, they tend to have a general interest in the debate, and they
> tend to be able to easily spot logical fallacies.
>
> So I guess my real question should have been "why do creationists
> personally attack Darwin HERE?". It just seems pointless.
I think the do it here because they think they earn Brownie points in
Heaven for making normal people angry. That they think God would
appreciate that is indicative of the stupid childishness they
attribute to God, and is in perfect step with their weird Biblical
literalism.
Eric Root
alwaysaskingquestions
"Tom" <t...@tom.com> wrote in message
news:qjrr14ler16shjdj0...@4ax.com...
>I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> mathematician.
I take it you realise that you have now created two new rumours ;)
er...@swva.net
> On May 4, 3:01 pm, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
>
>
(snip irrelevancies)
Tom's question is, why do creationists keep attacking Charles Darwin's
character? Why do they find such irrelevant stuff acceptable, when it
has nothing to do with the validity of the science in question? Are
you able to stay on topic and come up with an answer?
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> On May 4, 11:29 pm, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 4 May 2008 14:00:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> > >> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> > >> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
> > >> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> > >> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> > >> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> > >> mathematician.
>
>
> > >Pretending that you are ignorant of the fact that evolutionists
> > >automatically and routinely malign any source that does not support
> > >their theory is as stupid as it gets. Apparently antievolutionists
> > >retaliate. The Bible calls it "an eye for an eye." Slander,
> > >unfortunately, is fact of reality and apparently a two-way street.
>
> > >Ray
>
> > evolution, or do you mean biologists? In the case of the latter, I
>
> cases he means everyone that does not believe the way he does.
> Some characteristics he gives to evolutionists: atheists, lyers,
> sometimes disguised as christians, even highly placed in Christian
> organizations etc.
>
> > don't see that anyone automatically and routinely does anything like
> > that. Critical review by biologists (or by other scientists in related
> > fields) typically seems to be well-thought, and based on a thorough
> > reading and analysis of whatever work is being critiqued. Ideas about
> > creation and intelligent design are not simply dismissed out of hand
> > by the scientific community. They are dealt with scientifically, not
> > "automatically".
>
> > Of course, if by evolutionist, you mean "someone who accepts
> > evolution", well, you are talking about a huge pool of people who have
> > all kinds of different beliefs and behave in all kinds of different
> > ways. So it probably isn't fitting to generalize what they do or say.
Not only that, but according to Ray, you can selflessly pray to Jesus
ever day, but it you accept science with respect to evolution, you are
still an atheist.
Eric Root
TomS
<688aebF...@mid.individual.net>, alwaysaskingquestions stated..."
Newton was a mathematician?
How horrible!
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
John Wilkins
> "On Mon, 5 May 2008 12:47:23 +0100, in article
> <688aebF...@mid.individual.net>, alwaysaskingquestions stated..."
> >
> >
> >"Tom" <t...@tom.com> wrote in message
> >news:qjrr14ler16shjdj0...@4ax.com...
> >>I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> >> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
> >>
> >> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
> >> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> >> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> >> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> >> mathematician.
> >
> >I take it you realise that you have now created two new rumours ;)
> >
> >
>
> Newton was a mathematician?
>
> How horrible!
Yes, and I'm sorry to report that Einstein was a physicist. I hope you
can cope.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Greg G.
>
> > >"Tom" <t...@tom.com> wrote in message
> > >news:qjrr14ler16shjdj0...@4ax.com...
> > >>I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> > >> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> > >> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
> > >> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> > >> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> > >> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> > >> mathematician.
>
> > >I take it you realise that you have now created two new rumours ;)
>
> > Newton was a mathematician?
>
> > How horrible!
>
> Yes, and I'm sorry to report that Einstein was a physicist. I hope you
> can cope.
But that in no way diminishes Einstein's authority on the question of
whether God plays Yahtzee with with the Universe. Of course, His game
of choice is poker.
--
Greg G.
The only way to understand what mathematicians mean by infinity, is to
contemplate the extent of human stupidity.
--Voltaire
TomS
<1ighqsp.gfmpggpyl0ryN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> "On Mon, 5 May 2008 12:47:23 +0100, in article
>> <688aebF...@mid.individual.net>, alwaysaskingquestions stated..."
>> >
>> >
>> >"Tom" <t...@tom.com> wrote in message
>> >news:qjrr14ler16shjdj0...@4ax.com...
>> >>I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
>> >> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>> >>
>> >> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
>> >> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
>> >> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
>> >> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
>> >> mathematician.
>> >
>> >I take it you realise that you have now created two new rumours ;)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Newton was a mathematician?
>>
>> How horrible!
>
>Yes, and I'm sorry to report that Einstein was a physicist. I hope you
>can cope.
I have no problem with physical education.
But they're telling me that Newton used stuff like
fractions and word problems and - who knows - maybe
even algebra. Some kind of elitist, it sounds like
to me.
Greg G.
> "On Mon, 5 May 2008 23:35:34 +1000, in article
>
> >> >"Tom" <t...@tom.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:qjrr14ler16shjdj0...@4ax.com...
> >> >>I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> >> >> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> >> >> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
> >> >> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> >> >> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> >> >> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> >> >> mathematician.
>
> >> >I take it you realise that you have now created two new rumours ;)
>
> >> Newton was a mathematician?
>
> >> How horrible!
>
> >Yes, and I'm sorry to report that Einstein was a physicist. I hope you
> >can cope.
>
> I have no problem with physical education.
>
> But they're telling me that Newton used stuff like
> fractions and word problems and - who knows - maybe
> even algebra. Some kind of elitist, it sounds like
> to me.
Elitist? He was a sadist! He invented calculus for diabolical
reasons.
He attempted to undermine the world's economy by seeking to turn all
the useful lead objects into gold.
--
Greg G.
My new job title is Director of Information, Operation and Technology.
To be trendy, it has been shortened online to e-DIOT.
Tom McDonald
I'll come in again....
Ray Martinez
That was not Tom's question or issue. Tom is making a tired and biased
point: only creationists engage in poisoning the well. Intelligent and
honest persons know that it is a two-way street.
As for Darwin's character: I would say that it is basically
unimpeachable. I have also read creationist criticisms of Darwin that
have made me cringe.
Ray
AC
Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> mathematician.
>
The problem here is that many Fundies assume, for some reason, that Darwin
occupies a similar niche in the evilutionist/secularist/atheist world that
Jesus, Moses or Mohammed do in the major Judeao-Christian religions. By
attacking Darwin, they seem to believe that the entire edifice of
evolutionary biology will come crashing down, much as revealing that Jesus
wasn't God, Moses never existed or that Mohammed wasn't the Prophet would
cause some pretty significant harm to the underlying foundations of those
faiths.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
Ray Martinez
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 15:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <f0732e8b-0642-4658-ad66-d9ff5fe14...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com> :
>
> >On May 4, 2:31 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Why do you
> >> seek to justify presenting lousy arguments against evolution, rather
> >> than attempting to craft a valid one?
>
> >What lousy agrument?
>
> Your claim that "Darwin was an atheist" comes to mind. Darwin's
> religion, or lack thereof, has no bearing on evolution.
Ultimately, I agree that Darwin's worldview or religion or lack of
religion has no bearing on the veracity of evolution. In fact, I will
prove this point to a degree that no one will ever be able to say
otherwise. It doesn't matter if you are a Christian or Atheist,
evolution stands of falls on the facts and evidence.
But evolutionists do not really believe this. They do not really
believe that Darwin's personal views on religion has no bearing on
evolution. They believe Darwin MUST never be shown to have been an
Atheist before 1859. Just about every book on Darwin makes this effort
because once it is understood that Darwin was an Atheist before 1859
evolution becomes the predictable and predetermined views of an
Atheist.
The rock solid facts will show that Charles Darwin was a Christian and
a Creationist when he discovered evidence for evolution and when he
determined that evolution had occurred. Of course once he determined
that evolution had occurred he ceased to be a Creationist and a
Christian.
Ray
AC
Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 11:48:37 -0700 (PDT), Ritsjoena
><bramv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 4, 7:18 pm, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
>>> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
>>> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>>>
>>> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
>>> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
>>> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
>>> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
>>> mathematician.
>>>
>>> So stop it already.
>>
>>people think. They think that the value of what a person said is
>>directly connected to the character of the person. Look at politics
>>for example, if a politician experimented with drugs in his youth and
>>it is found out he can go, regardless of how good a politician he is.
>>
>>In church if the reverent can no longer be trusted to behave according
>>to the rules he promote he will no longer be followed. Well, some
>>found a way around that.
>>
>>They try the same with Darwin. If people think he was a bad person, no
>>one will follow him and especially evolution anymore, they think. The
>>obvious mistake they make of course is that science does not work that
>>way (except sometimes in battles for positions). In science the ideas
>>of Darwin have a life of their own and these ideas are credited by a
>>completely different system, based on evidence not politics or
>>emotions.
>>
>>Unfortunately, this is only the ideal situation. Although science
>>probably corrects itself in time it still sometimes happens that some
>>valuable research gets forgotten due to politics like this. So in some
>>cases a strategy like this (if done properly) might work to keep it
>>within a small circle of scientists.
>>
>>Evolution however has been established by so much research and the
>>idea is around (almost) the entire scientific community that I would
>>not give this strategy a change within the scientific community in
>>case of evolution.
>>
>>But scientists are not the only people out there who could be
>>influenced by this. There are also politicians, managers and of course
>>"common" people. These have only a little knowledge of evolution (at
>>best) and how science works. A lot of them grew up with trust in
>>authority (church/state). A lot of them might be much more sensitive
>>to this "Darwin is not to be trusted"-strategy.
>>
>>So there they might win what they want. Among these "victims" are
>>politicians that have to make evolution-related decisions and of
>>course the people that should go to church every week and donate their
>>life to it.
>
> While most of what you say is true, I still don't understand the
> point. Neither I nor science in general is asking anyone to trust
> Darwin. In fact, scientists don't even trust Darwin. Many of his
> original ideas have been ruled out by later scientific investigation.
> You don't need to attack someone's character to get scientists to be
> skeptical about the scientific work of others. Scientists are already
> skeptics.
>
> If the true reason for the personal attacks is to mislead lay people
> who don't understand evolution, or science in general, then
> creationists must truly be desperate. If a creationist understands the
> theory of evolution, but resorts to personal attacks on scientists
> rather than engaging in a debate about actual science, that says a
> lot.
I rather like Gould's statement on the matter from his last book (which I
can't recall the name of right now), in that in specifics Darwin's theory
may have been demonstrated to be mistaken or at least incomplete, but the
overall Darwinian framework has stood the test of time.
It's important here to note, I think, that Darwin does stand as one of the
most significant minds in world history. While others before him seemed to
come up with some of the concepts, he, like Newton before him, was a man
that took all the ideas and data available at the time and found a
comprehensible and predictive framework. As a scientist, Darwin is indeed
one of the greats, and as such, these sorts of attacks on him, which we
don't tend to see leveled against, say, Newton or Einstein, seem horribly
unfair, untrue, and, as you point out, quite besides the point. No one
blames Newton for orbital weapons or Einstein for the H-bomb (for which
their research did indeed contribute), but they'll blame Darwin for the
Holocaust (which Darwin's research contributed little or nothing to).
Still, to see any person, historical or extant, maligned by false
accusations, or to see that person's ideas associated with terrible acts as
if the simple expounding of observation within a theoretical framework would
be sufficient to trigger such acts does raise my hackles, at least. Not
that I'm saying Darwin probably wasn't racist to some degree, but if you
read most of the works by damned near anyone from the Victorian era, racism
was rampant, though in Britain it was more often than not the "white man's
burden" kind, insinuating that as pinnacles of human development, the
Western European had to look after the rest of humanity, underdeveloped and
less capable of managing their own affairs. Darwin's writings seem to
suggest that he was far less prone to this sort of racist colonialist
paternalism than many of his peers.
The underlying purpose of the latest round of attacks associating Hitler
with Darwin is of course not only to damn by association, but to assert that
evolutionary theory must inevitably lead to mass murder. Stein himself has
recently made much more generalized attacks against science itself, but in
the main, Creationists have never had a problem with science, save for the
bits that collide with their world view. Blaming Hitler on Darwin is hardly
new, it's just been given a new lease on life by Expelled. For a while last
month this newsgroup was dominated by this particular claim (once again),
with eugenics and Social Darwinism tossed into the brew for good measure,
and once again those making the claim could provide little or no actual
data. In most respects, the Nazis, like other proponents of eugenics,
didn't like the idea of natural selection, believing that to leaving things
to nature lead to debasement and corruption, which is, in fact, the polar
opposite of Darwin's basic assertion, that through *natural* selection
populations could increase their viability in various environments.
And that demonstrates the other underlying problem with this particular
claim. It betrays a significant misinterpretation of Darwinian selection,
because Darwin's claim is essentially that nature can produce a better
(relative to current environmental conditions) organism through purely
natural processes. You don't need some breeder to make sure a species is
not corrupted and made less viable. It seems odd to me that the ID crowd is
in fact trying to paint Darwin with a brush that seems to resemble their own
particular claims (what precisely is the difference between a Designer and a
breeder) much more than anything he had to say on evolution. There's a deep
irony in that, but one, sadly, that will never be appreciated by the
anti-science crowd.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
Nicolas Krebs
> Ritsjoena wrote:
>> Look at politics
> > for example, if a politician experimented with drugs in his youth and
> > it is found out he can go, regardless of how good a politician he is.
>
> Not exactly true. From the outside it appears to be true for the USA.
> Not true for Germany, really. Our former foreign minister and vice
> chancellor was married .... om... five times? Was kind of a radical in
> his youth as well (rumors of violent demonstrations, throwing stones...
> rumors, mind you. Not actual facts). Do we care? Not really. Did a damn
> good job as foreign minister (and he was from the "Greens". Was a
> surprise in a way that he did such a good job).
>
> Former chancellor.... married, IIRC three times? I don't really care. I
> voted for him, not his wife or ex-wife(s).
> (Actually, I have NO idea who is wife was.)
>
> Current chancellor. A women. I "think" she is married. I think I read
> something about her husband. Keeps out of politics, that one, far as I
> know. Didn't vote for her, and equally, I don't care.
Me too. I don't know and i don't care if A.M. is married or in couple.
See also
"France just had an election [...]
In the current race, Ségolčne Royal has four kids but never bothered to
get married. [...]
The conservative candidate is married, but he and his wife live apart and
lead separate lives. They aren't asked about it in the media, and the
people are OK with it [...]
They have weird ideas about privacy. They think it should be private."
Bill Maher, "Hillary equals France", 2007-05-04,
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/05/04/france/
Nicolas Krebs
> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
Please not tell them that Alan Turing, creator of computer, was
homosexual.
TomS
<slrng1uh1q....@rotten.egg.sandwich>, AC stated..."
[...snip...]
Yes, quite so.
And I would add to this reasoning the observation that the
early decades of the 20th century, the time when these
various social/political movements were popular, has been
called "the eclipse of darwinism", in part because the
productivity of natural selection was generally discounted,
even by scientists. "Darwinism" was out, "Mendelism" and
other mechanisms were popular: "Neo-Lamarckism", and one
can also point to the "elan vital" of Henri Bergson, who
won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1927.
So, it isn't just a matter of "theorizing", that "Darwinism"
couldn't have had such consequences. It would be, in a sense,
an anachronism to make such a connection.
And it is also interesting to point out that, insofar as
these social/political movements would have depended on
"evolution", it would have been an "evolution" which
today's "creationists" could accept: "Micro"evolution,
evolution within "kinds" (in particular, within "mankind").
The parts of evolution which the creationists object to
were parts which not even the imaginations of these
social/political movements could have seen as the least
bit relevant: Speciation, common descent, the origins of
major organs or functions, and so on. (It seems highly
implausible that any one of these movements ever referred
to the origins of the vertebrate eye.)
AC
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 10:18 am, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
>> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>>
>> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
>> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
>> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
>> mathematician.
>>
>> So stop it already.
>
> automatically and routinely malign any source that does not support
> their theory is as stupid as it gets. Apparently antievolutionists
> retaliate. The Bible calls it "an eye for an eye." Slander,
> unfortunately, is fact of reality and apparently a two-way street.
I see you ran away from the Anti-defamation League thread. I find that the
most telling of your (non)activities of late. What an intellectual coward
you are.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
AC
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 3:01 pm, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On May 4, 2:29 pm, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 4 May 2008 14:00:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> >> >On May 4, 10:18 am, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
>> >> >> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
>> >> >> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>>
>> >> >> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
>> >> >> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
>> >> >> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
>> >> >> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
>> >> >> mathematician.
>>
>> >> >> So stop it already.
>>
>> >> >Pretending that you are ignorant of the fact that evolutionists
>> >> >automatically and routinely malign any source that does not support
>> >> >their theory is as stupid as it gets. Apparently antievolutionists
>> >> >retaliate. The Bible calls it "an eye for an eye." Slander,
>> >> >unfortunately, is fact of reality and apparently a two-way street.
>>
>>
>> >> What do you mean by "evolutionsts"? Do you mean people who accept
>> >> evolution, or do you mean biologists? In the case of the latter, I
>> >> that. Critical review by biologists (or by other scientists in related
>> >> fields) typically seems to be well-thought, and based on a thorough
>> >> reading and analysis of whatever work is being critiqued. Ideas about
>> >> creation and intelligent design are not simply dismissed out of hand
>> >> by the scientific community. They are dealt with scientifically, not
>> >> "automatically".
>>
>> >> Of course, if by evolutionist, you mean "someone who accepts
>> >> evolution", well, you are talking about a huge pool of people who have
>> >> all kinds of different beliefs and behave in all kinds of different
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Tom: I already said that you were stupid (re-read my post). Your
>> >comments here simply confirm.
>>
>> >Ray
>>
>> I will refrain from responding in kind to your comment. I will point
>> out, however, that I have yet to see one post of yours which indicates
>> that you even have a basic understanding of what the theory of
>> evolution is. So I am not at all concerned or insulted by you calling
>> me stupid.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Since you are an evolutionist, I feel no insult or concern. You are
> stupid since you attempted to argue, even after I pointed out that
> slander is a two way street, that slander is a one-way street only
> travelled by creationists.
>
> I have every reason and motive to represent evolutionary theory
> correctly in my paper. Why would I fail to represent evolution
> correctly and jeopardize my refutation?
>
> I let Darwin, Mayr, Dawkins, Gould and Ken Miller define evolutionary
> theory right from their own published writings. This eliminates any
> possibility of misrepresentation or errors that could occur if I did
> it in my own words. This is why my recent blunder will not and cannot
> have any effect on my paper.
Your paper doesn't exist. Quit thinking we're fucking retards, Ray. And
quit poisoning interesting threads your idiocies and dishonesty. Go back to
the Anti-defamation League thread, you coward.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
Walter Bushell
Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
> mathematician.
>
> So stop it already.
Newton was a serial killer, but he did it legally.
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.
Steven L.
> Tom wrote:
>
>> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
>> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>>
>> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
>> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
>> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
>> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
>> mathematician.
>
> how well they fit the empirical evidence. That is the only criterion
> that matters for a scientific theory.
>
> Newton, for example, persecuated conterfeiters and had little regard
> for their rights under English law (this was when he ran the mint).
He was also neurotic as hell.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
>>> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
>>> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>>>
>>> If it were discovered that Einstein ran a child prostitution ring in
>>> his spare time, it would do nothing to discredit the theory of
>>> relatively. And we would not stop teaching calculus in school if it
>>> were learned that Isaac Newton had been a serial killer as well as a
>>> mathematician.
>>>
>> I guess that it has to do with how a lot (if not all, in a sense) of
>> people think. They think that the value of what a person said is
>> for example, if a politician experimented with drugs in his youth and
>> it is found out he can go, regardless of how good a politician he is.
>>
That's common among pseudo-scientific attacks on science, not just
evolution.
There were many cranks who attacked Einstein's character. The worst
were the Nazis, who dismissed relativity as "Jewish science." Sigmund
Freud got similar treatment.
"Einstein a scientist? It were difficult to imagine anyone
more contrary to what a scientist should be....As a scientist, Einstein
is just a fair violinist."
-- George Francis Gillette, a famous pseudo-scientist
"Sigmund Freud is a shit....and the asshole of creation"
-- one of Freud's contemporary critics in Vienna
Steven L.
> Tom wrote:
>> I see a lot posts where people attempt to cast Darwin's character in a
>> negative light. But I'm not sure what the purpose is.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>
> The idea is that to discredit the argument, you discredit the proponent
> of that argument.
>
> If any discussion resorts to that, it usually means the attacker has
> lost the argument on a rational basis and now resorts to slandering the
> opponents.
>
> Silly of course, but creationists use it a lot. Other means of "debate"
> in this context include quote mining, argument from ignorance and plain
> lying, among others.
Their major line of attack, which Stein uses in "Expelled," is called
"argument from adverse consequences". They want evolution to be false,
because they can't deal with its (philosophical) implications if it
turned out to be true.
Steven L.
> Fewer creationists oppose relativity than oppose common descent or
> natural mechanisms for adaption and diversity. Even fewer, I think,
> oppose calculus or even heliocentrism (although note that geocentrist
> creationist Gerardus Bouw says terrible things about the character and
> actions of Kepler).
I have heard creationists claim that there can be no intelligent
extraterrestrial aliens though (they seem to support the Rare Earth
Hypothesis). IOW, they believe SETI must fail eventually.
Because God sent his only begotten Son to earth to redeem us from our
sins. Hence there is no other begotten Son to send to the aliens to
redeem them from their sins. Hence they do not exist.
That was their argument, anyway.
Steven L.
> So I guess my real question should have been "why do creationists
> personally attack Darwin HERE?". It just seems pointless.
Just think of it as spam. :-)
Like spam, it's a volume business. 99% of the folks who read their
posts won't accept them. But if only a fraction of one percent of the
folks who read them, come away believing there's some truth to it, then
their efforts have been worthwhile.
Why do they keep posting the Nigerian scam to Usenet? Because if they
can scam even one rube out of ten thousand, they will make a bundle.
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In the category of "Introducing the Ray Martinez line of foot-shaped
targets":
Augray
<21e16e17-7a39-438b...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
>On May 5, 4:18 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 May 2008 15:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <f0732e8b-0642-4658-ad66-d9ff5fe14...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >On May 4, 2:31 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Why do you
>> >> seek to justify presenting lousy arguments against evolution, rather
>> >> than attempting to craft a valid one?
>>
>> >What lousy agrument?
>>
>> Your claim that "Darwin was an atheist" comes to mind. Darwin's
>> religion, or lack thereof, has no bearing on evolution.
>
>Ultimately, I agree that Darwin's worldview or religion or lack of
>religion has no bearing on the veracity of evolution. In fact, I will
>prove this point to a degree that no one will ever be able to say
>otherwise.
Why waste your time on it?
>It doesn't matter if you are a Christian or Atheist,
>evolution stands of falls on the facts and evidence.
When are you going to address the facts and evidence?
>But evolutionists do not really believe this. They do not really
>believe that Darwin's personal views on religion has no bearing on
>evolution.
Yeah, they do.
>They believe Darwin MUST never be shown to have been an
>Atheist before 1859. Just about every book on Darwin makes this effort
>because once it is understood that Darwin was an Atheist before 1859
>evolution becomes the predictable and predetermined views of an
>Atheist.
But since it's irrelevant, so what?
>The rock solid facts will show that Charles Darwin was a Christian and
>a Creationist when he discovered evidence for evolution and when he
>determined that evolution had occurred. Of course once he determined
>that evolution had occurred he ceased to be a Creationist and a
>Christian.
Even if it's true, it's completely and utterly irrelevant.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:607e4034-8faa-4441...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 4:49 am, er...@swva.net wrote:
>> On May 4, 6:36 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 4, 3:01 pm, Tom <t...@tom.com> wrote:
>>
>> (snip irrelevancies)
>>
>> Tom's question is, why do creationists keep attacking Charles Darwin's
>> character? Why do they find such irrelevant stuff acceptable, when it
>> has nothing to do with the validity of the science in question? Are
>> you able to stay on topic and come up with an answer?
>>
>> Eric Root
>
> That was not Tom's question or issue. Tom is making a tired and biased
> point: only creationists engage in poisoning the well.
That doesn't appear to be what Tom is saying. It's beside the point, but
ut does appear that creationists are the ones who most often use logical
fallcies such as "poisoning the well". It's rare to find "evolutionists"
using such arguments.
> Intelligent and
> honest persons know that it is a two-way street.
Actually, Ray, "honest and intelligent" people (two sets you don't belong
to) know that creationists most often use logical fallcies, and false
arguments. What you seem to be saying is that "creationists" are liars,
but so are "evolutionists". The problem is that you haven't shown that
"evolutionists" engage in the activities that creationists do.
>
> As for Darwin's character: I would say that it is basically
> unimpeachable. I have also read creationist criticisms of Darwin that
> have made me cringe.
Again, creationists are most likely to use bad arguments, because they don't
have good ones to offer.
DJT
Steven J.
> Steven J. wrote:
> > Fewer creationists oppose relativity than oppose common descent or
> > natural mechanisms for adaption and diversity. Even fewer, I think,
> > oppose calculus or even heliocentrism (although note that geocentrist
> > creationist Gerardus Bouw says terrible things about the character and
> > actions of Kepler).
>
> I have heard creationists claim that there can be no intelligent
> extraterrestrial aliens though (they seem to support the Rare Earth
> Hypothesis). IOW, they believe SETI must fail eventually.
>
is discovered by direct inspection of some extraterrestrial world),
claiming that there are no ETIs is not really denying science or
scientific evidence. What creationists would make of it, if we really
did find a sequence of prime numbers in a signal from another star (a
scenario used, as an analogy, by a number of ID supporters) is
interesting to contemplate, but thus far, the problem has not arisen.
>
> Because God sent his only begotten Son to earth to redeem us from our
> sins. Hence there is no other begotten Son to send to the aliens to
> redeem them from their sins. Hence they do not exist.
>
First, the entire universe suffers under a curse imposed upon Adam and
Eve for the original sin (which is why intelligent aliens would need
redemption from sin, but is also why predation, cancer, parasitism,
and so forth exist), but it would not accord with divine justice to
curse intelligent beings who were not descended from the original
malefactors.
Second, Christians are commanded to take the gospel to all people and
baptize them, but there is no way to obey this command if there are
nonhuman people living on worlds of other stars, but God would not
have given us a commandment that was impossible to fulfill. Christ
might have died to redeem aliens, but there would be no practical way
to take the news of this to them.
The interesting thing is that these arguments date back to a time when
the stars were thought to be just lights attached to the solid
outermost sphere of the Ptolemaic universe. Christians in the fourth
century AD pondered whether there could be inhabited continents on the
other side of the spherical Earth (the so-called "problem of the
antipodes"). Some of them held the idea to be outright heresy (bad
news for Americans and Australians, if you ask me), and others, while
admitting that Christians could believe in extra-afroeurasian
intelligences, thought that they shouldn't, for the reasons stated
above: descendants of Adam and Eve could never have reached such
continents, non-descendants could not fairly share in the curse on the
Earth, and missionaries couldn't reach them anyway.
However, the flaw in the fourth-century arguments (overlooking land
bridges and short ocean hops between the Old and New Worlds) seems
unlikely to apply to modern versions of the argument.
>
> That was their argument, anyway.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
-- Steven J.
Ye Old One
When presented with undeniable proof that evolution happened, what
else do you expect him to do?
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
>> First of all, Ray, it is false that "evolutionists automatically and
>> routinely malign" creationists. I have already pointed out how, e.g.
>> Richard Dawkins has conceded that Kurt Wise is "an honest
>> creationist." Nor, of course, are all personal criticisms
>> "slander" (or "libel," for that matter): some very harsh criticisms
>> are entirely accurate.
>>
>
> Dawkins is the worst offended. If you don't agree with him he breaks
> out the "you are insane" or "you are a Fundamentalist" card.
I believe you mean "worst offender". I doubt you can back that up.
Dawkins doesn't claim that anyone who does not agree with him is either
"insane", or "fundamentalist". (not surprising, you have made both claims
against others who disagree with you). Dawkins has pointed out that
anyone who claims that evolution didn't happen is wrong, and has given
several alternatives to explain why they are wrong. Denying evolution is
not disagreeing with Dawkins, but disagreeing with scientific evidence.
>
> But your comments simply imply that evolutionist slander is not
> slander but creationist slander is slander.
Actually, "slander" only applies to spoken word. "Libel" is the term for
written material which is malicious falsehoods. You haven't shown that
"evolutionists" engage in "slander" (libel, actually).
You seem to think that "slander" is the term for any facts or evidence
that contradicts your beliefs. Falsehoods told by creationists are false,
but are not always "slander" (ie. spoken malicious falshoods, intended to
harm one's reputation). When a creationst says that "there are no
transitional forms", that's a falsehood, but not "slander". When a
creationist says "there's no way new information can be produced", that's
also false, but not "slander". If a creationist says, for example, "all
scientists are conspiring to cover up evidence for creation", that's both
false, and "slander". If a creation says, "Piltdown was a fraud",
that's both correct, and not slander. If they say "Piltdown was a fraud
intended to prove evolution", that's a half truth, but again, not slander.
When a "evolutionist" says that Ken Ham lied about there being no
evidence for evoluiton, that's not slander, because it's true. If an
"evolutionist" were to say that Kent Hovind cheated on his taxes, that too
is not slander, because it's true. If that "evolutionist" were to say
that Hovind can't be correct, because he cheated on his taxes, that's an ad
hominem, and is a logical fallacy. If one points out that Hovind is a tax
cheat, in order to call doubt into his honesty, that's not either. If
evolutionists were basing their support of evolutionary theory, by attacking
creationism, or creationist beliefs, that would similar to what creationists
are doing. Scientists, however, support evolution by presenting evidence
for evolution, and ignore creationist claims.
> In other words your
> comments lack any objective merit.
Ray, the "merit" of the statment is in the points themselves, not any claim
of "objectivity". Your own lack of objectivity does not mean that others
are also non-objective.
>
>
>> Second, there is a difference between showing that someone has made
>> false and/or logically absurd claims, and concluding that he is either
>> a liar or a buffoon, and asserting that someone is a "racist" or proto-
>> Nazi puppy molester in order to avoid actually dealing with his claims
>> or showing that they are false. For example, no one is arguing that
>> because Ben Stein is a liar and a fool, _Expelled_ must be a bad,
>> dishonest movie; rather, because _Expelled_ can be shown on
>> independent grounds to be bad and dishonest, this rather casts doubt
>> on the character of its star and narrator.
>>
>
> In the context of the OP and my first reply to the OP these comments
> simply attempt to say evolutuionists do not do what creationists are
> predictably asserted to be guilty of.
By and large, "evolutionists" don't do what creationists do. Whether or
not it's "predictable" what is said about creationists, it's a matter of
whether it's true. "Evolutionist" don't support evolutionary theory by
claiming creationists are Nazis. "Evolutionists" don't support evolution
by claiming that "creationists" are covering up evidence. "Evolutionists"
don't quote mine creationist literature to poke holes in creationist claims.
> Again, this is a very biased and
> predictable point lacking any objectivity whatsoever.
Again, it's not "predictablity" at issue, but truth. Even if you could
predict what Steven was saying with 100% accuracy, that does not mean Steven
is incorrect.
>
> The issue is not perceived creationist slander but acknowledgement
> that both creationists and evolutionists engage in slander in order to
> poison the well.
You seem to be saying here that you admit creationists are illogical, and
engage in faulty arguments. That you claim that "evolutionists" do the
same thing does not support your side.
> In other words human beings engage in slander,
> whether they are creationists or evolutionists, do you understand?
Again, Ray, you haven't shown that "evolutionists" are engaging in slander.
Evolutionary theory is not supported by scientists claiming that Henry
Morris cheated at Bingo, or that Neil Seagrave inspired the Black Panthers.
No one is making a movie claiming that Duane Gish's writings led to Disco
Dancing.....
>
> The OP sought to establish a one-way street. It is, in fact, a two-way
> street. Always has been.
Except that scientists largely don't engage in the activities you are
claiming. Science is always been a rough and tumble activity, not for those
with fragile egos, but scientists normally argue the facts, not the person.
Calling a creationist wrong, when he is, in fact, wrong, is not "slander".
Pointing out the errors made by creationists in their writings is not a
personal attack.
>
>> Third, there is a difference between showing that someone who has been
>> cited as an authority is not really an authority, in order to
>> undermine a claim that rests solely on that person's authority, and
>> attacking someone when his claims are backed by evidence independent
>> of himself. If your entire argument on some point is that Gene Scott
>> said so, it is relevant to show that Gene Scott is no more an
>> authority on that topic that Lenny Flank's pizza delivery boy. This
>> would not show, by itself, that you were wrong, but only that you had
>> no reason to suppose you were right. On the other hand, evolutionary
>> theory has a century and a half of evidence backing it up; it has long
>> been irrelevant whether Darwin's expertise was sufficient to establish
>> him as an authority.
>>
>
> All this says is when an antievolutionist says something against
> evolution it is a claim, but when a evolutionist says something it is
> a fact based on evidence.
In nearly every case, that is true. Anti-evolutionists have no facts, or
evidence to support their claims, so they must resort to false claims, or
distortions. "Evolutionists" have the advantage of arguing from the facts.
> This is ordinary and predictable bias or
> supposition.
Again, whether or not it's "predictable" it's still true. The fact is that
creationist claims, almost always are found to be spurious. "Evolutionist"
claims are normally fact based. If you can find any examples of
"evolutionist claims" that are not true, please present them.
> Since you are an evolutionist your comments and their
> suppositions are entirely predictable and, of course, reflect your
> bias.
Bias toward the facts is not a bad thing. Creationists are wrong, and no
amount of "bias" against creationists makes their claims any more true.
>
> You seem unable to grasp the point: objectivity is a two way street.
But facts are not. Not every idea, concept, or WAG is correct.
Creationist claims, not matter how objective one is, are still wrong.
Wanting them to be true does not make them true. Wanting them to be false
doesn't make them any more true, or false either.
>
>
>> Fourth, did not Christ command you to return good for evil rather than
>> seek "an eye for an eye?" You have said that you would criticize
>> creationists where they were wrong; by your own standards they are
>> wrong when they behave this way,
>
> Christ said that in the context of one's neighbor, not impersonal
> arguments with strangers.
Of course, "strangers" is what Christ meant by one's neighbor.
>
>> and even if evolutionists were also
>> wrong, that is no excuse for creationists' misbehavior.
>
> Vice-versa?
Correct. If "evolutionists" are wrong, then creationists ought to be basing
their claims on evidence, which they are not. If creationists are wrong
(and they are), "evolutionists" still base their claims on evidence.
>
>
>> Why do you
>> seek to justify presenting lousy arguments against evolution, rather
>> than attempting to craft a valid one?
>>
>
> What lousy agrument?
That Darwin was an atheist/racist/meanine/Nazi means evolution is wrong, for
one.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On May 5, 4:18 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 May 2008 15:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <f0732e8b-0642-4658-ad66-d9ff5fe14...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >On May 4, 2:31 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Why do you
>> >> seek to justify presenting lousy arguments against evolution, rather
>> >> than attempting to craft a valid one?
>>
>> >What lousy agrument?
>>
>> Your claim that "Darwin was an atheist" comes to mind. Darwin's
>> religion, or lack thereof, has no bearing on evolution.
>
> Ultimately, I agree that Darwin's worldview or religion or lack of
> religion has no bearing on the veracity of evolution.
So, why bother with attacking Darwin personally?
> In fact, I will
> prove this point to a degree that no one will ever be able to say
> otherwise. It doesn't matter if you are a Christian or Atheist,
> evolution stands of falls on the facts and evidence.
Again, why bother with you false claims that Darwin was an atheist?
>
> But evolutionists do not really believe this.
They don't? Ray, nearly everyone here has been trying to tell you this,
for years.
> They do not really
> believe that Darwin's personal views on religion has no bearing on
> evolution. They believe Darwin MUST never be shown to have been an
> Atheist before 1859.
Ray, as Augray has pointed out, it does not matter that Darwin was, or was
not an atheist. The fact is that Darwin was not an atheist, but even if
he was, the evidence for evolution would still stand.
> Just about every book on Darwin makes this effort
> because once it is understood that Darwin was an Atheist before 1859
> evolution becomes the predictable and predetermined views of an
> Atheist.
Which, as you just admitted above, is irrelevant. Every book on Darwin
makes this effort, because Darwin wasn't an atheist.
>
> The rock solid facts will show that Charles Darwin was a Christian and
> a Creationist when he discovered evidence for evolution and when he
> determined that evolution had occurred. Of course once he determined
> that evolution had occurred he ceased to be a Creationist and a
> Christian.
Which is entirely irrelevant, as you just stated yourself.
DJT
Bible Bob
Tom,
Read any good bones lately?
It's been a while since I have read any posts from you - since you
stopped slumming in the f.c group. I was thinking about you and so I
subscribed to the t.o group, downloaded the headers, sorted by writer
and began reading some of yours.
Your one liners are getting better. Have you been practicing or has
Bilbo been giving you pointers.
Just wanted to say hi.
Oh, and if you hear some maliciuous rumor about me making up one of my
diddy's about holy bones; don't be offended. While writing it I
hesitated because I didn't want to offend you - but since you weren't
around I let 'er rip.
BB
*Hemidactylus*
ushered in the likes of Hitler and Stalin?
Priceless.
>
I have also read creationist criticisms of Darwin that
> have made me cringe.
>
Anytime I read that Darwin was responsible for the great bloodbaths of
the 20th century I'm having a hard time holding back a nasty retching
fit. Good thing that you'd never stoop as low as that.
AC
Tom
Tom never said that ONLY creationists do anything. All Tom said was
that he saw a lot of posts in which people attack Darwin's character,
and he wanted to know why. That's all.
Tom
I am an atheist, and I could care less whether Darwin was religious or
not. In fact, even if Darwin had not lived at all, other people
indepedently and around the same time starting coming up with similar
ideas. Darwin could have never published "The Origin of Species", and
evolutionary theory would still have emerged.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am just stating facts and I happen to agree with your point: if any
evolution has occurred on this planet then I too would do as Darwin
did. But Darwin was wrong. I can and will prove it.
I know for an absoulute fact that evolution of any increment or at any
rate has never occurred on this planet. That is why I am a strict
Creationist carrying the torch for British Natural Theology, and our
master, Rev. William Paley.
Ray
Lee Jay
That's like saying you know for a fact that no apples have ever fallen
from trees.
Evolution is an observed fact, Ray. We breed animals and we breed
plants - that's evolution. We get new strains of bacteria resistant
to antibiotics, and new bugs less sensitive to pest-control chemicals
- that's evolution. We create new species for agriculture like Corn
(Maize) - that's evolution. There are whole industries that use
evolution to create their end products, like pet breeding and
agriculture.
Denying those facts makes you nothing but a tinfoil hatted nut case.
If you want to attack *why* and *how* evolution happens, go ahead, as
long as you have repeatable, supportable data, and your new theory
explains all the existing data. But attacking the observed fact of
evolution is just a non-starter, since we can see it, measure it, and
even use it to create commercial products. Had an Apple lately?
Which type?
Lee Jay
raven1
<looks down at shoes, sheepishly>
I, um, might have inadvertently invited him on alt.atheism the other
day...
<ducks, looks for cover>
Ray Martinez
No, it is not Lee Jay.
What you think is material-evolution is really mechanisms reflecting
Divine power and intelligence.
> We breed animals and we breed
> plants - that's evolution.
No, that's intelligent human design. If intelligence is involved then
it is not evolution, Lee Jay. You need to admit to your error or
misunderstanding.
> We get new strains of bacteria resistant
> to antibiotics, and new bugs less sensitive to pest-control chemicals
> - that's evolution.
False.
Evolution is when species change into a completely different species
over vast amounts of time. Any point of change in between these points
is also evolution, that is, something that never has happened on this
planet.
Your use of the word 'evolution' is rendering it almost meaningless.
> We create new species for agriculture like Corn
> (Maize) - that's evolution.
If true that is also intelligent human design. Evolution says
intelligence is not seen in nature. Evolution rejects ID.
> There are whole industries that use
> evolution to create their end products, like pet breeding and
> agriculture.
>
Deluded by fanaticism.
"Evolution is God....it is everywhere creating everything."
> Denying those facts makes you nothing but a tinfoil hatted nut case.
>
I am glad to get rejected by a person like you.
> If you want to attack *why* and *how* evolution happens, go ahead, as
> long as you have repeatable, supportable data, and your new theory
> explains all the existing data. But attacking the observed fact of
> evolution is just a non-starter, since we can see it, measure it, and
> even use it to create commercial products. Had an Apple lately?
> Which type?
>
> Lee Jay- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Modern day idol worship.
We will never bow at your altar - never.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> When presented with undeniable proof that evolution happened, what
>> else do you expect him to do?
>>
>> >Ray
>>
>> --
>> Bob.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I am just stating facts and I happen to agree with your point: if any
> evolution has occurred on this planet then I too would do as Darwin
> did. But Darwin was wrong. I can and will prove it.
No, Ray, you really can't prove it. You can only prove that you don't
understand the concept.
>
> I know for an absoulute fact that evolution of any increment or at any
> rate has never occurred on this planet.
Odd, as evolution has been observed directly. The fact that there are
hundreds of different dog breeds is enough to falsify that claim.
>That is why I am a strict
> Creationist carrying the torch for British Natural Theology, and our
> master, Rev. William Paley.
That tremble in the vicinity of England is Rev. Paley's body revolving in
it's grave over this "endorsement". You are a "strict Creationist"
because of your religious beliefs, and you inability to accept the evidence.
"British Natural Theology" is not the loopy ideas of Gene Scott.
DJT
Mitchell Holman
> On May 5, 6:06 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On May 5, 6:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That's like saying you know for a fact that no apples have ever fallen
>> from trees.
>>
>> Evolution is an observed fact, Ray.
>
> No, it is not Lee Jay.
>
> What you think is material-evolution is really mechanisms reflecting
> Divine power and intelligence.
>
>> We breed animals and we breed
>> plants - that's evolution.
>
> No, that's intelligent human design. If intelligence is involved then
> it is not evolution, Lee Jay. You need to admit to your error or
> misunderstanding.
>
>> We get new strains of bacteria resistant
>> to antibiotics, and new bugs less sensitive to pest-control chemicals
>> - that's evolution.
>
> False.
>
> Evolution is when species change into a completely different species
> over vast amounts of time. Any point of change in between these points
> is also evolution, that is, something that never has happened on this
> planet.
evolution:
The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier
life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution
>
> Your use of the word 'evolution' is rendering it almost meaningless.
>
And yours has no basis in science.
>> We create new species for agriculture like Corn
>> (Maize) - that's evolution.
>
> If true that is also intelligent human design. Evolution says
> intelligence is not seen in nature. Evolution rejects ID.
Until ID is proven, sure.
Can you prove ID?
Steven J.
> On May 5, 6:06 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 6:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > I am just stating facts and I happen to agree with your point: if any
> > > evolution has occurred on this planet then I too would do as Darwin
> > > did. But Darwin was wrong. I can and will prove it.
>
> > > I know for an absoulute fact that evolution of any increment or at any
> > > rate has never occurred on this planet.
>
> > That's like saying you know for a fact that no apples have ever fallen
> > from trees.
>
> > Evolution is an observed fact, Ray.
>
> No, it is not Lee Jay.
>
> What you think is material-evolution is really mechanisms reflecting
> Divine power and intelligence.
>
> > We breed animals and we breed
> > plants - that's evolution.
>
> No, that's intelligent human design. If intelligence is involved then
> it is not evolution, Lee Jay. You need to admit to your error or
> misunderstanding.
>
design, Ray. One of the things Darwin pointed out was "unconscious
selection," accidental or unintended effects of human breeding.
Darwin's example was the change in King Charles spaniels (a dog breed)
between the 17th and 19th centuries, even though breeders were trying
to keep the dogs looking like the original spaniels belonging to King
Charles. Laboratory mice aren't bred to be weak and stupid, but in
point of fact they are weaker and stupider than their wild cousins, in
part because they're bred (of course) from mice that don't escape from
the breeders.
I've already pointed out that humans accidentally breed even wild
animals; take, e.g. the increasing percentage of wild elephants born
who don't grow tusks, as an effect of ivory hunters. Or note the
emergence of plants resistant to heavy-metal poisoning because they
and their ancestors grew in areas contaminated by mine tailings. This
is a change in a local population (the ancestors weren't resistant to
the poisonous metals) caused by human intelligent actions, but humans
weren't trying to design plants to resist heavy-metal poisoning (or
tuskless elephants).
>
> > We get new strains of bacteria resistant
> > to antibiotics, and new bugs less sensitive to pest-control chemicals
> > - that's evolution.
>
> False.
>
Ray, your position here seems perverse. You don't seem to deny the
phenomena (e.g. the emergence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria),
but only to deny that such changes are even "microevolution." But
every biologist on the planet calls these sorts of changes
"evolution." Scientifically literate creationists acknowledge that
these are cases of "evolution," albeit merely "microevolution." There
is no point to insisting that no evolution has ever occurred on this
planet, when you can only defend that statement by adopting a
definition of "evolution" that no evolutionist (and no creationist
with plausible pretensions to scientific literacy) has ever used.
>
> Evolution is when species change into a completely different species
> over vast amounts of time. Any point of change in between these points
> is also evolution, that is, something that never has happened on this
> planet.
>
I'm not sure I understand your point. You seem to be arguing that if
mosquitoes in the London subway tunnel evolve, in a single long human
lifetime, into a new species of mosquito, that isn't "evolution"
because they haven't spent the next twenty million years evolving into
scarab beetles, or squid. Or, *IF* those elephants were to evolve
into whales, then the percentage of tuskless elephants increasing over
a few decades would be "evolution," but not if the elephants remain
elephants. Is this your position?
Again, I point out that no one except you uses these definitions. I
also point out that "a completely different species" is unclear. Is a
lion "a completely different species" from a tiger? Is a blue whale
"a completely different species" from _Dorudon atrox_? Is a giraffe
"a completely different species" from a lungfish? What are your
criteria for "completely" different and how do you distinguish it from
"partly different" or "somewhat different?"
>
> Your use of the word 'evolution' is rendering it almost meaningless.
>
He is using "evolution" to mean "change in the frequency of inherited
traits in a population over time." Weirdly enough, this is the
standard definition. Even if you reject common ancestry of humans and
other species, evolution includes "microevolution," which is
relatively minor changes within a single species, regardless of cause.
>
> > We create new species for agriculture like Corn
> > (Maize) - that's evolution.
>
> If true that is also intelligent human design. Evolution says
> intelligence is not seen in nature. Evolution rejects ID.
>
Evolutionary biology, like the rest of science, rejects "god of the
gaps" arguments from personal incredulity and appeals to magic.
Evolutionary biology is compatible with intelligent design, if you can
provide some evidence for the alleged designer and give some idea of
his abilities, constraints, purposes, and/or design philosophy. ID
"theory" has none of that.
>
> > There are whole industries that use
> > evolution to create their end products, like pet breeding and
> > agriculture.
>
> Deluded by fanaticism.
>
Is this your new self-description, replacing "Paulist creationist-
designist?"
>
> "Evolution is God....it is everywhere creating everything."
>
Evolutionists consistently insist otherwise. Biological evolutionary
theory does not even attempt to explain the origin of life, much less
the origin of the universe and everything. You seem to be dedicated
to prove, not anything about evolution, but about your own hysterical
and paranoid fear of the very word "evolution."
>
> > Denying those facts makes you nothing but a tinfoil hatted nut case.
>
> I am glad to get rejected by a person like you.
>
> > If you want to attack *why* and *how* evolution happens, go ahead, as
> > long as you have repeatable, supportable data, and your new theory
> > explains all the existing data. But attacking the observed fact of
> > evolution is just a non-starter, since we can see it, measure it, and
> > even use it to create commercial products. Had an Apple lately?
> > Which type?
>
> > Lee Jay
>
> Modern day idol worship.
>
I wasn't aware that standard English word usage was an idol.
>
> We will never bow at your altar - never.
>
Don't be so hasty to speak: we're still resorting to logic and
evidence to change your mind; we haven't even got to the electric
cattle prods up the rectum.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Tom McDonald
Hi Bob. Good to know you're still around.
And you know you never have to worry (too much) about offending
me. I'm fairly broadminded, especially when folks try their hand
at pometry.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4cf407d4-f532-4382...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...snip
>> That's like saying you know for a fact that no apples have ever fallen
>> from trees.
>>
>> Evolution is an observed fact, Ray.
>
> No, it is not Lee Jay.
Sorry, Ray, but evolution has been observed. See:
http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/Sci_ed/GeneralBiology/evolution/faq-misconceptions.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/bergstrom_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/061201_quietcrickets
>
> What you think is material-evolution is really mechanisms reflecting
> Divine power and intelligence.
While that's a fine religious opinion, it's not a refutation of the fact of
evolution.
>
>> We breed animals and we breed
>> plants - that's evolution.
>
> No, that's intelligent human design.
Nevertheless, it's still evolution. Evolution is defined as alelle change
in a population over generations. It doesn't matter if the selecting
agency is unguided, or human, it's still evolution.
> If intelligence is involved then
> it is not evolution, Lee Jay. You need to admit to your error or
> misunderstanding.
Actually, Ray, it's you who is again making the mistake. Evolution is
change in gene frequencies, in a population over time. It doesn't matter to
the population if the change in gene frequencies is due to an intelligent
agent, or natural selection. You can insist on this, and get embarassed
again, or do some research and find out you are wrong. It's your choice.
>
>> We get new strains of bacteria resistant
>> to antibiotics, and new bugs less sensitive to pest-control chemicals
>> - that's evolution.
>
> False.
>
> Evolution is when species change into a completely different species
> over vast amounts of time.
Ray, we've been over this before, what you are describing is speciation,
and speciation does not have to take "vast amounts of time". Speciation
can occur fairly rapidly, in populations that have short generational times.
Also, speciation doesn't cause the species to be "completely different",
just enough different so that they don't normally interbreed.
Evolution, as Lee Jay correctly says, is genetic change in a population
over time. Speciation is caused by evolution, but it's not the only form
of evolution. Antibiotic resistance, and resistence to pesticides are both
good examples of evolution happening.
> Any point of change in between these points
> is also evolution, that is, something that never has happened on this
> planet.
Again, Ray, you are insisting on things that are false. Evolution has
happened, and is continuing to happen .
>
> Your use of the word 'evolution' is rendering it almost meaningless.
Actually, Ray, his use of the word "evolution" is how biologists use the
term. Speciation is not all there is to evolution.
>
>> We create new species for agriculture like Corn
>> (Maize) - that's evolution.
>
> If true that is also intelligent human design. Evolution says
> intelligence is not seen in nature. Evolution rejects ID.
Again, Ray, you are incorrect. The evolution of new crops is evolution,
even when humans act as the agent of selection. Evolution does not say
that "intelligence is not seen in nature". Humans are intelligent, and
humans are seen in nature, something that evolution recognizes.
Intelligence in nature is seen, when there is evidence of such. Human
intervention in breeding crops, livestock, and companion animals is well
known to science ,and Darwin used examples of human selection in his books.
Science rejects "Intelligent Design", the idea that a supernatural being
produced the appearance of design, because there isn't any evidence to
support that idea, and that appeal to the supernatual is not science.
>
>> There are whole industries that use
>> evolution to create their end products, like pet breeding and
>> agriculture.
>>
>
> Deluded by fanaticism.
How so? Lee is correct, and you are wrong.
>
> "Evolution is God....it is everywhere creating everything."
That's not what people who accept evolution claim. Evolution is a
process, and it does occur. It didn't create everything, but it is
responsible for the diversity of life. No one claims that evolution is
God.
>
>
>> Denying those facts makes you nothing but a tinfoil hatted nut case.
>>
>
> I am glad to get rejected by a person like you.
Why are you glad to get "rejected" by a reasonable person? Do you only
value to judgement of fools?
>
>> If you want to attack *why* and *how* evolution happens, go ahead, as
>> long as you have repeatable, supportable data, and your new theory
>> explains all the existing data. But attacking the observed fact of
>> evolution is just a non-starter, since we can see it, measure it, and
>> even use it to create commercial products. Had an Apple lately?
>> Which type?
>>
>> Lee Jay- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Modern day idol worship.
How so? You are the one who worshiping a false idol, and treating the
Bible as an object of worship.
>
> We will never bow at your altar - never.
No one is asking you to "bow" at any "altar". You are just being asked to
accept fact.
DJT
Lee Jay
> On May 5, 6:06 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Evolution is an observed fact, Ray.
>
> No, it is not Lee Jay.
>
> What you think is material-evolution is really mechanisms reflecting
> Divine power and intelligence.
Yeah...I'll await repeatable scientific proof of that.
> > We breed animals and we breed
> > plants - that's evolution.
>
> No, that's intelligent human design. If intelligence is involved then
> it is not evolution, Lee Jay. You need to admit to your error or
> misunderstanding.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Excerpts:
"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations
of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual."
"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a
population spread over many generations."
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
next."
> > We get new strains of bacteria resistant
> > to antibiotics, and new bugs less sensitive to pest-control chemicals
> > - that's evolution.
>
> False.
>
> Evolution is when species change into a completely different species
> over vast amounts of time. Any point of change in between these points
> is also evolution, that is, something that never has happened on this
> planet.
>
> Your use of the word 'evolution' is rendering it almost meaningless.
Your misuse of, well, pretty much every concept renders nearly
everything you say meaningless.
> > We create new species for agriculture like Corn
> > (Maize) - that's evolution.
>
> If true that is also intelligent human design. Evolution says
> intelligence is not seen in nature. Evolution rejects ID.
Show me where a creationist has defined ID as breeding. They usually
use goofy definitions that involve sub-cellular structures whose
development their tiny minds can't fathom, and so god must have done
it.
> > There are whole industries that use
> > evolution to create their end products, like pet breeding and
> > agriculture.
>
> Deluded by fanaticism.
Nice rebuttal. What is that supposed to mean, exactly?
> "Evolution is God....it is everywhere creating everything."
Still waiting for some proof of this, that I can go out and
scientifically verify.
> > Denying those facts makes you nothing but a tinfoil hatted nut case.
>
> I am glad to get rejected by a person like you.
And everyone else with an IQ on the correct side of the number line.
> > If you want to attack *why* and *how* evolution happens, go ahead, as
> > long as you have repeatable, supportable data, and your new theory
> > explains all the existing data. But attacking the observed fact of
> > evolution is just a non-starter, since we can see it, measure it, and
> > even use it to create commercial products. Had an Apple lately?
> > Which type?
>
> Modern day idol worship.
What work of my own hand do you think I worship? I don't worship
anything - ancient superstition is something I'm grateful that I was
able to shake off at a very young age, despite traditional
indoctrination.
> We will never bow at your altar - never.
That would be you and your other personalities again, right?
You should be thankful for the theory of evolution - a heck of a lot
of people would be dead without its development, and the resulting new
age of biology, medicine, and medical treatments that we humans
developed as a result of this enlightenment. I am - myself, my wife
and my son would all be dead without them. My guess is that you would
be too. Do you think it was god who eliminated smallpox, or did we
humans manage that for ourselves, by using our brains?
Lee Jay
Ye Old One
And yet you haven't.
> But Darwin was wrong.
A lot of people claimed that in the early days. Now, after nearly 150
years, the ToE is even stronger than ever because of the mountain of
evidence that supports it.
> I can and will prove it.
No, because you are ignorant of science.
>
>I know for an absoulute fact that evolution of any increment or at any
>rate has never occurred on this planet.
Only one word to answer that - liar!
> That is why I am a strict
>Creationist carrying the torch for British Natural Theology, and our
>master, Rev. William Paley.
Oh? So you have a master now Dishonest Ray, and one long dead.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.