How you know when the Darwinists are losing
Kalkidas
The non-sequitur: "X is a
Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
therefore, you don't know anything about X"
Bob T.
They laughed at Einstein and they laughed at Newton... but they also
laughed at Bozo the Clown. And you, of course.
- Bob T.
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
You are right that the arguments you noted are all variations on the ad
hominem fallacy, but just because one throws an insult at someone who
does not know what they are talking about, that does not mean that this
is an ad hominem.
Most zealots do not know what they are talking about, are not able to
develop a logical argument, do not rely on evidence to support their
claims and don't really care that they are making claims that are not
consistent with the evidence or with logic.
alextangent
My favourite; "It's only a theory." Cracks me up every time. Title
corrected; no charge.
All-seeing-I
I have to admit. That last one is used so frequently it is no longer
funny.
Here is a variation:
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT
EVOLUTION AND YOU ARE JUST STUPID AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
they ALSO think the world and all knowledge began 300 years ago!
It is amazing any of them can breathe without mechanical assistance.
r norman
>The arguments from ism-ism:
>
>The non-sequitur: "X is a
>Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
>qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
X writes in a publication that explicitly declares as a statement of
faith the the Bible is inerrantly true and that nothing that detracts
from that truth is acceptable and that the purpose of the publication
is to spread the word of the Bible rather than search for valid
objective truth.
>The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
>therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
>Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
X claims to be expert and authoritative by virtue of possessing a PhD
even though said degree is not from an accredited institution or is in
a field totally alien to the subject matter at hand. Furthermore, X's
writings about scientific theories indicates absolutely no
understanding of the subject matter at hand.
>The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
>rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
X's ideas have been declared to be false by absolutely everybody who
has any knowledge of the subject matter.
>Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
>therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
I assert that you don't know anything about X based on what you write
about X and what I and everybody else in the known universe who
actually has experience with subject X knows.
RAM
> On Jan 1, 10:12�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> > The non-sequitur: "X is a
> > Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> > qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>
> > The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> > therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> > Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>
> > The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> > rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>
> > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> I have to admit. That last one is used so frequently it is no longer
> funny.
>
> Here is a variation:
>
> YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT
> EVOLUTION AND YOU ARE JUST STUPID AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
How true. Can you take an intro biology test on evolution and pass it
at say a measly 60% level.
I'll bet there are people here who have them and will allow you to
take one of their test.
>
> they ALSO think the world and all knowledge began 300 years ago!
Most of the reliable stuff did. The ancient stuff is mostly for
showing how myopic or histories have been. That is where you reside
in "Myopia" a central state of Dysutopia.
>
> It is amazing any of them can breathe without mechanical assistance.
So says the loon who thinks "watchers" and Sumerian "in vitro
fertilization" were real!!
Ron O
>
> The non-sequitur: "X is a
> Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
It may seem this way, but that is only because of the high proportion
of willfully ignorant morons that such groups attract.
>
> The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
This is just because it is usually true. The only guys ignorant or
incompetent enough to make claims against the theory of biological
evolution usually don't even know what it is.
>
> The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
Beats, me where this one comes from. When everyone that counts
claimes the same thing, it might be a good idea to check things out
and see if the bone head that they claim is wrong, might just be
wrong. This may apply to Kalkidas himself. No one should take him
seriously, and should cross check everything he says because he
usually is so off the mark that it would be embarassing to agree with
him.
>
> Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> therefore, you don't know anything about X"
Sometimes statements of fact are just that. If someone doesn't know
anything about X there is no point lying about it. Kalkidas may have
a beef with this because he usually doesn't know what he is talking
about, but no competent and informed people should.
Ron Okimoto
Nomen Publicus
> The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> The non-sequitur: "X is a
> Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
In general if s/he has no experience in science they are not qualified.
>
> The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
S/he may be qualified to use the scientific method but they are without a
specific understanding of the topic. Sometimes this is an advantage (Feynman
for example) but almost always it leads to foolish errors.
>
> The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
Is the speaker a supporter or a rival?
>
> Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> therefore, you don't know anything about X"
Sounds like the typical creationalist argument.
--
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years
before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
-- Mark Twain
Jim
Losing what? There is no contest, as far as I can see. Reality is
oblivious to human prejudice, and will continue to operate as it has
regardless of what people believe (or if indeed there are people
around to believe anything, since the universe has been human-free for
virtually its entire history). Debates about how we came to be are
not what decides the issue - indeed, are completely irrelevant to that
discovery. Those who respect reality and truth, and are willing to be
taught, recognize that if we want to understand how things came to be
we need to abandon human arrogance and anthropocentrism and listen
humbly to what reality teaches. The bleating of those who insist on
being somehow divinely special has no effect whatsoever on either what
is or what has been.
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 10:12�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> The arguments from ism-ism:
>>
>> The non-sequitur: "X is a
>> Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
>> qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>>
>> The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
>> therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
>> Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>>
>> The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
>> rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>>
>> Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
>> therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
>I have to admit. That last one is used so frequently it is no longer
>funny.
>
>Here is a variation:
>
>YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT
>EVOLUTION AND YOU ARE JUST STUPID AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
In your case, it would be more along the lines that you demonstrably
know nothing about evolution, because you reveal your ignorance of the
topic in every post, by making basic errors that no one who had
studied the topic at all would commit.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 10:12�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> The arguments from ism-ism:
>>
>> The non-sequitur: "X is a
>> Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
>> qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>>
>> The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
>> therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
>> Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>>
>> The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
>> rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>>
>> Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
>> therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
>I have to admit. That last one is used so frequently it is no longer
>funny.
>
>Here is a variation:
>
>YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT
>EVOLUTION AND YOU ARE JUST STUPID AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
i'm an objective observer, being neither a creationist nor
evolutionary biologist.
and i know fairly little about evolution. however, creationism is
plainly not science. that much is obvious. even if you didnt know
ANYTHING about evolution at all you could easily figure out that
creationism is nonsense
>
>they ALSO think the world and all knowledge began 300 years ago!
science started about that time. it was revolutionary. you just dont
understand it because you still have a 3rd century view of reality
>
>It is amazing any of them can breathe without mechanical assistance.
says the believer in an idea that's been wrong for 2000 years
Will in New Haven
A personal attack is not always an admission, or even an indication,
of defeat. Leaving the technical stuff to others, I just point out
that you are managing to be both ignorant _and_ pedantic at the same
time. The fact that you are also pompous and an asshole is rather
obvious but I point it out because bandwidth is no longer an issue.
With all due respect
--
Will in New Haven
bpuharic
>The arguments from ism-ism:
>
>The non-sequitur: "X is a
>Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
>qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
havent seen that argument made. however, it IS a fact that creationism
is, by definition, a fundamentalist belief and is not science
try again.
>
>The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
>therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
>Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
science is evidence based. creationism, being authority based, thinks
that having a PhD renders one an authority, regardless of one's
ability to understand scientific methodology
>
>The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
>rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
haven't seen this argument made. so 2 of your 3 ideas are strawmen
>
>Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
>therefore, you don't know anything about X"
well if someone uses 3rd century thinking to evaluate science, then
this statement is true.
and creationism is a 3rd century belief.
so get back to us when your religion stops teaching that certain
humans are subhuman, OK?
>
richardal...@googlemail.com
Try a little thought experiment.
Imagine for a moment that you have spent 40 years studying a subject,
have carried out original research in that subject, and made a
contribution to the academic literature on the subject.
You come across someone who very evidently knows very little about the
subject, and is also evidently relying on sources of information which
are blatantly and transparently dishonest and comes up with statements
which are simply wrong and reveal a lack of understanding of the
subject.
When you try to educate them a little, they tell you that you know
nothing about the subject which you study, refuse to learn anything
about it, and persist in making the same, false assertions.
What would you consider an appropriate response to someone like that?
RF
All-Seeing-I
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:12:32 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> >therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> I assert that you don't know anything about X based on what you write
> about X and what I and everybody else in the known universe who
> actually has experience with subject X knows.
This presupposes you hold the absolute and conclusive truth of X
This also uses the numbers of people that say Z about X to bolter the
claim that someone does not understand X
That is where we are at today with junk-science..
laughable but sad for humanity.
Boikat
A good one today was when ASS-I(diot) accused me of nym-shifting.
Boikat
Free Lunch
>On Jan 1, 10:12�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> The arguments from ism-ism:
>>
>> The non-sequitur: "X is a
>> Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
>> qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>>
>> The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
>> therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
>> Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>>
>> The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
>> rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>>
>> Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
>> therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
>I have to admit. That last one is used so frequently it is no longer
>funny.
>
>Here is a variation:
>
>YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT
>EVOLUTION AND YOU ARE JUST STUPID AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
But no one says that to you, adman, what they say is that you have
demonstrated that you know nothing about evolution and that you have
ignored everything about evolution that has ever been presented to you.
Stop worshipping your own ignorance.
Eric Root
> On Jan 1, 10:31�am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:12:32 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> [\]
>
> > >Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > >therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> > I assert that you don't know anything about X based on what you write
> > about X and what I and everybody else in the known universe who
> > actually has experience with subject X knows.
>
> This presupposes you hold the absolute and conclusive truth of X
>
No, it doesn't presuppose that, and people who think it does
presuppose that have not earned the right to an opinion. Like we've
told you many times, we don't have to have absolute truth, 99% truth
is good enough, and you only have .01% truth, so you lose. What is
wrong with you that you don't understand that and keep whining that we
don't have "absolute truth?"
> This also uses the numbers of people that say Z about X to bolter the
> claim that someone does not understand X
>
> That is where we are at today with junk-science..
>
creationism=junk-science
> laughable but sad for humanity.
Yeah, I wish you creationist would tire on stabbing mankind in the
back and just wise up.
Eric Root
Frank J
The funniest to me is the "it takes more faith" line. Check the
comical confusion of improvised answers to the question of what takes
less faith than evolution:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b05daede49e50c2e?hl=en
Mike Painter
> The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> The non-sequitur: "X is a
> Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore
> he's not qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
If X is a Y fundamentalist and Y includes any of the major fundamentalist
religions then that is quite true.
When a group mandates belief in something that is by definition, NOT,
science then it is not qualified to pass judgement.
Trying to play football using the rules of baseball is a bit hard to do.
>
> The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the
> field of Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific
> method)
Next time you break your arm, remember this.
Go find somebody with a PhD in music to fix it.
>
> The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by
> his rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
You just made that one up or don't understand the concept of falsification.
>
> Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> therefore, you don't know anything about X"
As demonstrated in this post.
Kermit
> On Jan 1, 10:12�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> > The non-sequitur: "X is a
> > Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> > qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>
> > The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> > therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> > Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>
> > The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> > rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>
> > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> I have to admit. That last one is used so frequently it is no longer
> funny.
>
> Here is a variation:
>
> YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT
> EVOLUTION AND YOU ARE JUST STUPID AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
I have to admit that this would be an annoying and useless post. Has
anyone here ever said anything like that? Apparently I have to point
out that you routinely accuse all scientists of being dishonest and
incompetent, the two biggest insults in science.
More to the point, you display utter ignorance of evolutionary theory
nearly every time you say anything about it.
>
> they ALSO think the world and all knowledge began 300 years ago!
No at all. Empirical observations have been with us from the
beginning. Clear, scientific-like thinking is known from over 2000
years ago. (Look at Eristothenes and Aristarchus for examples). Modern
science - its methodology and acumulative data keeping began about 300
years ago.
>
> It is amazing any of them can breathe without mechanical assistance.
Rest assured that if you ever needed mechanical assistance to breathe,
science has provided the means.
Tell me again about how nobody ever wrote anything wrong in the past,
Daddy. Then read Jack and the Beanstalk!
Kermit
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 10:31�am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:12:32 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>[\]
>
>> >Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
>> >therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>>
>> I assert that you don't know anything about X based on what you write
>> about X and what I and everybody else in the known universe who
>> actually has experience with subject X knows.
>
>This presupposes you hold the absolute and conclusive truth of X
Your epistemological nihilism is a useless perspective. That we do not
know everything about a topic does not mean that we know nothing.
Religious zealots typically think in terms of "absolute and conclusive
truth"; the rest of us are interested in educating ourselves about
what we humans do actually know, and trying to increase our knowledge
from there, not looking for a quick and easy answer to everything.
>This also uses the numbers of people that say Z about X to bolter the
>claim that someone does not understand X
Not quite. Your position is sadly prevalent among the uneducated: you
are unable to comprehend that tens of thousands of hours of study and
practice are required to attain any degree of expertise in any field
of knowledge, and that anyone who has actually studied a topic in any
depth can immediately spot someone who is ignorant of it. I don't say
this to be disparaging, but you're way out of your depth, and it is
clear to anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the topics you
attempt to discuss that you don't even have such a cursory knowledge
of them.
Burkhard
Let's have a quick thought experiment, shall we? You are accused of a
serious crime, death penalty of lifelong imprisonment threatens. The
prosecution case is based entirely on an "expert witness" who claims
that his unique method of forensic speaker identification allows him
to say that the voice on the telephone that confesses to the crime is
you.
Your solicitor finds out that
a) this witness is outspoken member of a pressure group to increase
conviction rates, and has said on numerous occasions that it is wrong
for experts to help the defence. He also owns a company that sells the
testing equipment which he used for his expertise.
b) He has no formal training in forensic linguistics, only a PhD in
Art History. Almost all of his day work is in Art history, so he has
little or no time to gain experience in forensic speaker
identification
c) almost all experts in forensic linguistics think his method is
wrong and without merit. The few who don't are also members of the
same pressure group and/or hold shares in his company. The mainstream
experts have written detailed rebuttals to his theories in the
relevant literature, and give evidence based reasons why he is wrong.
Do you advice you solicitor to raise these issues and advice the jury
to treat the expertise with caution? Or are you of the opinion that
neither of the there points matters, and they need not be informed of
them?
Kermit
All variants of the ad hominem fallacy. This is a claim that
somebody's argument is false, because that person is an undesirable
sort of person, e.g. "Bill's arguments against evolutionary theory are
incorrect, because he is a Christian (or foreignor, or oil company
execeutive, or Republican, or a child molestor)".
Do not confuse this with a frustrated person pointing out that
somebody is an idiot, based on the evidence of that person's posts,
e.g. "Kalidas is an idiot, because he dismisses verifiable evidence,
provides no testable theory, cites an arbitrarily-chosen religious
myth, and *then claims it's science!"
See the difference?
1. The fallacy claims that one's arguments are wrong because of
undesirable personal traits.
2. The second, correct but irrelevant claim is that a person is
[incorrect / a loon / doesn't know what he's talking about] because he
has made wrong arguments.
Fallacy:
Bad person -> wrong arguments
Correct:
Wrong arguments -> ignorant person.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Jan 1, 10:31�am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:12:32 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> [\]
>
> > >Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > >therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> > I assert that you don't know anything about X based on what you write
> > about X and what I and everybody else in the known universe who
> > actually has experience with subject X knows.
>
> This presupposes you hold the absolute and conclusive truth of X
No, it doesn't it asserts that I have verifiable and reliable evdience
that Xis a reasonable conclusion. Once again, you seem to be implying
that if one cannot know X with no possibility of error, then one
cannot know anything at all.
>
> This also uses the numbers of people that say Z about X to bolter the
> claim that someone does not understand X
Only the number of people that have studied X. How could it be
otherwise, unless you are claiming total nihilism? If there is a
reality out there, then the more people that study X and share their
experiences, then the more they will have a shared and testable view
of it.
If this cannot be true, then anybody's opinions on anything are all
equally valid, in which case, why should we listen to you about
anything?
>
> That is where we are at today with junk-science..
You have repeated this assertion hundreds of times. I refute it by
pointing out that science works.
>
> laughable but sad for humanity.
I don't really find you laughable. It is sad that you represent tens
of millions of people in my country alone.
Because you have no real expertise in any area, you cannot appreciate
the long years of hard work required for those who *have achieved
expertise.
Kermit
Tim DeLaney
<snip>
> Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> therefore, you don't know anything about X"
If the creationist makes silly or stupid statements, then
the evolutionist is justified in making the assertion that
the creationist is ignorant. It's an opinion.
Suppose this is a chess discussion, and the topic is
Alekhine's defense. (1. e4 ... Nf6) If my opponent said:
"Black jumps his horsie over his own pawns to try to win
the pawn at e4." I would know that he was profoundly
ignorant, and I would be fully justified in saying so. OTOH,
if he were to say "Nf6 avoids the Ruy, and tempts white to
over-extend in the center.", I would tentatively conclude that
he knows something about the game.
Many creationists are like the first example above. They
betray their profound ignorance every time they post. It is
not an appeal to (one's own) authority to assert that they
are ignorant; it's simply an informed opinion.
Tim
Ray Martinez
> On Jan 1, 11:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> If the creationist makes silly or stupid statements, then
> the evolutionist is justified in making the assertion that
>
> Suppose this is a chess discussion, and the topic is
> "Black jumps his horsie over his own pawns to try to win
> ignorant, and I would be fully justified in saying so. 嚙瞌TOH,
> if he were to say "Nf6 avoids the Ruy, and tempts white to
> over-extend in the center.", I would tentatively conclude that
> he knows something about the game.
>
> betray their profound ignorance every time they post. 嚙瘢t is
> not an appeal to (one's own) authority to assert that they
> are ignorant; it's simply an informed opinion.
>
> Tim
You have misunderstood the underlying point: Whether creationists are
ignorant or not is irrelevant since the opinion of evolutionists about
their enemy (creationists) is predetermined or wholly predictable.
Ray
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Jan 1, 12:00 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 11:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> > If the creationist makes silly or stupid statements, then
> > the evolutionist is justified in making the assertion that
>
> > Suppose this is a chess discussion, and the topic is
> > "Black jumps his horsie over his own pawns to try to win
> > ignorant, and I would be fully justified in saying so. OTOH,
> > if he were to say "Nf6 avoids the Ruy, and tempts white to
> > over-extend in the center.", I would tentatively conclude that
> > he knows something about the game.
>
> > betray their profound ignorance every time they post. It is
> > not an appeal to (one's own) authority to assert that they
> > are ignorant; it's simply an informed opinion.
>
> > Tim
>
> You have misunderstood the underlying point: Whether creationists are
> ignorant or not is irrelevant since the opinion of evolutionists about
> their enemy (creationists) is predetermined or wholly predictable.
Not to mention confirmed time and time again... Dontcha think that's
the main reason for the predictability?
mur...@tntech.edu
> On Jan 1, 12:00�pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [...]
> You have misunderstood the underlying point: Whether creationists are
> ignorant or not is irrelevant since the opinion of evolutionists about
> their enemy (creationists) is predetermined or wholly predictable.
>
> Ray
Ray, the non-existence of your Big Paper in 2010 is wholly
predictable.
---DPM
>
Ray Martinez
> The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> The non-sequitur: "X is a
> Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>
> The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>
> The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>
> therefore, you don't know anything about X"
The truth is that ordinary evolutionists know next to nothing about
their own theory. There is a wide gap of knowledge between evolution
scholars and the evolution masses----the latter being, for the most
part, completely ignorant of the published writings of the former. The
average Talk Origin citizen possesses preconceptions about
evolutionary theory that are totally unfounded, having no support in
the collective writings of their own scholars.
For example, the following regular evolutionist posters are completely
ignorant of the history and facts of their own theory:
1. Dana Tweedy
2. John Harshman
3. Ron Okimoto
4. John Stockwell
5. Devils Advocate
6. Ye Olde One
7. Bob Casanova (alter ego of #6)
8. Boikat
9. Free Lunch
10. Richard Forrest
I could identify 50 more but you get the point.
Ray
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 12:00�pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 11:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
>> > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>>
>> If the creationist makes silly or stupid statements, then
>> the evolutionist is justified in making the assertion that
>> the creationist is ignorant. �It's an opinion.
>>
>> Suppose this is a chess discussion, and the topic is
>> Alekhine's defense. �(1. �e4 ... Nf6) �If my opponent said:
>> "Black jumps his horsie over his own pawns to try to win
>> the pawn at e4." �I would know that he was profoundly
>> ignorant, and I would be fully justified in saying so. �OTOH,
>> if he were to say "Nf6 avoids the Ruy, and tempts white to
>> over-extend in the center.", I would tentatively conclude that
>> he knows something about the game.
>>
>> Many creationists are like the first example above. �They
>> betray their profound ignorance every time they post. �It is
>> not an appeal to (one's own) authority to assert that they
>> are ignorant; it's simply an informed opinion.
>>
>> Tim
>
>You have misunderstood the underlying point: Whether creationists are
>ignorant or not is irrelevant
Can I quote you on that, Ray?
>since the opinion of evolutionists about
>their enemy (creationists) is predetermined or wholly predictable.
Even if true, this would be irrelevant to the truth or falsity of
either position.
Tim DeLaney
> On Jan 1, 12:00�pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 11:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> > If the creationist makes silly or stupid statements, then
> > the evolutionist is justified in making the assertion that
>
> > Suppose this is a chess discussion, and the topic is
> > "Black jumps his horsie over his own pawns to try to win
> > ignorant, and I would be fully justified in saying so. �OTOH,
> > if he were to say "Nf6 avoids the Ruy, and tempts white to
> > over-extend in the center.", I would tentatively conclude that
> > he knows something about the game.
>
> > betray their profound ignorance every time they post. �It is
> > not an appeal to (one's own) authority to assert that they
> > are ignorant; it's simply an informed opinion.
>
> > Tim
>
> You have misunderstood the underlying point: Whether creationists are
> ignorant or not is irrelevant since the opinion of evolutionists about
> their enemy (creationists) is predetermined or wholly predictable.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe it is you who misses the point. Here it is:
Evolutionary biologists have constructed a theory that
purports to explain the biological world. Whether that
theory is accurate or correct is not at issue in this thread.
At issue is this question: Have creationists acquainted
themselves with the ToE? If the answer is no, then any
criticism they might make of ToE is invalid. You appear
to believe that it is not necessary to understand ToE to
criticize it. Quite frankly, I don't understand this.
I will concede that some creationists have actually tried
to understand it. OTOH, others have made no attempt
whatsoever. It is entirely appropriate to criticize the latter.
It is also easy separate the willfully ignorant from those
who make an honest attempt to understand the position
of the other side.
I might add that there are evolutionists that make poor
arguments, and generally behave badly. On our side we
seem to have more than our share of those who subscribe
to the Argumentum ad Pottymouth fallacy. I do not support
them.
Tim
Dave Oldridge
news:6f9cbe12-4fed-4201...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>On Jan 1, 10:12�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> The arguments from ism-ism:
>>
>> The non-sequitur: "X is a
>> Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore
>> he's not qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>>
>> The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of
>> Y, therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in
>> the field of Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general
>> scientific method)
>>
>> The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by
>> his rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>>
>> Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about
>> X, therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
>I have to admit. That last one is used so frequently it is no longer
>funny.
That's because creationists persist in proving IN PUBLIC that they are
abysmally ignorant about evolution. Not only that they continue to prove
IN PUBLIC that they have no interest in learning. They prefer straw man
arguments and other kinds of lies to any actual inquiry into facts.
>
>Here is a variation:
>
>YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT
>EVOLUTION AND YOU ARE JUST STUPID AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
>
>they ALSO think the world and all knowledge began 300 years ago!
>
>It is amazing any of them can breathe without mechanical assistance.
Still serving Belial as best you can, eh?
Does he actually give you stuff or is that just a lie?
--
Dave Oldridge+
RAM
That is nothing more than the list of those who have gotten the best
of you most frequently.
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Please tell us exactly how we have demonstrated our ignorance. I have
been watching you make claims for years and shown no evidence at all
that you have any idea how evolution works or the history of the theory,
so your mastery of it comes as quite a surprise to me.
Desertphile
<bl...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 4:12�pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > The arguments from ism-ism:
> >
> > The non-sequitur: "X is a
> > Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> > qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
> >
> > The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> > therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> > Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
> >
> > The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> > rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
> >
> > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
All of the above are Creationists' behavior.
> My favourite; "It's only a theory." Cracks me up every time. Title
> corrected; no charge.
GEERUP on YouTube just engaged in the same behavior: he castigated
sane people for engaging in behavior they don't and he does. It
was.... Kafkaesque.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
bpuharic
you forgot me. and it's a point i readily concede. but it has zip to
do with evolution. and it's why i can be objective and say creationism
is a crock
i am not an evolutionary biologist, nor a creationist. i am, however,
a scientist. so i can afford to be objective. if evolution were
disproven tomorrow, i'd say 'gee that's something', then turn to the
brittany spears desk at CNN to see what the latest update is on
america's bubblehead.
BUT....i know, as a scientist, what science is. and creationism ain't.
i am objective enough to look at the arguments of creationists and see
nothing but religion.
with the evolutionary biologists, i look at their methods and their
data. their methods are scientific. as a chemist, i see the
biologists using chemistry to define testable mechanisms of
evolution...then testing these theories. that's science.
the creationists, however, appeal to emotion, to religion, to
authority, etc. in 2000 years they have never produced a single
conclusion about nature that was not wrong. they have ALWAYS been
wrong. and they do not have a method to tell them when they ARE wrong,
as science does.
creationism is nothing but religion. and that includes ray martinez's
fundamentalist of fundamentalist views of creationism, along with the
idiot 'all seeing' who is so ignorant of science as to make him a
laughingstock even among creationists, etc.
>
>Ray
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jan 1, 12:00�pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 11:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
>> > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>>
>> If the creationist makes silly or stupid statements, then
>> the evolutionist is justified in making the assertion that
>> the creationist is ignorant. �It's an opinion.
>>
>> Suppose this is a chess discussion, and the topic is
>> Alekhine's defense. �(1. �e4 ... Nf6) �If my opponent said:
>> "Black jumps his horsie over his own pawns to try to win
>> the pawn at e4." �I would know that he was profoundly
>> ignorant, and I would be fully justified in saying so. �OTOH,
>> if he were to say "Nf6 avoids the Ruy, and tempts white to
>> over-extend in the center.", I would tentatively conclude that
>> he knows something about the game.
>>
>> Many creationists are like the first example above. �They
>> betray their profound ignorance every time they post. �It is
>> not an appeal to (one's own) authority to assert that they
>> are ignorant; it's simply an informed opinion.
>>
>> Tim
>
>You have misunderstood the underlying point: Whether creationists are
>ignorant or not is irrelevant since the opinion of evolutionists about
>their enemy (creationists) is predetermined or wholly predictable.
Your claim does not square with the evidence.
All-seeing-I
You have not established that you are in fact an authority on X from a
point of absolute truth to make such claims
Sorry. But there is reality of it.
You are just bloated with self importance when you ASSume your
findings are 100% accurate. But you cannot make such a claim to be the
holder of the absolute truth on X yet.
Still, you are present yourself as knowing all about X as if you do
hold absolute truth.
But you know, and I know that you do NOT possess the absolute truth on
X
So why pretend that you do?
All-seeing-I
You assume evolution is an absolute truth.
Is it? Is evolution absolute? Needs no further revision? Has all the
evidence been found?
If the answers are no, then why do you make yourself appear to be so
bloated with self importance by saying you, and only you, are the
holder of the absolute truth.
But we creationist knew THAT already!
All-seeing-I
Good observation.
In fact, I did not realize just how little they actually knew until I
read that thread on dawkin's forum.
Are't they special?
[smile]
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jan 1, 2:00�pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 11:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
>> > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>>
>> If the creationist makes silly or stupid statements, then
>> the evolutionist is justified in making the assertion that
>> the creationist is ignorant. �It's an opinion.
>>
>> Suppose this is a chess discussion, and the topic is
>> Alekhine's defense. �(1. �e4 ... Nf6) �If my opponent said:
>> "Black jumps his horsie over his own pawns to try to win
>> the pawn at e4." �I would know that he was profoundly
>> ignorant, and I would be fully justified in saying so. �OTOH,
>> if he were to say "Nf6 avoids the Ruy, and tempts white to
>> over-extend in the center.", I would tentatively conclude that
>> he knows something about the game.
>>
>> Many creationists are like the first example above. �They
>> betray their profound ignorance every time they post. �It is
>> not an appeal to (one's own) authority to assert that they
>> are ignorant; it's simply an informed opinion.
>>
>> Tim
>
>You assume evolution is an absolute truth.
No.
>Is it? Is evolution absolute? Needs no further revision? Has all the
>evidence been found?
You are a very silly man.
>If the answers are no, then why do you make yourself appear to be so
>bloated with self importance by saying you, and only you, are the
>holder of the absolute truth.
>
>But we creationist knew THAT already!
Your dogma was proven false two centuries ago. It will not be
rehabilitated.
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 1, 2:00 pm, Tim DeLaney<delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 11:12 am, "Kalkidas"<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
>>> therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>>
>> If the creationist makes silly or stupid statements, then
>> the evolutionist is justified in making the assertion that
>> the creationist is ignorant. It's an opinion.
>>
>> Suppose this is a chess discussion, and the topic is
>> Alekhine's defense. (1. e4 ... Nf6) If my opponent said:
>> "Black jumps his horsie over his own pawns to try to win
>> the pawn at e4." I would know that he was profoundly
>> ignorant, and I would be fully justified in saying so. OTOH,
>> if he were to say "Nf6 avoids the Ruy, and tempts white to
>> over-extend in the center.", I would tentatively conclude that
>> he knows something about the game.
>>
>> Many creationists are like the first example above. They
>> betray their profound ignorance every time they post. It is
>> not an appeal to (one's own) authority to assert that they
>> are ignorant; it's simply an informed opinion.
>>
>> Tim
>
> You assume evolution is an absolute truth.
No, evolution is a fact, because it's been observed. Nothing in
science is an "absolute truth".
>
> Is it? Is evolution absolute? Needs no further revision? Has all the
> evidence been found?
There's no need for all the evidence to be found. All the evidence that
has been found to this date indicates that evolution a fact. It's
highly unlikely there will be evidence that indicates that it's not.
>
> If the answers are no, then why do you make yourself appear to be so
> bloated with self importance by saying you, and only you, are the
> holder of the absolute truth.
He's not the one who claims "ultimate truth".
>
> But we creationist knew THAT already!
the creationists are the ones who assume what they want to believe is
"ultimate truth".
DJT
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 1, 8:12 am, "Kalkidas"<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> The arguments from ism-ism:
>>
>> The non-sequitur: "X is a
>> Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
>> qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>>
>> The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
>> therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
>> Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>>
>> The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
>> rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>>
>> Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
>> therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> The truth is that ordinary evolutionists know next to nothing about
> their own theory.
Like usual, Ray and truth are very far apart.
> There is a wide gap of knowledge between evolution
> scholars and the evolution masses----the latter being,
Ray, of course has his own misconceptions about what "scholars" say.
Ray distorts what real scientists have said, and refuses to learn even
the most basic facts about science. Then he has the audacity to accuse
others of not knowing the theory that he gets utterly wrong.
> for the most
> part, completely ignorant of the published writings of the former.
On the contrary. Those who oppose Ray are quite well read on the
subject, while Ray relies on his own misconceptions, and preconceived
notions.
> The
> average Talk Origin citizen possesses preconceptions about
> evolutionary theory that are totally unfounded, having no support in
> the collective writings of their own scholars.
Which only means that Ray's opponents keep correcting Ray's own
mistakes. Instead of learning from those mistakes, he accuses others of
being ignorant. Truly irony in it's purest form.
>
> For example, the following regular evolutionist posters are completely
> ignorant of the history and facts of their own theory:
Here's the list of those who most often show Ray to be wrong.
>
> 1. Dana Tweedy
>
> 2. John Harshman
>
> 3. Ron Okimoto
>
> 4. John Stockwell
>
> 5. Devils Advocate
>
> 6. Ye Olde One
>
> 7. Bob Casanova (alter ego of #6)
>
> 8. Boikat
>
> 9. Free Lunch
>
> 10. Richard Forrest
>
> I could identify 50 more but you get the point.
Yes, all of the above are better educated on the subject than Ray, and
all of the above show that Ray is wrong on a regular basis. Also, Ray
is wrong about Bob Casinova of being Ye Olde One.
Perhaps if Ray were willing to discuss the evidence, instead of just
whining on how he keeps getting defeated, he might actually learn
something.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
How is whining about those who defeat Ray on a regular basis a "good
observation"?
>
> In fact, I did not realize just how little they actually knew until I
> read that thread on dawkin's forum.
What makes you think you have any standing to comment on how little
others know?
>
> Are't they special?
Special, no. More educated, and willing to learn,
yes.
DJT
Tim DeLaney
> On Jan 1, 2:00�pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 11:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> > If the creationist makes silly or stupid statements, then
> > the evolutionist is justified in making the assertion that
> > the creationist is ignorant. �It's an opinion.
>
> > Suppose this is a chess discussion, and the topic is
> > Alekhine's defense. �(1. �e4 ... Nf6) �If my opponent said:
> > "Black jumps his horsie over his own pawns to try to win
> > the pawn at e4." �I would know that he was profoundly
> > ignorant, and I would be fully justified in saying so. �OTOH,
> > if he were to say "Nf6 avoids the Ruy, and tempts white to
> > over-extend in the center.", I would tentatively conclude that
> > he knows something about the game.
>
> > Many creationists are like the first example above. �They
> > betray their profound ignorance every time they post. �It is
> > not an appeal to (one's own) authority to assert that they
> > are ignorant; it's simply an informed opinion.
>
> > Tim
>
> You assume evolution is an absolute truth.
No, I do not.
>
> Is it? Is evolution absolute? Needs no further revision? Has all the
> evidence been found?
Of course not.
>
> If the answers are no, then why do you make yourself appear to be so
> bloated with self importance by saying you, and only you, are the
> holder of the absolute truth.
I have never suggested such a silly position. But I could argue,
with considerable force, that you have done exactly that.
Would you care to swap with me examples of my having claimed
to hold absolute truth as against you yourself claiming to hold it?
I can assure you that such a comparison would show that you
are the one who makes such claims, and that I do not.
OK, you can go first. Give me an example of my making such a
silly claim. If you are unable to do so, I expect you to retract your
nonsense. (I won't hold my breath.)
Tim
raven1
You have not established that you are competent to assess whether or
not anyone is in touch with reality. Your own posts argue strongly
against such a thing.
Again, WTF are you on about with the "point of absolute truth"
nonsense? Your nihilism is getting extremely tiresome. You seem
fixated to the point of obsession on the idea that if we don't know
everything, we know nothing. Such an idea is self-refuting.
>You are just bloated with self importance when you ASSume your
>findings are 100% accurate. But you cannot make such a claim to be the
>holder of the absolute truth on X yet.
And he doesn't claim to be. Why would you think he might?
Normal, sane people don't make such claims. Fanatics do. Let go of the
idea of "absolute truth", it's epistemologically useless. Instead, why
don't you actually take a course in, oh, any topic at all, and scratch
the surface about finding out how much we apes actually do know about
quite a few things. You might be pleasantly surprised. Give it a shot.
>Still, you are present yourself as knowing all about X as if you do
>hold absolute truth.
>
>But you know, and I know that you do NOT possess the absolute truth on
>X
No one claims that they do. OTOH, Kermit understands why your
prattling on about "absolute truth" is meaningless nonsense. Try
actually getting an education, and one day you might look back at your
posts and have a chuckle over them.
>So why pretend that you do?
No one is pretending such a thing. Stop thinking in absolutes.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
aplenty, and nothing of real substance. Let's examine it shall we?
Morontheist "Kalkidas":
> The non-sequitur: "X is a
> Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's
> not qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
Morontheists (includes babblical cretinists, often includes rightards though
I guess in theory there can be rightards who are qualified scientists), in
their own brainwashed minds, already "know" that the dusty old book written
by goat herders and (later) biased fanatics is right and that everyone else
is not only wrong but "evil". What leads me (and many others too, I trust)
to assume morontheists are NOT qualified is _experience._ I have yet to
meet a morontheist who proves this assumption wrong (including the OP).
> The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field
> of Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
Even the scientific method depends on complete and correct input data. If
one never studied the field in question it's less likely that she possesses
all relevant data (not impossible, mind you... just less likely).
> The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
Aaaah, but who ARE those rivals, normally?
We all know the answer: In every case I've ever seen, X =
pseudoscientist, "rivals" = scientists. 'nuff said.
> Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> therefore, you don't know anything about X"
With just about every single statement (newsgroup article, forum posting,
website quote, whathaveyou) morontheists _demonstrate_ that they don't know
shit about... well... anything really, except for the few carefully
cherry-picked babble verses their specific cult is based on. The complete
statement therefore would be "I assert BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE that
you don't know anything [...]"
You lose, morontheist.
So, what else is new?
--
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
Andre Lieven
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 14:13:38 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
Wow, the oddsmakers take a beating again... <g>
Andre
Devils Advocaat
The name is Advocaat and not Advocate, there is a big difference
between the two, but then I am not surprised that you don't realise
that, given as you define (or should I say re-define) words to suit
your personal worldview rather than using the conventional
definitions.
And while you are doing that, address the simple challenge I raised
last year, regarding how a hydrated aluminium silicate can transform
itself into a living organism, which is mostly carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen and nitrogen.
After all you are the one that posited the notion that new species
emerge as a result of "creation ex materia (from a clay-like ground)",
and to date the only explanation you have offered is "according to the
Bible with God all things are possible" which you have taken from that
text and used completely out of context.
Frank J
> On Jan 1, 8:12�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> > The non-sequitur: "X is a
> > Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> > qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>
> > The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> > therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> > Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>
> > The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> > rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>
> > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> The truth is that ordinary evolutionists know next to nothing about
> their own theory. There is a wide gap of knowledge between evolution
> scholars and the evolution masses----the latter being, for the most
> part, completely ignorant of the published writings of the former.
That's certainly true. But as with anti-evolution activists and their
evolution-denying followers, there's no hard line between 2 groups,
but a continuum.
> The
> average Talk Origin citizen possesses preconceptions about
> evolutionary theory that are totally unfounded, having no support in
> the collective �writings of their own scholars.
>
> For example, the following regular evolutionist posters are completely
> ignorant of the history and facts of their own theory:
Contrary to your fantasy, the regulars below understand evolution
better than 99% of the public. And I must add, better than this
chemist (presumably one of the 50 you had in mind). But even I
understand it well enough to see the "convergence, neither sought nor
fabricated" of evidence that forces deniers and misrepresenters to do
everything *but* attempt to develop a better theory of their own.
Increasingly you people refuse to answer the simplest questions about
your own "theory."
>
> 1. Dana Tweedy
>
> 2. John Harshman
>
> 3. Ron Okimoto
So in your opinion is Ron a perp or a rube? ;-)
>
> 4. John Stockwell
>
> 5. Devils Advocate
>
> 6. Ye Olde One
>
> 7. Bob Casanova (alter ego of #6)
Are 6 and 7 one and the same?
>
> 8. Boikat
>
> 9. Free Lunch
>
> 10. �Richard Forrest
>
> I could identify 50 more but you get the point.
>
> Ray
So please name a few whom you *do* think understand evolution. Other
than your fellow misrepresenters of course.
Frank J
You must be one of those Benzenists:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e7e04cbdee3b76f2?hl=en
;-)
>
> the creationists, however, appeal to emotion, to religion, to
> authority, etc. in 2000 years they have �never produced a single
> conclusion about nature that was not wrong. they have ALWAYS been
> wrong. and they do not have a method to tell them when they ARE wrong,
> as science does.
Note how they are "evolving" from wrong (e.g. making demonstrably
false claims of the age of life) to "not even wrong" (playing "don't
ask, don't tell what the designer did, when or how")
>
> creationism is nothing but religion. and that includes ray martinez's
> fundamentalist of fundamentalist views of creationism, along with the
> idiot 'all seeing' who is so ignorant of science as to make him a
> laughingstock even among creationists, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jan 1, 6:58�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 14:28:40 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> BUT....i know, as a scientist, what science is. and creationism ain't.
>> i am objective enough to look at the arguments of creationists and see
>> nothing but religion.
>>
>> with the evolutionary biologists, i look at their methods and their
>> data. their methods are scientific. �as a chemist, i see the
>> biologists using chemistry to define testable mechanisms of
>> evolution...then testing these theories. �that's science.
>
>You must be one of those Benzenists:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e7e04cbdee3b76f2?hl=en
hmmm....you found us out...this does not bode well for you...
Max
> The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> The non-sequitur: "X is a
> Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>
> The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>
> The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>
> Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> therefore, you don't know anything about X"
Should any of these be put forth as an argument, you would have
something. The creationists here are accused of not knowing anything
about evolution because they have time and again shown that they know
nothing about evolution. Most times I see an argument regarding
credentials it is a case of the creationist bringing it up and then
getting a smack-down.
Ray Martinez
Okay....
> At issue is this question: �Have creationists acquainted
> themselves with the ToE? �If the answer is no, then any
> criticism they might make of ToE is invalid. �You appear
> to believe that it is not necessary to understand ToE to
> criticize it. �Quite frankly, I don't understand this.
>
It is necessary to understand anything in order to effectively
criticize.
After reading this rebuttal post of yours I recognize it to be a
genuine attempt to engage fair discussion and criticism. The problem
is that many other evolutionists here at Talk Origins reject *all*
criticism of ToE to be ignorance. In other words, they play
"ignorance" as a card: All criticism of ToE is dismissed and explained
as ignorance, no one has ever made a genuine point against ToE because
none exists; if anyone attempts to criticize ToE then they are
ignorant----round and round it goes; the "ignorance card": used to
dismiss all criticism of ToE.
Surely you are not saying all criticism of ToE is ignorance?
We could say all criticism of Creationism is ignorance.
Anyone could say rejection of anything is ignorance. The point is: the
ignorance card is a bad tactic (note that I did not say that it is a
bad argument).
> I will concede that some creationists have actually tried
> to understand it. �OTOH, others have made no attempt
> whatsoever. �It is entirely appropriate to criticize the latter.
> It is also easy separate the willfully ignorant from those
> who make an honest attempt to understand the position
> of the other side.
>
Your points above exist on a two-way street.
And believe it or not there are many evolutionists here at Talk
Origins who actually think that the words "creation" or "created" do
not presuppose AND mean "by supernatural power." These evolutionists
are, to use your phrase, "willfully ignorant" since the definition of
these elementary words are undisputed, verified as such by any
dictionary.
> I might add that there are evolutionists that make poor
> arguments, and generally behave badly. �On our side we
> seem to have more than our share of those who subscribe
> to the Argumentum ad Pottymouth fallacy. �I do not support
> them.
>
Much appreciated.
I have always said that I will not hesitate to condemn any Creationist
or IDist who crosses this line. I have crossed this line only as a
response to those who cross the line first. The Bible says those who
initiate slander are controlled by Satan, angry over the truth,
seeking to poison the well.
If you think any Creationist or IDist has behaved badly then point
them out and I will join you in condemning their behavior.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yourself, Robert Camp, John Wilkins, Tim Delaney, Sean Pitman, John
Harshman (I forgot that he has a doctorate in evolution, so I take him
off the above list), Howard Hershey, a few others....
Ray
Devils Advocaat
Why do you presume that those who support evolutionary theory assume
it to be an absolute truth?
It has been pointed out to you before that science doesn't deal in
absolutes.
That is the province of religion not science.
alextangent
Sean Pitman? Are you serious? His website is living testimony that the
guy is a YEC.
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jan 2, 5:40�am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
You ignore what they tell you, as well.
Dana Tweedy
That's why you don't offer any effective criticism of evolution.
Because you don't understand it sufficiently. You have some odd idea
of evolution, and you won't let yourself be corrected.
>
> After reading this rebuttal post of yours I recognize it to be a
> genuine attempt to engage fair discussion and criticism. The problem
> is that many other evolutionists here at Talk Origins reject *all*
> criticism of ToE to be ignorance.
That is, of course, not true. If you could provide any criticism of
evolution that wasn't ignorance, it would be accepted. Your problem is
that nothing you've presented so far has been based on anything but your
own ignorance, and arrogance.
> In other words, they play
> "ignorance" as a card: All criticism of ToE is dismissed and explained
> as ignorance,
When it is ignorance, what else can you say? Why not try presenting
some evidence that contradicts evolution, instead of just claiming that
evolution is "atheist ideology"?
> no one has ever made a genuine point against ToE because
> none exists;
Quite true, so far. If you think you have one, please present it.
> if anyone attempts to criticize ToE then they are
> ignorant----round and round it goes; the "ignorance card": used to
> dismiss all criticism of ToE.
Ray, your problem is that you've not presented any actual valid
criticism of evolution. When you present ignorance, why do you expect
it to be treated as anything but?
In short, the 'ignorance' is not a card, but a rebuttal of your claims.
>
> Surely you are not saying all criticism of ToE is ignorance?
Present some that is not ignorance, and perhaps you'll have a point.
Some of the criticism of evolution is not ignorance, some of it is
religious bias. The point is that none of the critiques of evolution
presented by creationists holds up to careful examination.
>
> We could say all criticism of Creationism is ignorance.
You could say it, but you'd be wrong. Ray, you can't simply turn
around all claims and have the equally valid. The fact remains that
evolution is a valid scientific theory, and no one has found any
evidence that contradicts the theory.
Creationism, on the other hand is a religious belief, not science.
Whether you criticize it or not, it remains religion, not science.
>
> Anyone could say rejection of anything is ignorance.
Again, you could say it, but you'd be wrong. Sometimes rejection of
things is due to ignorance. Sometimes it's not. You have to take it
on a case by case basis.
> The point is: the
> ignorance card is a bad tactic (note that I did not say that it is a
> bad argument).
Pointing out the ignorance of those who attack evolution is not a "card"
but an observation. It's not a "tactic" to be played, it's a simple
fact.
>
>> I will concede that some creationists have actually tried
>> to understand it. OTOH, others have made no attempt
>> whatsoever. It is entirely appropriate to criticize the latter.
>> It is also easy separate the willfully ignorant from those
>> who make an honest attempt to understand the position
>> of the other side.
>>
>
> Your points above exist on a two-way street.
Only when the point goes both ways. There are more who reject
evolution out of ignorance, and religious bias than those who have
bothered to try to understand it. If they had bothered to learn about
the theory, most, if not all the criticism would dry up.
>
> And believe it or not there are many evolutionists here at Talk
> Origins who actually think that the words "creation" or "created" do
> not presuppose AND mean "by supernatural power."
That's largely because the terms don't presuppose or mean "by
supernatural power". There's nothing that has been observed to be
created that required supernatural power. "Supernatural power" is not
part of the definition of "create" or "creation".
If you want to use your own private defintions of terms, don't be
surprised if others don't recognize your own definitions as valid.
> These evolutionists
> are, to use your phrase, "willfully ignorant" since the definition of
> these elementary words are undisputed, verified as such by any
> dictionary.
Ray, would you like to present a single dictionary that defines either
the term "creation" or "create" as meaning and presupposing "by
supernatural power"?
Let's peruse some on line dictionaries, for convenience sake:
http://m-w.com/dictionary/create
Main Entry: 1cre·ate
Pronunciation: \krē-ˈāt, ˈkrē-ˌ\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): cre·at·ed; cre·at·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin creatus, past participle of
creare; akin to Latin crescere to grow — more at crescent
Date: 14th century
transitive verb 1 : to bring into existence <God created the heaven and
the earth — Gen 1:1(Authorized Version)>
2 a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank <was created a
lieutenant> b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or
behavior <her arrival created a terrible fuss> <create new jobs>
3 : cause, occasion <famine creates high food prices>
4 a : to produce through imaginative skill <create a painting> b :
design <creates dresses>intransitive verb 1 : to make or bring into
existence something new
2 : to set up a scoring opportunity in basketball <create off the dribble>
Note that although the first definition uses Genesis 1:1 as an example
of the use of the term, it doesn't define the term to require
"supernatural power".
Let's pick another dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=18126&dict=CALD
create verb (MAKE)
/kriˈeɪt/ v
[T] to make something new, especially to invent something
Charles Schulz created the characters 'Snoopy' and 'Charlie Brown'.
The Bible says that God created the world.
He created a wonderful meal from very few ingredients.
It's important to create a good impression when you meet a new client.
Again, God creating is used as an example, but no requirement for
supernatural action. Indeed by stating that Charles Schulz created
"Peanuts" it suggests that mere mortals are capable of creation as well.
Simply making a claim does not mean the claim is "undisputed", or that
dictionaries agree with your private definition when they do not.
>
>> I might add that there are evolutionists that make poor
>> arguments, and generally behave badly. On our side we
>> seem to have more than our share of those who subscribe
>> to the Argumentum ad Pottymouth fallacy. I do not support
>> them.
>>
>
> Much appreciated.
Do you forget, Ray, that you are fond of the "pottymouth fallacy"
yourself?
>
> I have always said that I will not hesitate to condemn any Creationist
> or IDist who crosses this line.
Except that you don't. You let Ray Comfort slide for his plagairism.
You've failed to take Nashton to task for his ad hominem and abuse.
> I have crossed this line only as a
> response to those who cross the line first.
No, Ray, you've "crossed the line" with no provocation many times.
> The Bible says those who
> initiate slander are controlled by Satan, angry over the truth,
> seeking to poison the well.
So, how does that excuse your doing this many times? You've made false
and libelous accusations without any basis many times. Remember how
you suddenly accused me of racism when you were getting beaten in our
discussion over KNM WT 15000? Remember when you've called many others
here "racists" for accepting the evidence of human evolution in Africa?
Remember how you've initiated libel of me, and others, after you've been
shown your idols have feet of clay?
>
> If you think any Creationist or IDist has behaved badly then point
> them out and I will join you in condemning their behavior.
That's not been true so far. Why would anyone believe you?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> So please name a few whom you *do* think understand evolution. Other
>> than your fellow misrepresenters of course.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yourself, Robert Camp, John Wilkins, Tim Delaney, Sean Pitman, John
> Harshman (I forgot that he has a doctorate in evolution, so I take him
> off the above list), Howard Hershey, a few others....
Ray, everyone on your "list" understands evolution better than you do.
Of course, that's not very hard. Practically anyone understands the
theory better than you do.
You can't even correctly describe the mechanism of evolution, or how
it's described to work.
DJT
Desertphile
Yes, of course. The issue now on your plate is, why do you
criticize not merely evolutionary theory, but evolution itself
when you know nothing at all about either?
> After reading this rebuttal post of yours I recognize it to be a
> genuine attempt to engage fair discussion and criticism. The problem
> is that many other evolutionists here at Talk Origins reject *all*
> criticism of ToE to be ignorance.
Well there's your other problem: find a criticism posited by a
Creationist that is not wrong and not based on their ignorance.
Then, and only then, can you complain about the criticism being
rejected--- scientists find valid problems with evolutionary
theory now and then: why is it Creationists never have?
> In other words, they play "ignorance" as a card:
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Criticism that is invalid should
be ignored. Why don't you produce a valid criticism?
> All criticism of ToE is dismissed and explained
> as ignorance
Not when the criticism is valid: then it is egarly embraced by
scientists, and added to the theory of evolution.
So: why don't you produce a valid criticism? Please take this
opportunity to do so.
> no one has ever made a genuine point against ToE because
> none exists;
A large number of valid criticisms regarding the theory of
evolution have been made (by scientists, not Creationists). See,
for example, Charle Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species"
wherein he made a large number of criticisms against his own
hypothesis.
Why don't you produce a valid criticism?
> if anyone attempts to criticize ToE then they are
> ignorant
Yes, when the criticism is based upon ignorance. Why don't you
produce a valid criticism?
> ----round and round it goes; the "ignorance card": used to
> dismiss all criticism of ToE.
Nope, just invalid criticism. Why don't you produce a valid
criticism?
> Surely you are not saying all criticism of ToE is ignorance?
No, scientists do not say that.
> We could say all criticism of Creationism is ignorance.
Yes, you could say that, but that would be silly for you to say.
(Ray's other odd assertions deleted).
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> Yourself, Robert Camp, John Wilkins, Tim Delaney, Sean Pitman, John
> Harshman (I forgot that he has a doctorate in evolution, so I take him
> off the above list), Howard Hershey, a few others....
Sean Pitman?! ROTFL! That is like claiming Adolf Hitler understood
Jews.
John Wilkins
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
You should also ignore John Wilkins. He has all kinds of odd ideas.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
That comment I can ignore.
Devils Advocaat
The words "creation" and "created" do NOT presuppose AND mean "by
supernatural power" except in your exclusive redefinition of those
words.
If I said that Pablo Picasso created some magnificent works of art,
would that mean he used supernatural power?
No it would not.
And if I said the demand for Sunday shopping resulted in the creation
of more job opportunities, would that mean that process of job
creation came about by supernatural power?
No it would not.
You have to remember Ray, that in the English language (and in many
others) the meaning of a word is dependent on context.
>
> > I might add that there are evolutionists that make poor
> > arguments, and generally behave badly. �On our side we
> > seem to have more than our share of those who subscribe
> > to the Argumentum ad Pottymouth fallacy. �I do not support
> > them.
>
> Much appreciated.
>
> I have always said that I will not hesitate to condemn any Creationist
> or IDist who crosses this line. I have crossed this line only as a
> response to those who cross the line first. The Bible says those who
> initiate slander are controlled by Satan, angry over the truth,
> seeking to poison the well.
>
> If you think any Creationist or IDist has behaved badly then point
> them out and I will join you in condemning their behavior.
>
> Ray
And by the way Ray, when you have the time, I would appreciate it if
you could give me a scientific explanation of how hydrated aluminium
silicates can become living organisms which are mostly carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.
After all you were the one who last year claimed that new species come
into existence by "creation ex materia (from a clay-like ground)".
And the only (unscientific) explanation you have offered is "according
to the Bible with God all things are possible", which is a fine
example of quoting out of context for one's own purposes.
So how about you come up with a proper explanation for your claim.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jan 1, 8:12�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> > The non-sequitur: "X is a
> > Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> > qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>
> > The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> > therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> > Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>
> > The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> > rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>
> > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> their own theory. There is a wide gap of knowledge between evolution
> scholars and the evolution masses----the latter being, for the most
> average Talk Origin citizen possesses preconceptions about
> evolutionary theory that are totally unfounded, having no support in
> the collective �writings of their own scholars.
>
> For example, the following regular evolutionist posters are completely
> ignorant of the history and facts of their own theory:
>
>
> 2. John Harshman
>
> 3. Ron Okimoto
>
>
> 5. Devils Advocate
>
> 6. Ye Olde One
>
> 7. Bob Casanova (alter ego of #6)
>
>
> 9. Free Lunch
>
> 10. �Richard Forrest
>
> I could identify 50 more but you get the point.
>
> Ray
I am?
Well, that will come as a surprise to the scientists with whom I
communicate on a regular basis, the editors of the journals in which I
publish my research findings, the academics at the university at which
I am studying for my PhD, and that attendees at conferences at which I
present my findings.
Here's what might be a rather radical idea for you, Ray. Perhaps, just
perhaps the people who actually *study* a subject in depth might just
possibly know more about it than (gasp!) Ray Martinez!
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
Ah! Martinez logic at it's best.
So, by your logic, someone who has actually *studied* a subject and
contributed original research in the field is automatically excluded
from being considered an expert in that field.
I suggest that you go to your dentist next time you need to have your
car repaired. After all, as he has never studied mechanics he's
obviously better placed to understand the workings of the internal
combustion engine than a mechanic, who has. You could ask your
mechanic to fix that broken filling.
RF
Devils Advocaat
> On Jan 1, 8:12�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> > The non-sequitur: "X is a
> > Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> > qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>
> > The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> > therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> > Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>
> > The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> > rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>
> > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> The truth is that ordinary evolutionists know next to nothing about
> their own theory. There is a wide gap of knowledge between evolution
> scholars and the evolution masses----the latter being, for the most
> average Talk Origin citizen possesses preconceptions about
> evolutionary theory that are totally unfounded, having no support in
> the collective �writings of their own scholars.
>
> For example, the following regular evolutionist posters are completely
> ignorant of the history and facts of their own theory:
Ray's definition of the word "ignorant" undoubtedly means "anyone who
doesn't agree with his point of view".
>
> 1. Dana Tweedy
>
> 2. John Harshman
>
> 3. Ron Okimoto
>
> 4. John Stockwell
>
> 5. Devils Advocate
>
> 6. Ye Olde One
>
> 7. Bob Casanova (alter ego of #6)
>
Frank J
Pitman makes sciency-sounding arguments, so to a nonscientist like Ray
it sounds like he understands evolution. And it may well be that he
does, and gets it wrong on purpose.
But note that I'm on the 2nd list too, even though I'm sure that some
(all?) in the 1st list do understand evolution more thoroughly than I
do. So a good bet is that the 1st list is not populated in terms of
what they know about evolution, but rather the *tone* of their
replies.
raven1
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
In fairness to Ray, I believe he was taking Harshman off the "ignorant
of evolution" list in light of his degree.
Bob Berger
John:
All you have to do is add one to each of those ideas, and they'll no longer be
odd.
el cid
> In article <030120101324527688%j...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <4ajvj5t53eums3n7o7sc4cpae2vpb8b...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
This presumes the ideas in question are real. If they are
imaginary the situation is complex.
john wilkins
> In article <030120101324527688%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins
> says...
> >>
> >> You ignore what they tell you, as well.
> >>
> >You should also ignore John Wilkins. He has all kinds of odd ideas.
>
> John:
>
> All you have to do is add one to each of those ideas, and they'll no
> longer be
> odd.
Okay: to my idea that drift is not a mechanism, add my idea that genes
are not information. Now I'm even...
Ray Martinez
Ron Okimoto along with Wesley Elsberry, Ken Miller and Judge Jones
epitomize the most deceived persons one could encounter anywhere,
anytime, in Western society. All four actually really think that the
Atheist explanation of nature (evolution) is also the Christian
explanation of nature. We cannot offer better evidence supporting the
existence of Satan (the Deceiver).
This is why we are Christian-Creationists, and this is why we have
faith: good or bad whatever the Bible says is true.
Ray
SNIP....
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
CORRECTION
I did not mean to place Sean Pitman's name in this group. Based on
conversations that I have had with Sean he does NOT understand
evolution. Sean does not understand the most basic fact concerning
evolution----that it was and is postulated based on a presupposition
that Intelligence is absent from nature----that's why evolution is
necessary.
Sean thinks that Intelligence and "low level evolution" are both
operating in nature. The definitions of both concepts and their
objective histories do NOT allow this belief. If Intelligence is
operating in nature THEN phenomena cannot be described as evolutionary
or selectionary. If evolution is operating in nature then phenomena
cannot be described as exhibiting Intelligence or design. Both
concepts presuppose the absence of the other in nature.
The name that I meant to type was Robert Kolker. He understands
evolution, especially the fundamental facts stated above.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Read all the replies above: Dana plays and defends the ignorance card.
Brazen dishonesty or stupidity?
As if example #1----God, does not mean or cannot mean "supernatural."
If God is not supernatural then what is?
> Let's pick another dictionary:
>
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=18126&dict=CALD
>
> create verb (MAKE)
> /kriˈeɪt/ v
> [T] to make something new, especially to invent something
> Charles Schulz created the characters 'Snoopy' and 'Charlie Brown'.
> The Bible says that God created the world.
> He created a wonderful meal from very few ingredients.
> It's important to create a good impression when you meet a new client.
>
> [SNIP....] God creating is used as an example, but no requirement for
> supernatural action.
Egregious contradiction separated by a comma. The example is the
definition.
The word conveys direct involvement by God.
Brazen dishonesty or stupidity?
No one could be this stupid: "created" or "creation" always means by
supernatural power. The brazen dishonesty of Dana Tweedy is shown
spectacularly. He will undoubtedly try to say that there is no word in
the English language that conveys "by supernatural power."
Both dictionary entries support my contention. For the record: no
evolution scholar denies the elementary meaning of "creation" or
"created."
I just wanted to show the world the degree of brazen dishonesty that
the ordinary evolutionist on the Internet possesses.
> Indeed by stating that Charles Schulz created
> "Peanuts" it suggests that mere mortals are capable of creation as well.
>
> Simply making a claim does not mean the claim is "undisputed", or that
> dictionaries agree with your private definition when they do not.
>
"Creation" and "created" always mean God or the supernatural are
directly involved. That's why both examples in both definitions used
"God."
Why would anyone attempt to say that "created" or "creation" does not
mean by God's power?
"Creation" extended is Creationism: it means Creator-did-it. I suppose
Dana will attempt to say that Creationism does not have a claim about
how nature came to be (God's miracle power)?
Again, the brazen lies that will pour out of Dana Tweedy's mouth, and
the silence of his fellow evolutionists, concerning this fundamental
issue is one reason why we reject evolution: Darwinists are brazen
liars. If they would attempt to lie about the meaning of "creation"
and "created" then just think what they do with complicated and
complex issues of science?
Dana is SO stupid, he is now locked into this huge lie with no where
to go. I will forever save these links and post them now and then to
embarrass Dana and those who support such a stupid and indefensible
lie. Since there are persons in the world who deny the Holocaust we
should not be surprised to see persons attempt to deny and change the
meaning of a basic concept.
What is Dana's motive to lie so brazenly?
He wants the concept of "creation" to allow "by evolution." The latter
explicitly disallows causation by supernatural power.
Can't Dana be deluded or ignorant?
Since we are talking about the definition of elementary words and
concepts, the answer is no. We have irrefutable evidence of Darwinist
(s) lying with premeditation.
The concepts of "Creation" and "Evolution" are antonyms.
Dana is advocating Deism, but he claims to be a Theist (Christian). Of
course Dana has private definitions of Deism and Theism too. According
to him: both mean the same. We could only wonder why they are spelled
so differently and why no dictionary has them listed as synonyms.
One must embrace lies of this magnitude in order to make the
contradictions between Creationism-Christianity and Evolutionism-
Atheism, go away.
>
>
> >> I might add that there are evolutionists that make poor
> >> arguments, and generally behave badly. On our side we
> >> seem to have more than our share of those who subscribe
> >> to the Argumentum ad Pottymouth fallacy. I do not support
> >> them.
>
> > Much appreciated.
>
> Do you forget, Ray, that you are fond of the "pottymouth fallacy"
> yourself?
>
>
>
> > I have always said that I will not hesitate to condemn any Creationist
> > or IDist who crosses this line.
>
> Except that you don't. You let Ray Comfort slide for his plagairism.
> You've failed to take Nashton to task for his ad hominem and abuse.
>
I said that once the charge is confirmed I will not hesitate to
condemn him. So far, all we have is an unsupported accusation. We need
to see the disputed text lined up next to the other text. So far, this
has not happened.
> > I have crossed this line only as a
> > response to those who cross the line first.
>
> No, Ray, you've "crossed the line" with no provocation many times.
>
> > The Bible says those who
> > initiate slander are controlled by Satan, angry over the truth,
> > seeking to poison the well.
>
> So, how does that excuse your doing this many times? You've made false
> and libelous accusations without any basis many times. Remember how
> you suddenly accused me of racism when you were getting beaten in our
> discussion over KNM WT 15000? Remember when you've called many others
> here "racists" for accepting the evidence of human evolution in Africa?
>
The truth is, I said that **all** evolutionists are racists----not
just you. Richard Dawkins is a racist for supporting apes to have
morphed into Africans. I can't fathom a better example of racism than
"apes evolved into Africans." Darwinists in the early 20th century
caged apes and Africans at the World's Fair and the Brooklyn Zoo.
> Remember how you've initiated libel of me, and others, after you've been
> shown your idols have feet of clay?
>
>
>
>
>
> > If you think any
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
John Wilkins
<39daae8d-e9c3-417e...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, el
cid <elcid...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am rather set in my ways, which is why my GF is a doctor. Together,
we are a pair o' docs.
John Stockwell
> On Jan 1, 10:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> > The non-sequitur: "X is a
> > Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> > qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>
> > The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> > therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> > Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>
> > The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> > rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>
> > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> I have to admit. That last one is used so frequently it is no longer
> funny.
Maybe you are beginning to see the truth in the statement.
>
> Here is a variation:
>
> YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT
> EVOLUTION AND YOU ARE JUST STUPID AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
Actually, a person doesn't have to know that much about
evolution to know more about it than you.
>
> they ALSO think the world and all knowledge began 300 years ago!
>
> It is amazing any of them can breathe without mechanical assistance.
Scientific questions are best answered through scientific means.
-John
John Stockwell
> On Jan 1, 2:00 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 11:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> > the evolutionist is justified in making the assertion that
> > the creationist is ignorant. It's an opinion.
>
> > Suppose this is a chess discussion, and the topic is
> > Alekhine's defense. (1. e4 ... Nf6) If my opponent said:
> > "Black jumps his horsie over his own pawns to try to win
> > the pawn at e4." I would know that he was profoundly
> > ignorant, and I would be fully justified in saying so. OTOH,
> > if he were to say "Nf6 avoids the Ruy, and tempts white to
> > over-extend in the center.", I would tentatively conclude that
> > he knows something about the game.
>
> > Many creationists are like the first example above. They
> > betray their profound ignorance every time they post. It is
> > not an appeal to (one's own) authority to assert that they
> > are ignorant; it's simply an informed opinion.
>
> > Tim
>
He appears to consider evolution to be a phenomenon, as
well as a scientific theory.
>
> Is it? Is evolution absolute? Needs no further revision? Has all the
> evidence been found?
Not at all.
>
> If the answers are no, then why do you make yourself appear to be so
> bloated with self importance by saying you, and only you, are the
> holder of the absolute truth.
...when, of course, you are, we are to assume?
>
> But we creationist knew THAT already!
Creationists don't really do anything that affects the world in
a positive way.
-John
Ray Martinez
> On Jan 1, 5:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> > > The non-sequitur: "X is a
> > > Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> > > qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>
> > > The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> > > therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> > > Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>
> > > The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> > > rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>
> > > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
Ron Okimoto like Wesley Elsberry, Ken Miller and Judge Jones, actually
and really believe that the Atheist explanation of nature (evolution)
is also the Christian explanation of nature. We could not dream of
John Stockwell
> On Jan 1, 8:12 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> > The non-sequitur: "X is a
> > Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> > qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>
> > The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> > therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> > Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>
> > The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> > rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>
> > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> The truth is that ordinary evolutionists know next to nothing about
> their own theory. There is a wide gap of knowledge between evolution
> scholars and the evolution masses----the latter being, for the most
> average Talk Origin citizen possesses preconceptions about
> evolutionary theory that are totally unfounded, having no support in
> the collective writings of their own scholars.
>
> For example, the following regular evolutionist posters are completely
> ignorant of the history and facts of their own theory:
>
>
> 2. John Harshman
>
> 3. Ron Okimoto
>
>
> 5. Devils Advocate
>
> 6. Ye Olde One
>
> 7. Bob Casanova (alter ego of #6)
>
>
> 9. Free Lunch
>
> 10. Richard Forrest
>
> I could identify 50 more but you get the point.
That you are full of b.s? Yes. We get that point.
>
> Ray
Kermit
> On Jan 1, 12:54�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 9:15�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 1, 10:31�am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:12:32 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > [\]
>
> > > > >Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > > > >therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> > > > about X and what I and everybody else in the known universe who
> > > > actually has experience with subject X knows.
>
> > > This presupposes you hold the absolute and conclusive truth of X
>
> > No, it doesn't it asserts that I have verifiable and reliable evdience
> > that Xis a reasonable conclusion. Once again, you seem to be implying
> > that if one cannot know X with no possibility of error, then one
> > cannot know anything at all.
>
> > > This also uses the numbers of people that say Z about X to bolter the
> > > claim that someone does not understand X
>
> > Only the number of people that have studied X. How could it be
> > otherwise, unless you are claiming total nihilism? If there is a
> > reality out there, then the more people that study X and share their
> > experiences, then the more they will have a shared and testable view
> > of it.
>
> > If this cannot be true, then anybody's opinions on anything are all
> > equally valid, in which case, why should we listen to you about
> > anything?
>
> > > That is where we are at today with junk-science..
>
> > You have repeated this assertion hundreds of times. I refute it by
> > pointing out that science works.
>
> > > laughable but sad for humanity.
>
> > I don't really find you laughable. It is sad that you represent tens
> > of millions of people in my country alone.
>
> > Because you have no real expertise in any area, you cannot appreciate
> > the long years of hard work required for those who *have achieved
> > expertise.
>
> > Kermit
>
> You have not established that you are in fact an authority on X from a
> point of absolute truth to make such claims
No; I am not an authority on anything of absolute truth except closed
systems of very simple logic, such as grade school level arithmetic.
Synthetic statements never involve absolute authority; I'm not sure
what that phrase could mean in that context except as an admission of
lunacy or simple mindedness.
Your continued babbling about absolute authority is childish and
unproductive.
>
> Sorry. But there is reality of it.
When have I ever claimed otherwise? *You are the one who claims to be
infallible. And yet you can't seem to remember replies from one thread
to the next. I despair of you ever learning anything.
>
> You are just bloated with self importance when you ASSume your
> findings are 100% accurate.
That would be true, were I to ever make that claim. Or are you talking
to the mirror again?
> But you cannot make such a claim to be the
> holder of the absolute truth on X yet.
>
1 + 1 = 2
> Still, you are present yourself as knowing all about X as if you do
> hold absolute truth.
On matters of the real world, nobody does. Especially you, because you
are unwilling to test your claims against reality. You argue against
strawmen only - and lose half of those arguments. You seem incapable
of learning either facts or what the actual position is you think
you're arguing against.
>
> But you know, and I know that you do NOT possess the absolute truth on
> X
Correct. Should I link to the few dozen posts in the last few months
where I have said this?
>
> So why pretend that you do?
Please quote where I have said anything that can be misconstrued to
mean this.
Kermit
Mitchell Coffey
> Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > In article <030120101324527688%j...@wilkins.id.au>, JohnWilkins
> ...
>
> > >> You ignore what they tell you, as well.
>
>
> > John:
>
> > All you have to do is add one to each of those ideas, and they'll no
> > longer be
> > odd.
> Okay: to my idea that drift is not a mechanism, add my idea that genes
> are not information. Now I'm even...
<Wilkins suck-up>
Far be it that I'm the one to inject substance into the thread, but
who believes genes to be information, and why? My hard drive isn't
information; if that's the wrong analogy, neither are Unicode
standards. Or is this your eccentric view that whatever is stored, or
whatevered, by genes isn't information?
Note that where I come from, "eccentric" != "wrong."
Drift is a condition where selection mechanisms aren't at play, so
what's the beef?
</Wilkins suck-up>
Mitchell
John Stockwell
> Sorry. But there is reality of it.
Science is about eliminating falsehoods. I this sense, scientific
results are closer to being "truths" than falsehood. You don't have
to accept the results of science if you don't want to, but don't
pretend that science supports your position, because it does not.
>
> You are just bloated with self importance when you ASSume your
> findings are 100% accurate. But you cannot make such a claim to be the
> holder of the absolute truth on X yet.
Implicitly, creationists do not operate from a position of scientific
investigation, but claim to be operating from the position of
absolute truth. Creationists definely are bloated, in fact they
are full of it.
-John
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jan 2, 2:25�pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
Thanks for showing us that you still do not understand the basics of
science.
heekster
wrote:
Bidoctorally speaking?
Oddly enough, that sounds about even. You're sure that you are not on
the horns of one of those marsupial two point lemmas?
Then again, there is Warnock's dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_Dilemma
bpuharic
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>Ron Okimoto along with Wesley Elsberry, Ken Miller and Judge Jones
>epitomize the most deceived persons one could encounter anywhere,
>anytime, in Western society. All four actually really think that the
>Atheist explanation of nature (evolution) is also the Christian
>explanation of nature. We cannot offer better evidence supporting the
>existence of Satan (the Deceiver).
>
>This is why we are Christian-Creationists, and this is why we have
>faith: good or bad whatever the Bible says is true.
>
>Ray
>
>SNIP....
>
just out of curiosity, ray
i'm a chemist. what is a NON atheist explanation of acid base
chemistry? seems chemistry runs pretty well without an 'intelligence'.
if it's necessary for science, then why dont we chemists use it?
i dont expect you to answer:
no answer from you is possible
Burkhard
I see. So you think Charles Schulz is God, as he too is used as
example in the definition? I always thought that you have a somewhat
unusual religion that only looks very vaguely christian, but that it
surely pushing it a bit far, don't you think?
> The word conveys direct involvement by God.
>
> Brazen dishonesty or stupidity?
>
> No one could be this stupid: "created" or "creation" always means by
> supernatural power.
As in 'Schulz created the peanuts character"? in above dictionary
definition?
>The brazen dishonesty of Dana Tweedy is shown
> spectacularly. He will undoubtedly try to say that there is no word in
> the English language that conveys "by supernatural power."
>
Well, "to poof" was suggested on this ng, but you seemed not happy
with it if I recall. "To magic" would be another contender, if care
is taken not to confuse it with stage magicians. But if you think "to
create" entails supernatural power", then you have created a huge mess
unless you think that humans use supernatural power as a matter of
course, which is of course a possible theological position to take.
> Both dictionary entries support my contention. For the record: no
> evolution scholar denies the elementary meaning of "creation" or
> "created."
> I just wanted to show the world the degree of brazen dishonesty that
> the ordinary evolutionist on the Internet possesses.
>
> > Indeed by stating that Charles Schulz created
> > "Peanuts" it suggests that mere mortals are capable of creation as well.
>
> > Simply making a claim does not mean the claim is "undisputed", or that
> > dictionaries agree with your private definition when they do not.
>
> "Creation" and "created" always mean God or the supernatural are
> directly involved. That's why both examples in ...
>
> read more »
Will in New Haven
And yet you have often called each of them liars. At least, I'm sure I
can find examples of your calling each of them liars. I have asked you
many times to differentiate between those who honestly disagree with
you and those who are dishonest and you continue to do otherwise.
Where is your vaunted Christian charity? For that matter, when you
_know_ that they are deceived and you call them liars, are you not a
liar?
>
> This is why we are Christian-Creationists, and this is why we have
> faith: good or bad whatever the Bible says is true.
Note that I believe you and don't call you a liar. A fool, sure. A
willful believer in a con man, definitely. But a liar, never.
--
Will in New Haven
Eric Root
> On Jan 1, 12:54�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 9:15�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > [\]
>
> > > > >Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > > > >therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> findings are 100% accurate. But you cannot make such a claim to be the
> holder of the absolute truth on X yet.
>
> hold absolute truth.
>
> X
>
> So why pretend that you do?
You liar and bumbling idiot! (in all due respect). Kermit
_specifically_ denied that he had absolute truth. How can you live
with yourself when you lie and say he pretends that he does?
Eric Root
john wilkins
When my Macbook is next connected to the interwub, I will post refs, but
it is the default view amongst the philosophically inclined.
Bob Berger
Pair o' docs, the logical inconsistency of having two slips at the same pier for
a single boat.
r norman
wrote:
>In article
If the two of you were on adjacent carbons on a benzene molecule, you
would be quite orthodox.
Mike Painter
> Ron Okimoto along with Wesley Elsberry, Ken Miller and Judge Jones
> epitomize the most deceived persons one could encounter anywhere,
> anytime, in Western society. All four actually really think that the
> Atheist explanation of nature (evolution) is also the Christian
> explanation of nature. We cannot offer better evidence supporting the
> existence of Satan (the Deceiver).
It is the christian explanation for the vast majority.
Even in the late 1940's and early 1950's the RCC (That's over 50% RIGHT
THERE) said you could believe in anything you wanted as long as you believed
that at some point god injected a human with a soul
John Wilkins
<c33174a1-2ff7-4c24...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 6:37�pm, john wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > In article <030120101324527688%j...@wilkins.id.au>, JohnWilkins
> > > says...
> > ...
> >
> > > >> You ignore what they tell you, as well.
> >
> > > >You should also ignore JohnWilkins. He has all kinds of odd ideas.
> >
> > > John:
> >
> > > All you have to do is add one to each of those ideas, and they'll no
> > > longer be
> > > odd.
>
> > Okay: to my idea that drift is not a mechanism, add my idea that genes
> > are not information. Now I'm even...
>
> <Wilkins suck-up>
> Far be it that I'm the one to inject substance into the thread, but
> who believes genes to be information, and why? My hard drive isn't
> information; if that's the wrong analogy, neither are Unicode
> standards. Or is this your eccentric view that whatever is stored, or
> whatevered, by genes isn't information?
Here's a list of those who do think, in varying degrees, that genes are
informational:
Adami, Christoph. 2004. Information theory in molecular biology.
Physics of Life Reviews 1 (1):3-22.
Alvager, T., G. Graham, R. Hilleke, D. Hutchison, and J. Westgard.
1989. On the information content of the genetic code. Biosystems 22
(3):189-196.
Barbieri, Marcello. 2003. Biology with Information and Meaning. History
and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 25 (2):243-254.
Bergstrom, Carl, and Martin Rosvall. Forthcoming. The transmission
sense of information. Biology and Philosophy.
Brooks, Daniel R. 1989. Entropy and Information in Evolving Biological
Systems. Biology and Philosophy 4:407-432.
Chaitin, Gregory J. 1991. Algorithmic information and evolution. In
Perspectives on biological complexity, edited by O. T. Solbrig and G.
Nicolis: IUBS Press.
Davison, J. A. 2000. Ontogeny, phylogeny and the origin of biological
information. Riv Biol 93 (3):513-524.
Deacon, Terrence. 2007. Shannon � Boltzmann � Darwin: Redefining
information (Part I). Cognitive Semiotics 2007 (15):123-148.
���. 2008. Shannon - Boltzmann - Darwin: Redefining information (Part
II). Cognitive Semiotics 2008 (2):169-196.
Downes, Stephen M. 2005. Biological Information. In The Philosophy of
Science: An Encyclopedia, edited by S. Sarkar and J. Pfeifer:
Routledge:64-68.
Eigen, Manfred. 1993. The origin of genetic information: viruses as
models. Gene 135 (1-2):37�47.
Gatlin, Lila L. 1972. Information theory and the living system. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Godfrey Smith, Peter, and Kim Sterelny. 2007. Biological Information.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2007/entries/information-biologica
l/.
Griffiths, Paul E. 2001. Genetic Information: A Metaphor in Search of a
Theory. Philosophy of Science 68 (3):394-412.
Jablonka, Eva. 2002. Information: Its Interpretation, Its Inheritance,
and Its Sharing. Philosophy of Science 69 (4):578-605.
Kunicki-Goldfinger, W. J. H. 1995. The Role of Information in
Biological Systems. Studia Philosophiae Christianae 31 (1):49-57.
K�ppers, Bernd-Olaf. 1995. The Context-Dependence of Biological
Information. Ludus Vitalis: Revista de Filosofia de las Ciencias de la
Vida 3 (5):5-17.
Maclaurin, James. 1998. Reinventing Molecular Weismannism: Information
in Evolution. Biology and Philosophy 13 (1):37-59.
Maynard Smith, John. 1999. The 1999 Crafoord Prize Lectures. The idea
of information in biology. Quarterly Review of Biology 74 (4):395-400.
���. 2000. The Concept of Information in Biology. Philosophy of Science
67 (2):177-194.
Sarkar, Sahotra. 2000. Information in Genetics and Developmental
Biology: Comments on Maynard Smith. Philosophy of Science 67
(2):208-213.
Scherrer, Klaus, and J�rgen Jost. 2007. The gene and the genon concept:
a functional and information-theoretic analysis. Molecular Systems
Biology 3.
Schneider, Thomas D. 1997. Information content of individual genetic
sequences. Journal of Theoretical Biology 189 (4):427-441.
���. 2000. The evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Res
28 (14):2794-2799.
Segal, J�r�me. 2003. The Use of Information Theory in Biology: a
Historical Perspective. Hist. Phil. Life Sci. 25:275-281.
Segr�, Daniel, Dafna Ben-Eli, and Doron Lancet. 2000. Compositional
genomes: prebiotic information transfer in mutually catalytic
noncovalent assemblies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 97 (8):4112-4117.
Slaga, Szczepan W. 1995. Two Interpretations of the Origin of
Biological Information. Studia Philosophiae Christianae 31 (1):59-81.
Smith, James D., David J. Depew, and Bruce H. Weber. 1988. Entropy,
information, and evolution: new perspectives on physical and biological
evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Spetner, Lee. 1968. Information transmission in evolution. IEEE
Transactions in Information Theory IT-14:3-6.
Sterelny, Kim. 2000. The Genetic Program Program: A Commentary on
Maynard Smith on Information in Biology. Philosophy of Science 67
(2):195-201.
Stormo, Gary D. 1998. Information content and free energy in
DNA-protein interactions. Journal of Theoretical Biology 195:135-137.
Sustar, Predrag. 2007. Crick's notion of genetic information and the
'central dogma' of molecular biology. Br J Philos Sci 58 (1):13-24.
Tamino, G. 1974. The Information Model of Protein Synthesis. Scientia:
An International Review of Scientific Synthesis 109:167-196.
Wallace, Rodrick, and Robert G. Wallace. 1999. Organisms, organizations
and interactions: an information theory approach to biocultural
evolution. Biosystems 51:101-119.
Wicken, Jeffrey S. 1993. Evolution, Thermodynamics and Information.
Williamson, R. M. 1995. Information theory analysis of the relationship
between primary sequence structure and ligand recognition among a class
of facilitated transporters. J Theor Biol 174 (2):179-188.
Winnie, John A. 2000. Information and Structure in Molecular Biology:
Comments on Maynard Smith. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):517-526.
Yockey, Hubert P. 1992. Information theory and molecular biology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, John Z. 1954. Memory, heredity and information. In Evolution as
a process, edited by J. Huxley, A. C. Hardy and E. B. Ford. London:
George Allen and Unwin:281-299.
Here are some dissenters, to varying degrees:
Boniolo, Giovanni. 2003. Biology without Information. Hist. Phil. Life
Sci. 25:255-273.
Griesemer, James R. 2005. The informational gene and the substantial
body: on the generalization of evolutionary theory by abstraction. In
Idealization XII: Correcting the Model. Idealization and Abstraction in
the Sciences, edited by M. R. Jones and N. Cartwright. Amsterdam:
Rodopi Publishers:59-115.
Griffiths, Paul E. 2001. Genetic Information: A Metaphor in Search of a
Theory. Philosophy of Science 68 (3):394-412.
>
> Note that where I come from, "eccentric" != "wrong."
>
> Drift is a condition where selection mechanisms aren't at play, so
> what's the beef?
Various folk think it's a mechanism:
Brandon, Robert N. 2005. The Difference between Selection and Drift: A
Reply to Millstein. Biology and Philosophy 20 (1):153-170.
Millstein, Roberta L. 2005. Selection vs. Drift: A Response to
Brandon's Reply. Biology and Philosophy 20 (1):171-175.
Stephens, Christopher. 2004. Selection, Drift, and the Forces of
Evolution. Philosophy of Science 71 (4):550-570.
> </Wilkins suck-up>
>
> Mitchell
>
Kermit
Since reality contradicts what you think really happened, you seem to
be saying that you worship the Great Deceiver.
>
> This is why we are Christian-Creationists, and this is why we have
> faith: good or bad whatever the Bible says is true.
How do you determine that you have made no error in interpreting this?
If you simply assert infallibility, then you are guilty of hubris,
claiming a prerogative that is not mortal. If you admit you are not
infallible, then how do you confirm that you are correct?
And how did you determine in the first place that the bible is a
source of information?
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
Kermit
gregwrld
> In article
> <c33174a1-2ff7-4c24-b983-3b25bd552...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Cool, but what definition of information
are you using here? The word is used
often here and it can be hard to tell who
means what. Thanks,
gregwrld
Ray Martinez
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 10:28�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 8:12�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > The arguments from ism-ism:
>
> > > The non-sequitur: "X is a
> > > Y-fundamentalist/nationalist/exclusivist/separatist/etc., therefore he's not
> > > qualified to evaluate any scientific theory."
>
> > > The argument from compartmentalization: "X's PhD is in the field of Y,
> > > therefore he's not qualified to evaluate scientific theories in the field of
> > > Z." (as if there is no such thing as a general scientific method)
>
> > > The argument from envy: "X's ideas have been declared to be false by his
> > > rivals, therefore his ideas are false."
>
> > > Finally, the favorite: "I assert that you don't know anything about X,
> > > therefore, you don't know anything about X"
>
> > The truth is that ordinary evolutionists know next to nothing about
> > their own theory. There is a wide gap of knowledge between evolution
> > scholars and the evolution masses----the latter being, for the most
> > average Talk Origin citizen possesses preconceptions about
> > evolutionary theory that are totally unfounded, having no support in
> > the collective �writings of their own scholars.
>
> > For example, the following regular evolutionist posters are completely
> > ignorant of the history and facts of their own theory:
>
>
> > 2. John Harshman
>
> > 3. Ron Okimoto
>
>
> > 5. Devils Advocate
>
> > 6. Ye Olde One
>
> > 7. Bob Casanova (alter ego of #6)
>
>
> > 9. Free Lunch
>
> > 10. �Richard Forrest
>
> > I could identify 50 more but you get the point.
>
> > Ray
>
>
> Well, that will come as a surprise to the scientists with whom I
> communicate on a regular basis, the editors of the journals in which I
> publish my research findings, the academics at the university at which
> I am studying for my PhD, and that attendees at conferences at which I
> present my findings.
>
Yet you do not know the most basic difference between Creationism and
Evolution in regard to God/Intelligence.
> Here's what might be a rather radical idea for you, Ray. Perhaps, just
> perhaps the people who actually *study* a subject in depth might just
> possibly know more about it than (gasp!) Ray Martinez!
>
> RF- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no evidence that you have studied or are studying evolution.
You are an ordinary evolutionist whose conceptions of evolutionary
theory have no support in the published writings of evolutionary
authorities.
Ray