What is required for an Atheist to upgrade to an Agnostic ?
Dave in Lake Villa
become an Agnostic ? And what is the possibility of this occuring
amongst the 'Atheist' population ? Any thoughts on this issue ? Thank
you.
Ken
Milan
"Dave in Lake Villa" <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29-46788...@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net...
Some form of brain tumour. If you add a lobotomy you may get a theist. If
you remove a good chunk of the cerebral cortex you may end up with a jehovah
witness or maybe a pentecostal. It's hard to be certain.
regards
Milan
Ken
> Some form of brain tumour. If you add a lobotomy you may get a theist. If
> you remove a good chunk of the cerebral cortex you may end up with a jehovah
> witness or maybe a pentecostal. It's hard to be certain.
>
> regards
> Milan
Dimwitted troll dave has volunteered to be a brain doner as his has
rarely been used.
So far, no takers
Stan Lund
>> regards Milan
I share your frustration, but please try to be creative or offer some
humour in your posts, as Milan did. Endless insults alone can be as
annoying as the posts that triggered them.
--
Stan
Martin
Then he'd become a Scientologist
Dave in Lake Villa
--
Stan
REPLY: Stan, Its all thats left when one cannot justify the
affirmative beliefs (faith) which one has an 'atheist' ; that is the
frustrating element of forcing oneself to believe that atheism is the
best religion to follow despite its incredulty .
Dave in Lake Villa
If you remove a good chunk of the cerebral cortex you may end up with a
jehovah witness or maybe a pentecostal. It's hard to be certain.
regards
REPLY: Thanks for your reply Milan ; what then would one have to get
in order to become a bonified 'Atheist' who :
1. Tries to pretend that very personal innate qualities of a human being
such as abstract thoughts, moral oughtness, ethical systems, compassion,
empathy, et al ... came from NON personal material such as Hydrogen Gas
?
2. Tries to pretend that the vast array of specified complexity such as
Human DNA can come about from the atmosphere when even its founder,
atheist Dr. Francis Crick , boldly declared that it is IMPOSSIBLE for
DNA to have arrived by accident from the atmosphere. ?
3. Tries to pretend that the scientifically confirmed 133 (so far
discovered) parameters of our Solar System which are all needed
simultaneously / working in conjunction with one another , so earth can
be here so we can live on it....came about thru 'natural , accidental
,non intelligent' sources purely by chance ?
4. Tries to pretend that there are no absolute moral laws which he has
to live by ... even though he expects and demands others treat himself
with absolute morality (and all the time) ?
Thanks .
Dave in Lake Villa
become an Agnostic if his Will allows ? Or put another way : If an
Agnostic is one who isnt sure that a personal Creator exists but is
willing to continue investigating that issue....why couldnt an Atheist
become like an Agnostic ?
Ken
>
> I share your frustration, but please try to be creative or offer some
> humour in your posts, as Milan did. Endless insults alone can be as
> annoying as the posts that triggered them.
>
> --
> Stan
Recent news flash from CNN?
Lake Villa resident David N Brown age 54, found dead this afternoon
Illinois police spokeswoman Miss Hottie McSnatch revealed that cause
of
death may have been due to Mr Brown's habit of auto-erotic
hanging that apparently accidentally killed him
When interviewed off camera, one of his neighbor's (who did not want
his
identity revealed) said of Mr. Brown: "He never was very friendly. He
didn't work very much, Everyone on the block thought he was a little
strange, sometimes he was seen walking around in a trance-like state
wearing white robes and a muttering fundy religious crap like: "Bring
out your Dead" or "Repent all ye Sinners! The End is Near!"
Miss McSnatch also revealed that some well worn gay porn magazines
were was found
in the trunk of his vintage Corvette, along with some leather bondage
equipment Later, this reporter overheard her saying: "There sure was
some strange shit going on in there!"
Milan
I'm sorry. I can try to contribute a joke if you present one single ignorant
idiocy at a time as a cue. With so many stupidities one after the other I
dont think even Seinfeld could crack a joke. It's too much.
By the way, what is "bonified"?
regards
Milan
Milan
"Dave in Lake Villa" <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16168-467...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
Please check your definition of agnostic and come back when you have
understood the issues. At the moment it is obvious that you have no idea
what you are talking about. You are making an ass of yourself and we dont
wish to make fun of you. You are far too easy a target. And worse: you are
not even funny.
regards
Milan
Stan Lund
"Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> I'm sorry. I can try to contribute a joke if you present one single
> ignorant idiocy at a time as a cue. With so many stupidities one after
> the other I dont think even Seinfeld could crack a joke. It's too much.
> By the way, what is "bonified"?
You've made me start the day with unstoppable laughter, and finish the
same way. My belly is aching so much I don't think I can upgrade to
agnostic or anything else.
--
Stan
Jeffrey Goldberg
(in article <29-46788...@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net>):
Hello, Dave.
I can't promise to stick around for this discussion, indeed, I am using this
as an opportunity to test out a new newsreader. So I will try to give a
complete answer in this single post.
The simple answer to your question is that an atheist would become an
agnostic if the atheist came to believe that the existence of God were
plausible.
Now I will explain what I mean.
I'm sure that you've hung around atheist groups long enough to have heard of
Russell's teapot. But I will remind you: Bertrand Russell, to illustrate a
similar point, posed the idea that there is a Wedgewood teapot orbiting the
Sun in exactly Earth's orbit, but is six months off, so that it can never be
seen from Earth. (Actually Russell posed the example a bit differently, but
what I've presented helps make the point more clearly).
At the moment, there is no evidence against the existence of such a teapot,
and at the time that Russell proposed this, interplanetary space probes were
still a long way in the future, so I didn't think that evidence about the
proposed teapot could practically be gathered.
Now I'm going to assume that you, like me, are an a-teapotist. You believe
that Russell's teapot does not exist. And the question is what would it
take to upgrade your a-teapotism to being agnostic about the teapot.
The answer, I would expect, is that it would take something that made
Russell's teapot to seem less implausible. But until that comes around, you
will say that you will continue to deny the existence of Russell's teapot
until someone presents you with some pretty convincing evidence otherwise.
The difference, in my view, between an atheist and an agnostic is that the
atheist considers God implausible, while the agnostic considers God to be not
implausible. I find God to be as implausible as Russell's teapot.
Cheers,
-j
Peter Ashby
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:35:05 -0500, Dave in Lake Villa wrote
> (in article <29-46788...@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net>):
>
> > If one claimed he was 'an Atheist' ... what would be required of him to
> > become an Agnostic ? And what is the possibility of this occuring
> > amongst the 'Atheist' population ? Any thoughts on this issue ? Thank
> > you.
>
> Hello, Dave.
>
> I can't promise to stick around for this discussion, indeed, I am using this
> as an opportunity to test out a new newsreader.
Nice to see you again Jeffrey, glad to know you are still around and
hope your life enables you to be around more. You have been missed.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net
Peter Ashby
> I'm sorry. I can try to contribute a joke if you present one single ignorant
> idiocy at a time as a cue. With so many stupidities one after the other I
> dont think even Seinfeld could crack a joke. It's too much.
>
> By the way, what is "bonified"?
It means to aquire a Napoleon complex, obviously.
Dave in Lake Villa
same way. My belly is aching so much I don't think I can upgrade to
agnostic or anything else.
--
REPLY: ALways happy to oblige Stan ! I know you could upgrade to an
Agnostic if you really wanted to. Its easy . Do you know how to go
about it ???
Dave in Lake Villa
agnostic if the atheist came to believe that the existence of God were
REPLY: Hello Jeff. Havent seen you in quite awhile. Glad to have you
address the question at hand.
'The answer, I would expect, is that it would take something that made
Russell's teapot to seem less implausible. But until that comes around,
you will say that you will continue to deny the existence of Russell's
teapot until someone presents you with some pretty convincing evidence
otherwise.'
REPLY: Ahh...but, that is only a scapegoat Jeff ; to say there is no
'convincing evidence' is a convenient denial for ones personal ulterior
motive. Atheists have been presented with the strong overwhelming
evidence yet they dont wish to admit it even though they have to
internalise (accept) it. Its sort of like a child who is told by his
parent that what he did was wrong ; the child knows it , has
internalised it ...but still verbally denies that he did wrong because
of his pride. Its no different for the 'atheist' who wants to maintain
his position by declaring ' if only there were compelling evidence' .
'The difference, in my view, between an atheist and an agnostic is that
the atheist considers God implausible, while the agnostic considers God
to be not implausible. I find God to be as implausible as Russell's
teapot.'
REPLY: So then, how do we get 'the willful atheist' to become an open
minded Agnostic ? Is it too much of an infringement on 'the atheist'
to admit that a personal Designer is always necessary for personal
Designs and razor edge precision (IE: Anthropic Principle) ? Did you
ever finish the book : 'I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist' that
you bought ???
Dave in Lake Villa
response . Please take note of how he at least tries to justify his
atheist position to which i give him credit (even though he didnt
address the following beliefs of an 'atheist') :
Ken
wrote:
> So far, Jeffrey is the only one with a coherent , rational, non-vitrol
> response .
Trolling webtv idiots like you don't deserve ANY response.
All you want is another person to listen while you push your own
perversly demented Taliban-like
morals, anti-abortion, anti-science, anti-logic, anti-sex,
anti-(any other religion other than your own) ideas, and will, no
doubt,
try to engage in another of your useless, endless, mindless,
ceaseless, pointless, neverending, purposeless,
senseless, relentless, incessant conversations whose only intent is
pushing your demented point of view to the exclusion of any others.
(even though he didnt
> address the following beliefs of an 'atheist')
Atheists don't need "beliefs" only you delusional brainwashed Xtians
have a need to believe
Peter Ashby
> So far, Jeffrey is the only one with a coherent , rational, non-vitrol
> response . Please take note of how he at least tries to justify his
> atheist position to which i give him credit
Jeffrey has the patience of a saint. He also isn't around as much as the
rest of us. Put those together and you have an explanation why the rest
of us have lost any patience we may have had with you.
Peter Ashby
> 'The simple answer to your question is that an atheist would become an
> agnostic if the atheist came to believe that the existence of God were
> plausible.'
>
> REPLY: Hello Jeff. Havent seen you in quite awhile. Glad to have you
> address the question at hand.
>
> 'The answer, I would expect, is that it would take something that made
> Russell's teapot to seem less implausible. But until that comes around,
> you will say that you will continue to deny the existence of Russell's
> teapot until someone presents you with some pretty convincing evidence
> otherwise.'
>
> REPLY: Ahh...but, that is only a scapegoat Jeff ; to say there is no
> 'convincing evidence' is a convenient denial for ones personal ulterior
> motive. Atheists have been presented with the strong overwhelming
> evidence yet they dont wish to admit it even though they have to
> internalise (accept) it. Its sort of like a child who is told by his
> parent that what he did was wrong ; the child knows it , has
> internalised it ...but still verbally denies that he did wrong because
> of his pride. Its no different for the 'atheist' who wants to maintain
> his position by declaring ' if only there were compelling evidence' .
Dave, you have been told time and time again in here about scientific
and other standards of evidence and how your supposed evidence does not
and never will satisfy those. Your continual failure to understand and
internalise this fact is just one reason why you do not get a good
reception in here. Pretending that you have not been so informed and so
writing the above piece of wishful thinking trash just reinforces our
view that you are not worth conversing with.
No conversation with you ever progresses because you have no concept of
how to debate in good faith. Unless and until you discover that you will
continue to not be worth talking to.
Christopher A.Lee
Lake Villa) wrote:
>REPLY: Ahh...but, that is only a scapegoat Jeff ; to say there is no
>'convincing evidence' is a convenient denial for ones
Lie.
> personal ulterior
>motive.
Lie.
> Atheists have been presented with the strong overwhelming
Lie.
>evidence yet they dont wish to admit it even though they have to
Lie.
>internalise (accept) it.
Lie.
> Its sort of like a child who is told by his
>parent that what he did was wrong ;
Lie.
> the child knows it , has
Lie.
>internalised it
Lie.
> ...but still verbally denies
Lie.
> that he did wrong
Lie.
> because
>of his pride.
Lie.
> Its no different for the 'atheist'
Lie.
> who wants to maintain
>his position by
Lie.
> declaring ' if only there were compelling evidence' .
So provide some, liar. Do that and you'll be the first in 2000 years.
Jeffrey Goldberg
(in article <9849-467A...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>):
> 'The simple answer to your question is that an atheist would become an
> agnostic if the atheist came to believe that the existence of God were
> plausible.'
>
> REPLY: Hello Jeff. Havent seen you in quite awhile. Glad to have you
> address the question at hand.
Dave, there is a reason that so few people actually respond to the questions
that you ask and instead shower you with insults. I don't know how long I
can manage before I join the others.
>
> 'The answer, I would expect, is that it would take something that made
> Russell's teapot to seem less implausible. But until that comes around,
> you will say that you will continue to deny the existence of Russell's
> teapot until someone presents you with some pretty convincing evidence
> otherwise.'
>
> REPLY: Ahh...but, that is only a scapegoat Jeff ;
"Scapegoat"? Odd choice of words, but let's continue ...
> to say there is no
> 'convincing evidence' is a convenient denial for ones personal ulterior
> motive.
Let's put motivation aside and consider the evidence. It is possible, of
course, that my conclusions based on the evidence are shaped by my
motivations, but it is equally possible that your conclusions are based on
your motivations.
In fact, since so much of the evidence that you cite involves telling
outright verifiable lies (like misstating the second law of thermodynamics,
or factually false claims about beetles and so on) it seems to suggest that
your position is the one that is most strongly distorted by motivation.
> Atheists have been presented with the strong overwhelming
> evidence
But we haven't . And you know that. We have been presented with strong
overwhelming evidence that life on Earth closely corresponds to many physical
facts about the universe. This nobody has denied.
But this is why people insult you so much. We've been through this before.
In previous discussions we've progressed beyond this point, but you seem to
conveniently forget what all that discussion. Discussing things with you is
like carrying on a conversation with an Alzheimers patient. You have no
memory of the previous days discussion. Your brain just seems to reset to
its starting place.
But a reminder. The last time around you agreed that "In at least some cases
a non-coincidental correspondences does not provide evidence for a mindful
designer". The example that we used was a puddle of water where the shape of
the water itself precisely corresponded to the shape of the hole that it was
in, down to the last grain of sand on the bottom of the hole.
You agreed that the correspondence between the shape of the water and the
shape of the hole could be attributed to a mindless physical process
(gravity).
> 'The difference, in my view, between an atheist and an agnostic is that
> the atheist considers God implausible, while the agnostic considers God
> to be not implausible. I find God to be as implausible as Russell's
> teapot.'
>
> REPLY: So then, how do we get 'the willful atheist' to become an open
> minded Agnostic ?
Before you call me closed-minded, are you open minded about Russell's teapot?
What would it take to get a willful a-teapotist to become an open minded
Agnostic?
> Is it too much of an infringement on 'the atheist'
> to admit that a personal Designer is always necessary for personal
> Designs and razor edge precision (IE: Anthropic Principle) ?
We've been here before, the razor edge precision between the shape of the
water and the shape of the hole it occupies does not convince me of a
personal Designer. Nor do your 133 "facts" about life and the universe.
> Did you
> ever finish the book : 'I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist' that
> you bought ???
Sorry. I've started it several times, but each time I read a page I get
infuriated by the lies and half truths. I'd rather read some real
apologetics that have some sort of logical and factual credibility. Did you
get anywhere in tracking down that Julian Huxley interview on the Merv
Griffith show? You know, the interview that you said was as well documented
as the JFK assassination?
-j
Ian Smith
It depends whether you take the definition of the words or the
common usage of the words by theists.
The word agnostic was introduced relatively recently, when many
people thought an Atheist to be someone who denies the existence of
a deity. It came to mean "someone who doesn't know one way or the
other" or even someone who has no opinion.
As an atheist (i.e. someone who has no belief in a deity) I find the
whole idea of agnosticism to be of no interest. To me, there is
either evidence or there isn't.
You can illustrate this by looking at a common question such as "Do
you believe in god?". This is rather odd to me, as it implies that
there is a god to either believe in, or not to believe in. To me
this is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question - i.e. the
question itself makes unjustified assumptions and therefore cannot
be answered.
regards, Ian
Peter Ashby
> Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
> > If one claimed he was 'an Atheist' ... what would be required of him to
> > become an Agnostic ? And what is the possibility of this occuring
> > amongst the 'Atheist' population ? Any thoughts on this issue ? Thank
> > you.
> >
>
> It depends whether you take the definition of the words or the
> common usage of the words by theists.
>
> The word agnostic was introduced relatively recently, when many
> people thought an Atheist to be someone who denies the existence of
> a deity. It came to mean "someone who doesn't know one way or the
> other" or even someone who has no opinion.
>
> As an atheist (i.e. someone who has no belief in a deity) I find the
> whole idea of agnosticism to be of no interest. To me, there is
> either evidence or there isn't.
Well to be pedantic, the existence of evidence does not per se mean a
definite conclusion can be drawn. The issue is therefore not the
existence or otherwise of evidence that matters but the quality of the
evidence that exists. That is why Darwin's publication of On the Origin
was not definitive until the modern synthesis, since Darwin had no
mechanism of inheritance that could accommodate mutation. That had to
wait for the fusion of Darwinian evolution, Mendelian genetics and
Molecular evidence that DNA is the molecule of inheritance and how it
works.
Ken
>
> By the way, what is "bonified"?
>
> regards
> Milan
Perhaps it's something having to do with a "boner"?
Christopher A.Lee
<news0107R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
>> If one claimed he was 'an Atheist' ... what would be required of him to
>> become an Agnostic ? And what is the possibility of this occuring
>> amongst the 'Atheist' population ? Any thoughts on this issue ? Thank
>> you.
>>
>
>It depends whether you take the definition of the words or the
>common usage of the words by theists.
>
>The word agnostic was introduced relatively recently, when many
>people thought an Atheist to be someone who denies the existence of
>a deity. It came to mean "someone who doesn't know one way or the
>other" or even someone who has no opinion.
Because the actual position of atheists, and later of agnostics, can't
even exist in the restricted world view of believers.
They "define" us according to the presumption that their god is real -
but the only place that is granted (logically, if not in actuality),
is in the domain of discourse that is their religion.
Eg definitions using "deny" make the implicit assumption that is
exists outside their religion in order for us to deny it.
And even "agnostic" has come to mean "someone who doesn't know either
way whether [something that exists] exists or not.
Whatever word we use to describe us, even if we coin a new one, will
get redefined the same way because it gets filtered through their
perspective, using presumptions that don't even apply outside their
religion.
>As an atheist (i.e. someone who has no belief in a deity) I find the
>whole idea of agnosticism to be of no interest. To me, there is
>either evidence or there isn't.
It depends where one is coming from. I am atheist because religion and
theism were never mentioned until after I could think for myself.
A recent ex-theist who still retains the importance, feeling etc for
what he used to believe, could legitimately be agnostic because he
doesn't know (in the sense he "knew" god existed) any more.
Although there are honest agnostic theists who admit they believe but
don't know.
IMO the word "agnostic" is so broad as to be meaningless.
And I certainly don't have God in my world view as anything to be
agnostic about - or to believe doesn't exist.
Because it only has meaning in a comparative religion sense: it's a
belief-object from somebody else's religion in exactly the same way
Zeus, Odin and all the others are.
>You can illustrate this by looking at a common question such as "Do
>you believe in god?". This is rather odd to me, as it implies that
>there is a god to either believe in, or not to believe in. To me
>this is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question - i.e. the
>question itself makes unjustified assumptions and therefore cannot
>be answered.
Exactly. It's part and parcel of the assumptions behind their
"definitions" that they don't realise have no a priori validity in the
domain of discourse where they use them. Outside the religion vs
inside it.
>regards, Ian
Dave in Lake Villa
outright verifiable lies (like misstating the second law of
thermodynamics, or factually false claims about beetles and so on) it
seems to suggest that your position is the one that is most strongly
REPLY: Please prove that i 'mistated' the 2nd Law and have 'made false
claims about beetles' . Further, please show how the atheist position
of a 206 bone human being coming upward from Hydrogen Gas
(ultimately)...does not contradict the 2nd Law. I maintain that it
flatout does.
'Discussing things with you is like carrying on a conversation with an
Alzheimers patient. You have no memory of the previous days discussion.
Your brain just seems to reset to its starting place.'
REPLY: Have i ever used such vitrol toward yourself Jeff , even though i
firmly believe the Atheist position is sheer lunacy ?
'But a reminder. The last time around you agreed that "In at least some
cases a non-coincidental correspondences does not provide evidence for a
mindful designer". The example that we used was a puddle of water where
the shape of the water itself precisely corresponded to the shape of the
hole that it was in, down to the last grain of sand on the bottom of the
hole.
You agreed that the correspondence between the shape of the water and
the shape of the hole could be attributed to a mindless physical process
(gravity).'
REPLY: ANd i stated that this example was a rather poor one when
considering the 133 scientifically confirmed very narrow parameters
which are ALL needed, simultaneously, so they work collaboratively... to
make Earth what it is for us to live on from generation to generation.
Your hole example demonstrates that natural causes can produce non
specified complexity ; now you have to show how natural / non
intelligent causes can first off give us these 133 defined parameters
from Hydrogen Gas ultimately and initially....then... secondly, how they
'just so happened' to come together to work in perfect unison which
enabled a specific end product to occur (and to go on sustaining). Are
you able to show how its done via non intelligent intervention ? There
is no way you possibly could ; but this is the utter impossibility that
all would-be atheists MUST pretend according to.
'does not convince me of a personal Designer. Nor do your 133 "facts"
about life and the universe.'
REPLY: How is it that it DOES convince agnostic Cosmologists so much so,
that they become Theists ... yet it cant convince yourself ?! If 133
wont convince you, would 433 convince you if scientists ever reached
that ??? Better yet, what WOULD convince you ... or,...would your Will
veto anything that is layed before you so that : ' a divine foot must
not be allowed thru the door' (Evolutionist Scientist Lewontins
admission).
'Sorry. I've started it several times, but each time I read a page I get
infuriated by the lies and half truths. I'd rather read some real
apologetics that have some sort of logical and factual credibility.'
REPLY: You must have gotton to the part where he explains the HUGE
amount of FAITH a Materialist has to have . I told you before that you
practice a religion based on great faith Jeff !
Jeffrey Goldberg
(in article <9849-467A...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>):
> So far, Jeffrey is the only one with a coherent , rational, non-vitrol
> response . Please take note of how he at least tries to justify his
> atheist position to which i give him credit (even though he didnt
> address the following beliefs of an 'atheist') :
> 2. Tries to pretend that the vast array of specified complexity such as
> Human DNA can come about from the atmosphere when even its founder,
> atheist Dr. Francis Crick , boldly declared that it is IMPOSSIBLE for
> DNA to have arrived by accident from the atmosphere. ?
> 4. Tries to pretend that there are no absolute moral laws which he has
> to live by ... even though he expects and demands others treat himself
> with absolute morality (and all the time) ?
Dave, this is the end. You can tell lies about what Julian Huxley
said, you can tell lies about what other people have said, but now
you are telling lies about what I have said. You and the people
that your get your religious tracts from are liars.
No more. You are a stupid, possibly insane individual who has
neither the cognitive capacity nor even the slightest sliver of
the strength of character to actually allow anything that anyone
says to you have the slightest impact on your state of mind (such
as it is).
Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
-j
Steve Marshall
"Dave in Lake Villa" <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote
> REPLY: Have i ever used such vitrol toward yourself Jeff , even though i
> firmly believe the Atheist position is sheer lunacy ?
You did from the start. You initial question presumed agnosticism was
better than atheism. Each time you come here you try and demean people but
you only succeed in showing how unprincipled and ignorant you are.
Steve M
Ken
wrote:
Jeff: 'Discussing things with you is like carrying on a conversation
with an
> Alzheimers patient. You have no memory of the previous days discussion.
> Your brain just seems to reset to its starting place.'
>
> REPLY: Have i ever used such vitrol toward yourself Jeff , even though i
> firmly believe the Atheist position is sheer lunacy ?
Sorry, Dimwit, there's only one lunatic trolling around here..and
guess who that is?
Don't bother answering, as that would break your unblemished record of
never answering a direct question
Remember your Psalms of Avoidism?
Pslam I) Never answer a question directly.
What would that prove ?
That you give credence to their sinning ways ?
That you're no better than a mere question answerer ?
Jesus spoke only in meandering riddles, so learn from
the master.
Of course, when reminded that you didn't answer a direct question SAY
"I did answer it !"
This will then completely confuse your asailant.
Pslam II) Divert. Always divert.
You'll need this once the evil sinners
back you into a corner. It's a bit like a mugger trapping you in the
corner
and you suddenly go "look over there !!"
This of course would rarely lead to
anything other than you getting stabbed repeatedly in the chest.
But at least on the webtv service no one can stab you.
So randomly point out how much they're sinning.
And keep mentioning their "truth system".
It always confuses them.
Jeffrey Goldberg
(in article <1i02hi2.6p8m4hquyvN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>):
> Dave in Lake Villa <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>> So far, Jeffrey is the only one with a coherent , rational, non-vitrol
>> response . Please take note of how he at least tries to justify his
>> atheist position to which i give him credit
>
> Jeffrey has the patience of a saint. He also isn't around as much as the
> rest of us. Put those together and you have an explanation why the rest
> of us have lost any patience we may have had with you.
There is another factor, which I haven't really wanted to state
too publicly, but I think that with a little cyclical transformation
I can manage to express this reason appropriately:
V qba'g guvax gung vg vf avpr gb znxr sha bs gur zragnyyl
qvfgheorq, ng yrnfg abg gb gurve snpr.
That really is part of my motivation for how I tread itisdave or
George Hammond or other similar individuals.
-j
Christopher A.Lee
<nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:57:15 -0500, Peter Ashby wrote
>(in article <1i02hi2.6p8m4hquyvN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>):
>
>> Dave in Lake Villa <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>>> So far, Jeffrey is the only one with a coherent , rational, non-vitrol
>>> response . Please take note of how he at least tries to justify his
>>> atheist position to which i give him credit
>>
>> Jeffrey has the patience of a saint. He also isn't around as much as the
>> rest of us. Put those together and you have an explanation why the rest
>> of us have lost any patience we may have had with you.
>
>There is another factor, which I haven't really wanted to state
>too publicly, but I think that with a little cyclical transformation
>I can manage to express this reason appropriately:
>
>V qba'g guvax gung vg vf avpr gb znxr sha bs gur zragnyyl
>qvfgheorq, ng yrnfg abg gb gurve snpr.
Zbfg bs hf qba'g - jr whfg gerng gurz yvxr gur va-bhe-snpr vqvbgf gurl
ner.
Ohg jung vf fpnel vf gung gurer ner fb znal bs gurz.
Nsgre V rzvtengrq gb gur HFN, n pbj-bexre jnf na va lbhe snpr
perngvbavfg naq shaqnzragnyvfg rirel ovg nf cflpubgvp nf gur ybbavrf
jr frr urer.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:10:08 -0500, Jeffrey Goldberg
> <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>> V qba'g guvax gung vg vf avpr gb znxr sha bs gur zragnyyl
>> qvfgheorq, ng yrnfg abg gb gurve snpr.
>
> Zbfg bs hf qba'g - jr whfg gerng gurz yvxr gur va-bhe-snpr vqvbgf gurl
> ner.
V thrff jung V'z fnlvat vf gung V tb rnfl ba ba gur zragnyyl qvfgheorq.
-j
Ian Smith
> Ian Smith <news0107R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>>
>> As an atheist (i.e. someone who has no belief in a deity) I find the
>> whole idea of agnosticism to be of no interest. To me, there is
>> either evidence or there isn't.
>
> Well to be pedantic, the existence of evidence does not per se mean a
> definite conclusion can be drawn.
No, of course not. I focus on evidence because to talk of proof here
is unhelpful.
However, the _complete_ lack of _any_ evidence to indicate that a
position is justified must indicate something important...
People simply don't take positions unless there is some evidence to
indicate that it might be justified.
For example the statement "Your sister is arriving on the 18.45 from
York" is simple, but demands an awful lot of evidence for the claim
to be justified:
- the knowledge of who I am
- the knowledge that there is rail station locally
- the knowledge that there is a rail station in York
- the knowledge that there is an 18.45 train from York
- the knowledge that my sister is on it
To make such a claim without any such evidence reduces its
provenance to zero.
In any case, I don't have a sister.
To take a position where you might declare that you maintain an open
mind about whether a certain god exists at all is simply vacuous
where there is no evidence to indicate that existence of any god is
even indicated. You might as well declare yourself to be agnostic
about whether Bob the Builder is god.
regards, Ian
A Lurker
news:467eba1c$0$8747$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Peter Ashby wrote:
>> Ian Smith <news0107R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> As an atheist (i.e. someone who has no belief in a deity) I find the
>>> whole idea of agnosticism to be of no interest. To me, there is either
>>> evidence or there isn't.
>>
>> Well to be pedantic, the existence of evidence does not per se mean a
>> definite conclusion can be drawn.
>
> No, of course not. I focus on evidence because to talk of proof here is
> unhelpful.
>
> However, the _complete_ lack of _any_ evidence to indicate that a position
> is justified must indicate something important...
>
> People simply don't take positions unless there is some evidence to
> indicate that it might be justified.
>
> For example the statement "Your sister is arriving on the 18.45 from York"
> is simple, but demands an awful lot of evidence for the claim to be
> justified:
>
> - the knowledge of who I am
> - the knowledge that there is rail station locally
> - the knowledge that there is a rail station in York
> - the knowledge that there is an 18.45 train from York
> - the knowledge that my sister is on it
>
Leeds, it could again have been delayed due to "Trespass on the line"
As mine was three times over the last week.
Dave in Lake Villa
Human DNA can come about from the atmosphere when even its founder,
atheist Dr. Francis Crick , boldly declared that it is IMPOSSIBLE for
DNA to have arrived by accident from the atmosphere. ?
4. Tries to pretend that there are no absolute moral laws which he has
to live by ... even though he expects and demands others treat himself
with absolute morality (and all the time) ?'
JEFF SAID: Dave, this is the end. You can tell lies about what Julian
Huxley said, you can tell lies about what other people have said, but
now you are telling lies about what I have said.
REPLY: Jeff, I never asserted that 'you said' numbers 2 and 4 above if
you go back and read the entire post in this thread ; I stated that you
didnt give answers to 2 and 4 here (as well as 1 and 3) . Numbers 1-4
were examples of what all atheists believe in for their Religion , which
goes to show the lunacy of their 'Faith' .
'No more. You are a stupid, possibly insane individual who has neither
the cognitive capacity'
REPLY: Typical conclusion when someone challenges your position, gives
examples of what Atheists must believe in if they choose to deny a
personal Creator, as well as denouncing a scholarly book which shows the
absurdity of a Materialist when even atheists have written in to the
author to tell him how compelling the book truly was ! No wonder Jeff
youre frustrated, perplexed, and have had enough ; youve reached a
deadend road with trying to write-off a personal Designer/Creator which
is why nothing makes sense without God, The personal Creator . Now, its
time for you to exit atheism (which is a non existent position really)
and move toward God -- your own personal Creator who has a far better
plan for your life than fooling yourself .
Dave in Lake Villa
following, have to do to get to the position of an Agnostic ? :
What the 'Atheist' DOES believe in ---
1. Tries to pretend that very personal innate qualities of a human being
such as abstract thoughts, moral oughtness, ethical systems, compassion,
empathy, et al ... came from NON personal material such as Hydrogen Gas
?
2. Tries to pretend that the vast array of specified complexity such as
Human DNA can come about from the atmosphere when even its founder,
atheist Dr. Francis Crick , boldly declared that it is IMPOSSIBLE for
DNA to have arrived by accident from the atmosphere. ?
3. Tries to pretend that the scientifically confirmed 133 (so far
discovered) parameters of our Solar System which are all needed
simultaneously / working in conjunction with one another , so earth can
exist....came about thru 'natural , accidental ,non intelligent' sources
purely by chance without purpose .... even though they collaboratively
give us a very distinct and important (personal) purpose of living on
this planet ?
4. Tries to pretend that there are no absolute moral laws which he has
to live by ... even though he expects and demands others treat himself
with absolute morality (and all the time) ?
(and these daily actions of 'Atheists' should be considered sane and
rational, by others ? So much so that one should become an 'Atheist'
due to them making good sense ?????!). Come on 'Atheists'...its time
to stop the charade of refusing the personal Creator who made you in his
image and who has proved his love for you.
Ken
>
> No more. You are a stupid, possibly insane individual who has
> neither the cognitive capacity nor even the slightest sliver of
> the strength of character to actually allow anything that anyone
> says to you have the slightest impact on your state of mind (such
> as it is).
>
> Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
>
> -j
Very few, if any, mentally deranged people ever know that they've lost
touch with reality.
Dave in Lake Villa
position is justified must indicate something important...
People simply don't take positions unless there is some evidence to
REPLY: People will often NOT take a position even though there is good
rational evidence , such as a Theistic Creator. Ones WILL can override
any and all scientific evidence which is presented if the person
(atheist) so chooses ; the battle-cry from the 'atheist' camp is
typically : ' Id believe if only there was some evidence' . But the
reality is, their WILL and PRIDE wont allow a change of position because
they arent really interested in the absolute truth -- the reason is due
to ones chosen lifestyle MO which wouldnt have any room for a personal
holy and moral Creator (the accountability quotient). So...it is
encumbant upon such people to live in denial of the obvious all around
them, and embrace such myths and pretend games which help justify a more
'convenient' (shall we say...) lifestyle :
1. Tries to pretend that very personal innate qualities of a human being
such as abstract thoughts, moral oughtness, ethical systems, compassion,
empathy, et al ... came from NON personal material such as Hydrogen Gas
?
2. Tries to pretend that the vast array of specified complexity such as
Human DNA can come about from the atmosphere when even its founder,
atheist Dr. Francis Crick , boldly declared that it is IMPOSSIBLE for
DNA to have arrived by accident from the atmosphere. ?
3. Tries to pretend that the scientifically confirmed 133 (so far
discovered) parameters of our Solar System which are all needed
simultaneously / working in conjunction with one another , so earth can
be here so we can live on it....came about thru 'natural , accidental
,non intelligent' sources purely by chance ?
Jeffrey Goldberg
> JEFF SAID: Dave, this is the end. You can tell lies about what Julian
> Huxley said, you can tell lies about what other people have said, but
> now you are telling lies about what I have said.
>
> REPLY: Jeff, I never asserted that 'you said' numbers 2 and 4 above if
> you go back and read the entire post in this thread ;
OK. Maybe your post could be read as not attributing those views to me.
But you are attributing those views to someone. Who? Julian Huxley?
> I stated that you
> didnt give answers to 2 and 4 here (as well as 1 and 3) .
You are right. I didn't give answers to those in the past week. But I
have given detailed answers to them over the years. But you
conveniently forget that those lies of yours have been clearly refuted
and you return to repeat them again. You really are like an Alzheimer's
patient, and it really is impossible to carry on a genuine conversation
with you.
By the way, do I have to answer you in every thread, even if you say the
same thing in each? If I don't respond with an answer each and every
time you post your lies will you claim that your posts have gone unanswered?
Here is a question that I've asked you several times over the years. I
don't expect you to answer it, but I'd like to hope that you will think
about it. Does it bother you that the people who you rely on for your
"facts" continue to tell demonstrable lies to make their arguments?
Dave, go ahead and believe in and worship your God. But do start to
question the tracts, pamphlets, websites and preachers that you get your
"facts" from. Those people are lying scumbags who pray on weak minded
disturbed individuals like you. They are using you.
-j
David Wynne-Griffiths
from DaveInL...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) contains these words:
> REPLY: People will often NOT take a position even though there is good
> rational evidence , such as a Theistic Creator. Ones WILL can override
> any and all scientific evidence which is presented if the person
> (atheist) so chooses ; the battle-cry from the 'atheist' camp is
> typically : ' Id believe if only there was some evidence' .
There is no credible evidence and the reality is that in the whole of
our history no one has ever been able to produce any credible evidence
for the existence of any god We evolved subject to the constraints of
the world we live in without any input from an imaginary deity.
The concept of a personal god is ludicrous but may be helpful for the
weak minded and gullible. Belief in gods possibly had some evolutionary
advantage as a means of enforcing social adhesion which would explain
why man has been a serial inventor of gods. However as Russell said
"the fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible".
--
*********
DavidWG
*********
Ian Smith
> position is justified must indicate something important...
> People simply don't take positions unless there is some evidence to
> indicate that it might be justified.'
>
OK. You've been asked to do it before and you never have:
- provide the evidence for your god.
Either put up or shut up.
regards, Ian
Dave in Lake Villa
But you are attributing those views to someone. Who?'
REPLY: Im attributing these TENETS of atheism to ALL those who take
Atheism as their religion. Each and every one of these are believed in
by Atheists ; and ive simply exposed the irrationality and hypcritical
nature associated with them. Here they are once again :
1. Tries to pretend that very personal innate qualities of a human being
such as abstract thoughts, moral oughtness, ethical systems, compassion,
empathy, et al ... came from NON personal material such as Hydrogen Gas
?
2. Tries to pretend that the vast array of specified complexity such as
Human DNA can come about from the atmosphere when even its founder,
atheist Dr. Francis Crick , boldly declared that it is IMPOSSIBLE for
DNA to have arrived by accident from the atmosphere. ?
3. Tries to pretend that the scientifically confirmed 133 (so far
discovered) parameters of our Solar System which are all needed
simultaneously / working in conjunction with one another , so earth can
be here so we can live on it....came about thru 'natural , accidental
,non intelligent' sources purely by chance ?
4. Tries to pretend that there are no absolute moral laws which he has
to live by ... even though he expects and demands others treat himself
with absolute morality (and all the time) ?
'By the way, do I have to answer you in every thread, even if you say
the same thing in each?'
REPLY: You dont have to do anything Jeff ; thats the convenience of
ones FreeWill. However, if you feel led to address these 4 points above,
id be interested in hearing what you have to say.
'Does it bother you that the people who you rely on for your "facts"
continue to tell demonstrable lies to make their arguments?'
REPLY: Its your subjective opinion that they are lies . For instance,
please go ahead and list just ONE alleged 'lie' from the Dr. Norman
Geisler book called 'I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist' ...the
book which you had to stop reading because 'it was so full of lies'
toward your atheist position. List ONE please and give chapter and page
number so i can look it up. Atheists are quick to assert 'lieing' when
their irrationality gets brough tto the forefront.
'Dave, go ahead and believe in and worship your God. '
REPLY: I shall do exactly that till the day i die , then , I shall go
to meet the/my/your Creator for a wonderful homecoming . ITs available
to you too, but, it will require you to release the bondage Atheism has
on you for the sake of lifestyle convenience.
'But do start to question the tracts, pamphlets, websites and preachers
that you get your "facts" from. '
REPLY: I discern everything i hear and read, whether it comes from
secular or Christian sources because Satan is a clever Deciever .
'Those people are lying scumbags who pray on weak minded disturbed
individuals like you. They are using you.
-j'
REPLY: Are these Evolutionary Scientists scumbags too ?! :
" It is therefore a MATTER OF FAITH on the part of the biologist that
biogenesis (evolution) did occur and he can choose whatever method of
biogenesis happens to suit him personally ; the evidence for what did
happen is not available" --- Evolutionist Prof. G.A. Kerkut of the
University of Southampton. Source : Implications of Evolution. London.
Pergamon Press, 1960, page 150.
This is a strong supporter of Evolution theory :
" The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on FAITH ALONE" -- Evolutionist Prof. T.L. Moor .
Origins ? The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988 page 22.
Another confession from an evolutionist -
" We Palenontologists have said that the history of life supports (the
story of gradual adaptive change) , all the while really knowing that it
does not" -- Dr. Niles Eldredge. Darwin on Trial. Regnery Gateway, 1991,
page 59.
This person comes clean finally. A confession of extraordinary honesty
---
" The record of reckless speculation of human origins is so astonishing
that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in
this field at all" -- Evolutionist Dr. Solly Zuckerman. Darwin on Trial.
1991. page 82.
From an article in Science Digest Special---
" Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest
growing controversial minorities ... Many of the scientists supporting
this posiiton hold impressive credentials in science" . -- Educators
Against Darwin. winter 1979, page 94
A huge number of Scientists know Darwinian Evolution is an utter fraud
--
" I believe that one day the Darwinnian myth will be ranked the greatest
deciet in the history of science "--- Prof. Soren Lovtrup, Embriologist.
Darwinism : The Refutation of a Myth. 1987. page 422.
" The more i examine the Universe and the details of its architecture,
the more evidence i find that the Universe in some sense must have known
we were coming"--- Prof. Freeman Dyson, Physicist from Princeton Univ.
'Disturbing the Universe' . 1979. page 250.
Do you recognize this chap ??? --
" The more man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events, the
firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of
this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature than a Creator"
-- Albert Einstein. His LIfe and Times. page 286.
And finally, the bottom line from an "agnostic" Astronomer from NASA
(and my favourite) ----
" For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,
the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of
ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak and as he pulls
himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of Theologians who
have been sitting there for centuries reading Genesis 1:1 : In the
Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" --- Prof. Robert
Jastrow founder of Nasa's Goddard Institute. His book, 'God and the
Astronomers. page 116.
In closing : To keep on having 'faith' in the impossible of ever having
occured by natural causes because you dont want a personal Creator to
exist.. is the epitomie of being disengenuous to oneself. Its not a
matter of needing evidence to believe (because you already DO) ; rather,
its a matter of excersising your WILL to embrace the Creator whos been
trying to get your attention over the many years of your life. Rejection
of the Creator now, results in your earthly choice being granted for all
of eternity .... which never ever ends. Dont make that unfortunate
decision due to pride and personal rebellion.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from DaveInL...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) contains these words:
> In closing : To keep on having 'faith' in the impossible of ever having
> occured by natural causes because you dont want a personal Creator to
> exist.. is the epitomie of being disengenuous to oneself. Its not a
> matter of needing evidence to believe (because you already DO) ; rather,
> its a matter of excersising your WILL to embrace the Creator whos been
> trying to get your attention over the many years of your life. Rejection
> of the Creator now, results in your earthly choice being granted for all
> of eternity .... which never ever ends. Dont make that unfortunate
> decision due to pride and personal rebellion.
To base one's faith on an allegorical fairy story such as that of the
creation as set out in Genesis is the epitome of self deception. The
concept of a creator comes from this fairy tale and there is no credible
evidence that any such entity has ever existed. The idea that the bible
is inerrant is ludicrous given the many gross inaccuracies and
contradictions it contains. It may be difficult for the brain washed and
gullible fundies to understand but the bible was written by very
fallible human beings without any input from imaginary gods. To base
one's life on such tendentious rubbish is a cardinal error.
--
********
DavidWG
********
--
********
DavidWG
********
Dave in Lake Villa
creation as set out in Genesis is the epitome of self deception. The
concept of a creator comes from this fairy tale and there is no credible
evidence that any such entity has ever existed. The idea that the bible
is inerrant is ludicrous given the many gross inaccuracies and
contradictions it contains. It may be difficult for the brain washed and
gullible fundies to understand but the bible was written by very
fallible human beings without any input from imaginary gods. To base
one's life on such tendentious rubbish is a cardinal error.
--
********
REPLY: Could it be , that, you have to take a philisophical bias
against The Bible because it explicitly exposes the heart of one who
chooses to deny the obvious personal Creator of this personal finetuned
Universe ? Could it be , that, you have a certain lifestyle choice
that wouldnt line up to well with a holy and moral Creator , so its
easier to denounce him and his loving moral laws given to you for your
own protection ? Could it be , that, you have grown accustomed to
putting SELF on the throne of your life making YOU the center of the
Universe in all you do ? And, could it be, that, you dont want to
look a little deeper into the alleged 'contradictions of the Bible' for
reasonable explanations / its historical credibility / and the truth
about Mans rebellious and prideful nature , due to your apriori
philisophical bias ?
Could it be, that, all of the above necissitates adhering to the
incredulous lies below due to ones pride and rebellion :
David Wynne-Griffiths
from DaveInL...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) contains these words:
> REPLY: Could it be , that, you have to take a philisophical bias
> against The Bible because it explicitly exposes the heart of one who
> chooses to deny the obvious personal Creator of this personal finetuned
> Universe ? Could it be , that, you have a certain lifestyle choice
> that wouldnt line up to well with a holy and moral Creator , so its
> easier to denounce him and his loving moral laws given to you for your
> own protection ? Could it be , that, you have grown accustomed to
> putting SELF on the throne of your life making YOU the center of the
> Universe in all you do ? And, could it be, that, you dont want to
> look a little deeper into the alleged 'contradictions of the Bible' for
> reasonable explanations / its historical credibility / and the truth
> about Mans rebellious and prideful nature , due to your apriori
> philisophical bias ?
My life style accords with the ethics and morality of the society in
which I live and believing in an imaginary god would not change them in
any way. The bible is no more than a cod history of the Jews, combined
with conflicting accounts of gods written by a host of very fallible men
with varying axes to grind, many of whom were suffering from serious
delusions.
> Could it be, that, all of the above necissitates adhering to the
> incredulous lies below due to ones pride and rebellion :
No merely an inability to swallow all the incredulous lies and fairy
stories which form the basis of Christianity.
> 1. Tries to pretend that very personal innate qualities of a human being
> such as abstract thoughts, moral oughtness, ethical systems, compassion,
> empathy, et al ... came from NON personal material such as Hydrogen Gas
Many of these qualities are shared by primates and other animals and
certainly did not come from your imaginary god!
> 2. Tries to pretend that the vast array of specified complexity such as
> Human DNA can come about from the atmosphere when even its founder,
> atheist Dr. Francis Crick , boldly declared that it is IMPOSSIBLE for
> DNA to have arrived by accident from the atmosphere. ?
It did not happen by accident but as a result of our gradual evolution.
As you perhaps know we share a very high percentage of our DNA with the
primates and other animals.
> 3. Tries to pretend that the scientifically confirmed 133 (so far
> discovered) parameters of our Solar System which are all needed
> simultaneously / working in conjunction with one another , so earth can
> be here so we can live on it....came about thru 'natural , accidental
> ,non intelligent' sources purely by chance ?
We evolved in accordance with the parameters of the solar system just as
the puddle exactly conforms with the hole in which it forms.
> 4. Tries to pretend that there are no absolute moral laws which he has
> to live by ... even though he expects and demands others treat himself
> with absolute morality (and all the time) ?
The morality and ethics we follow were also followed to a large extent
by almost all civilisations regardless of their beliefs, and also by the
primates and other animals. No input from your imaginary god was
required!
--
*********
DavidWG
*********
Steve Marshall
"Dave in Lake Villa" <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote i
> If one claimed he was 'an Atheist' ... what would be required of him to
> become an Agnostic ? And what is the possibility of this occuring
> amongst the 'Atheist' population ? Any thoughts on this issue ? Thank
> you.
Read this.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
Jeffrey Goldberg
> please go ahead and list just ONE alleged 'lie' from the Dr. Norman
> Geisler book called 'I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist'
Page 163:
the late Julian Huxley, once a leader among Darwinists, admitted that
sexual freedom is a popular motivation behind evolutionary dogma. When
he was asked by talk show host Merv Griffin, "Why do people believe in
evolution?" Huxley honestly answered, "The reason we accepted Darwinism
even without proof, is because we didn't want God to interfere with our
sexual mores."
Julian Huxley never say anything remotely like that. Julian Huxley was
never even interviewed by Merv Griffin.
So there is a lie. There will be more to follow. I've started
rereading the book with an eye toward recording the all the lies. The
first chapter is full of post-it notes, but I'll have to move to keeping
a dedicated notebook, since the post-its don't seem to be able to handle
the capacity.
But I'll be off in the mountains with my family for a few days, so I
won't have to chance to write things up any time soon.
-j
Dave in Lake Villa
REPLY: The answer to this original question is : Whats required of
the Atheist is to become a REAL Seeker instead of resigning to his
adamant philisophical bias against special Creation . This might have
some serious repercussions to ones MO in life. , however. But
nevertheless, in the interest of truth, it is necessary to WANT the
truth instead of wanting to settle for something scientifically absurd
su ch as :
1. Tries to pretend that very personal innate qualities of a human being
such as abstract thoughts, moral oughtness, ethical systems, compassion,
empathy, et al ... came from NON personal material such as Hydrogen Gas
?
2. Tries to pretend that the vast array of specified complexity such as
Human DNA can come about from the atmosphere when even its founder,
atheist Dr. Francis Crick , boldly declared that it is IMPOSSIBLE for
DNA to have arrived by accident from the atmosphere. ?
3. Tries to pretend that the scientifically confirmed 133 (so far
discovered) parameters of our Solar System which are all needed
simultaneously / working in conjunction with one another , so earth can
be here so we can live on it....came about thru 'natural , accidental
,non intelligent' sources purely by chance ?
Dave in Lake Villa
that sexual freedom is a popular motivation behind evolutionary dogma.
When he was asked by talk show host Merv Griffin, "Why do people believe
in evolution?" Huxley honestly answered, "The reason we accepted
Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn't want God to interfere
with our sexual mores."
Julian Huxley never say anything remotely like that. Julian Huxley was
never even interviewed by Merv Griffin.
REPLY: Please prove that it is 'a lie' . I know at least 2 people of
integrity that say they were eye witnesses to the TV Interview in 1969 .
Because I am unable to produce the exact airing of that TV Show does not
mean that the statement is a lie. I havent made it a quest to find out
the date of the Show , but besides, if i did...how would Huxleys
comment affect Jeff Goldbergs daily life ? Would he still deny the
obvious existence of a personal Creator/Designer for the vast razor-edge
precision which is all about us ? I think Jeff would indeed .
'There will be more to follow. I've started rereading the book with an
eye toward recording the all the lies. '
REPLY: Next, please state a scientific oriented statement the Author
made , which you think is ' a lie' and dont forget to offer proof for
your allegations.
'But I'll be off in the mountains with my family for a few days, so I
won't have to chance to write things up any time soon.
-j'
REPLY: Please dont have any unforseen accidents like going over the side
of a mountain, as its not safe for you to die yet Jeff.
Ian Smith
> obvious existence of a personal Creator/Designer for the vast razor-edge
> precision which is all about us ?
Of course. Anyone with any reason would.
The razor edge precision to which you refer is exactly what you
would expect if we have evolved within our current environment. What
you describe is supporting evidence for evolution.
Why do you claim that our existence is somehow due to a fluke
alignment of laws and parameters? Your position makes about as much
sense as an ant asking how it comes about that it's nest is located
in exactly the right type of soil, in the right level of moisture,
at the right temperature, in exactly the correct position for the
availability of food. The answer is so very simple - because if it
hadn't been right, then it wouldn't have been there in the first place.
If the stack of cards that is our universe had fallen differently
then some other creature would likely have evolved and been asking
the question "How come all the parameters align so perfectly for me
to exist ... ?".
If you ask the wrong questions then expect to find the wrong answers.
Again - evolution is supported by such an overwhelming body of
evidence that, if you were to take evolution away then the
observable evidence simply wouldn't make any sense. Certainly, your
'goddidit' explanation doesn't fit the evidence we see before us.
regards, Ian
Steve Marshall
"Ian Smith" <news0107R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote
> The razor edge precision to which you refer is exactly what you would
> expect if we have evolved within our current environment. What you
> describe is supporting evidence for evolution.
Dave's been given such answers before. The fact is he comes here repeatedly
asking questions without ever wishing to know the answers because he
believes he knows better than any atheist. He cannot face reality because
that would implicate him for his poor behaviour, but he fails to realise
how he continues to act in a questionable manner.
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Dave in Lake Villa" <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote
> 'What is required for an Atheist to upgrade to an Agnostic ?'
It would require agnosticism to be a better position than atheism, which it
isn't so we have another example of a flawed question.
> 1. Tries to pretend that very personal innate qualities of a human being
> such as abstract thoughts, moral oughtness, ethical systems, compassion,
> empathy, et al ... came from NON personal material such as Hydrogen Gas
Another show of stupidity. This isn't anything to do with atheism.
Creationists lump various scientific notions together and deem it atheist
propaganda if it doesn't match their Biblical view of creation. An atheist
need not accept evolution or the Big Bang; all that is required is for them
to not believe in god(s). That's all. How many times have you been told
this Dave ?
> 2. Tries to pretend that the vast array of specified complexity such as
> Human DNA can come about from the atmosphere when even its founder,
> atheist Dr. Francis Crick , boldly declared that it is IMPOSSIBLE for
> DNA to have arrived by accident from the atmosphere. ?
Again, nothing to do with atheism. Again, you have been told that Crick did
not say this.
DNA isn't as complicated as was previously thought.
> 3. Tries to pretend that the scientifically confirmed 133 (so far
> discovered) parameters of our Solar System which are all needed
> simultaneously / working in conjunction with one another , so earth can
> be here so we can live on it....came about thru 'natural , accidental
> ,non intelligent' sources purely by chance ?
Again, nothing to do with atheism. If you can't understand that you can
hardly understadn whatever science you claim id involved hear. Truth is it
is pulled from a Creationist website and you have no ability to determine
the validity of such claims.
> 4. Tries to pretend that there are no absolute moral laws which he has
> to live by ... even though he expects and demands others treat himself
> with absolute morality (and all the time) ?
Nothing to do with atheism!
Philosophy shows there are no absolutes.
Steve M
skeptic griggsy
> Dave in Lake Villa <DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 'The simple answer to your question is that an atheist would become an
> > agnostic if the atheist came to believe that the existence of God were
> > plausible.'
>
> > REPLY: Hello Jeff. Havent seen you in quite awhile. Glad to have you
> > address the question at hand.
>
> > 'The answer, I would expect, is that it would take something that made
> > Russell's teapot to seem less implausible. But until that comes around,
> > you will say that you will continue to deny the existence of Russell's
> > teapot until someone presents you with some pretty convincing evidence
> > otherwise.'
>
> > REPLY: Ahh...but, that is only a scapegoat Jeff ; to say there is no
> > 'convincing evidence' is a convenient denial for ones personal ulterior
> > motive. Atheists have been presented with the strong overwhelming
> > evidence yet they dont wish to admit it even though they have to
> > internalise (accept) it. Its sort of like a child who is told by his
> > parent that what he did was wrong ; the child knows it , has
> > internalised it ...but still verbally denies that he did wrong because
> > of his pride. Its no different for the 'atheist' who wants to maintain
> > his position by declaring ' if only there were compelling evidence' .
>
> Dave, you have been told time and time again in here about scientific
> and other standards of evidence and how your supposed evidence does not
> and never will satisfy those. Your continual failure to understand and
> Dave would aver that we evolutionists use preconceived ideas and merely aver.
> writing the above piece of wishful thinking trash just reinforces our
> view that you are not worth conversing with.
>
> No conversation with you ever progresses because you have no concept of
> how to debate in good faith. Unless and until you discover that you will
> continue to not be worth talking to.
>
> Peter
> --
> Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a countrywww.the-brights.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Ian Smith <news0107R...@orrery.e4ward.com> contains these words:
> Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
> > Would he still deny the
> > obvious existence of a personal Creator/Designer for the vast razor-edge
> > precision which is all about us ?
> Of course. Anyone with any reason would.
> The razor edge precision to which you refer is exactly what you
> would expect if we have evolved within our current environment. What
> you describe is supporting evidence for evolution.
I don't think Dave has been able to grasp how evolution works!
Instead he clings to the childish and ludicrous idea of a deity which
created everything. There is no credible evidence for such a concept and
his only authority is an allegorical fairy story written by ignorant
people just coming out of the Stone Age. There is a mass of evidence
for evolution and a world which is many billions of years old and none
for a creator god who created the world only a few thousands of years
ago. However, people are both very gullible and easily led, and
especially in the USA, all too readily fall prey to the many bogus cults
and religions touting for their money.
--
********
DavidWG
********
Ian Smith
> I don't think Dave has been able to grasp how evolution works!
>
> Instead he clings to the childish and ludicrous idea of a deity which
> created everything. There is no credible evidence for such a concept and
> his only authority is an allegorical fairy story written by ignorant
> people just coming out of the Stone Age. There is a mass of evidence
> for evolution and a world which is many billions of years old and none
> for a creator god who created the world only a few thousands of years
> ago. However, people are both very gullible and easily led, and
> especially in the USA, all too readily fall prey to the many bogus cults
> and religions touting for their money.
>
Amen! (Ooops)
regards, Ian
Ken
wrote:
> Dave's been given such answers before. The fact is he comes here repeatedly
> asking questions without ever wishing to know the answers because he
> believes he knows better than any atheist. He cannot face reality because
> that would implicate him for his poor behaviour, but he fails to realise
> how he continues to act in a questionable manner.
>
> Steve M
And now that Dimwitted Dave been kicked to the curb, AGAIN, he'll
disappear for a few weeks only to return with his same stupid faith
based arguments and links to other equally stupid creationists...K
Jeffrey Goldberg
> the late Julian Huxley, once a leader among Darwinists, admitted
> that sexual freedom is a popular motivation behind evolutionary dogma.
> When he was asked by talk show host Merv Griffin, "Why do people believe
> in evolution?" Huxley honestly answered, "The reason we accepted
> Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn't want God to interfere
> with our sexual mores."
> Julian Huxley never say anything remotely like that. Julian Huxley was
> never even interviewed by Merv Griffin.
> So there is a lie. '
>
> REPLY: Please prove that it is 'a lie' .
You can use the Interment Movie Database imdb.org to see who where the
guests on every episode of the Merv Griffin show in 1969. Julian Huxley
was not among them.
> I know at least 2 people of
> integrity that say they were eye witnesses to the TV Interview in 1969 .
Those two people of integrity are liars. Now if they are people like
you who have heard the claim but don't claim to be direct witnesses,
they may just be gullible dupes. But if they claim that they heard that
quote then they are liars.
> Because I am unable to produce the exact airing of that TV Show does not
> mean that the statement is a lie.
Dave, do you remember saying on August 24, 2006 in message ID
Message-ID: <16277-44E...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net>:
> Im afraid that its just too widely known that he did in fact
> appear on the Merv Griffin Show in 1969 and gave that exact reply . To
> say otherwise, would be akin to asserting that JFK in 1963 was killed
> while in his Dallas, Texas Limousine by a bow and arrow from a nearby
> building ; there are just too many eyewitnesses , contemporaries of the
> event, and relatively short time duration for historical corruption to
> have taken place.
Isn't it worrying to you that absolutely none of the people who like to
repeat the Merv Griffin Huxley claim can provide any published reference
to this alleged quote from before 1980? (Or if they can, I'd really
like to know what the earliest public reference to the interview is).
> I havent made it a quest to find out
> the date of the Show,
That's too bad. That was part of the deal. I agreed to read "I don't
enough faith to be an atheist" if you were to try to find some reference
to the interview published in the days or weeks after the interview.
> but besides, if i did...how would Huxleys
> comment affect Jeff Goldbergs daily life ?
I've already answered the question of what it would mean to me if some
real live atheist actually said what you attribute to J. Huxley. And
that just takes us away from the point that I was responding to your
question to name one lie in that book.
There is every indication that no such interview took place in
that nobody seems to be able to come up with evidence of it short of the
word of a couple of religious fanatics. As you say, 1969 wasn't that
long ago. National and local newspapers have been preserved from the
time. And a major network broadcast would not go unnoticed.
> REPLY: Next, please state a scientific oriented statement the Author
> made , which you think is ' a lie' and dont forget to offer proof for
> your allegations.
I don't do this for you, since nothing gets through your skull, but
here goes for the record.
Page 21: "[Scientists say] only science yields truth"
Scientists say no such thing (well, I'm sure if you try hard enough you
could find one or two who might say that). So claiming that scientists
say that is a lie.
Page 23: "many atheists and pantheists ... say that [the universe] did
not [have a begining] (the universe is eternal)"
I can't think of a single atheist who thinks that the universe is
eternal.
The same lie is used again on page 76-77 where the second law of
thermodynamics is used to prove that the universe is not eternal. Again
scientists (including atheist scientists) don't believe that the
universe always existed. The book does talk about some physicist who
seemed to believe that the universe had existed forever, but doesn't
actually name him. If the conversation is reported faithfully (which I
doubt given how the authors twist the writings of others) it was a very
silly physicist.
Let's take a quick look at the discussion of Punctuated Equilibrium and
the Cambrian Explosion (pages 152-153). After describing it, they say
(page 153) "This evidence, of course, is completely inconsistent with
Darwinism."
That is a lie. There are puzzles about Cambrian Explosion, and a number
of suggestions what caused that 15 million years (about 530 million
years ago) lead to such diversity.
All of the suggestions are fully consistent with
Darwinism, but as yet there isn't enough evidence to convince everyone
of which (if any) of the current suggestions is correct. But all you
need to know is that each proposed explanation is fully consistent with
Darwinism.
My favorite (as an interested outside, and not a professional
paleontologist) is that the development of eukaryotic cells during
the Cambrian period opened up large number of evolutionary possibilities
that weren't available to the simple bacteria that existed before.
Multi-celled eukaryotes could live in ways that no living things before
them could live.
Furthermore, this would lead to a kind of feed back mechanism where the
whole environment was changing and growing more diverse because of the
diversity that had come at the stage before.
In another sense, the "explosion" wasn't really a vast new number of
kinds of living things if we could the eukaryotes as one group.
What angers me the most about this book, and something I could never
explain to Dave, is the misrepresentation of the statements of the
the evolutionary biologists, particularly Steven Jay Gould. (I don't
really care what picture people paint of Richard Lewontin since he's
known distort science for his own political purposes as well as any
Creationist.)
> 'But I'll be off in the mountains with my family for a few days, so I
> won't have to chance to write things up any time soon.
>
> REPLY: Please dont have any unforseen accidents like going over the side
> of a mountain, as its not safe for you to die yet Jeff.
I live in a place called "Plano". Going to the mountains mean going to
a place were elevations reach a total of 1500 ft. I'm far more likely
to injure myself falling down the stairs than falling off one of these
mountains.
Oh and maybe you'll be pleased to know that we've added a prayer like
ritual to mealtime in our house. My daughter noticed that at meals in
her friends' houses they said things like "God is Great. God is Good.
And we thank Him for our Food." Well she wanted to do something
similar but more toward our needs, so its
Dogs are Great
Dogs are Good
But they get no table food
Cheers,
-j
Peter Ashby
> Let's take a quick look at the discussion of Punctuated Equilibrium and
> the Cambrian Explosion (pages 152-153). After describing it, they say
> (page 153) "This evidence, of course, is completely inconsistent with
> Darwinism."
>
> That is a lie. There are puzzles about Cambrian Explosion, and a number
> of suggestions what caused that 15 million years (about 530 million
> years ago) lead to such diversity.
>
> All of the suggestions are fully consistent with
> Darwinism, but as yet there isn't enough evidence to convince everyone
> of which (if any) of the current suggestions is correct. But all you
> need to know is that each proposed explanation is fully consistent with
> Darwinism.
>
> My favorite (as an interested outside, and not a professional
> paleontologist) is that the development of eukaryotic cells during
> the Cambrian period opened up large number of evolutionary possibilities
> that weren't available to the simple bacteria that existed before.
> Multi-celled eukaryotes could live in ways that no living things before
> them could live.
There was an article in the last few months in New Scientist on new
discoveries and evidence from the Ediacaran period that precedes the
Cambrian, including linking Ediacaran fossils with Cambrian forms. It is
clear that the large Ediacaran fossils were eukaryotes, not bacteria. It
is also my understanding that a lot of evidence points to a much deeper
origin for eukaryotes. Remember that plants, including the algae, are
also eukaryotes as are the funghi and they were definitely present in
Ediacaran ecosystems. I can try and find the refs if you are interested.
I think the dominant idea is that what happened was an arms race, there
are few if any indications of predation amongst multicellular animals in
Eidiacaran ecosystems, some worms crawling along the mud is about all
you get, until later periods. If you remember your Cambrian animals an
awful lot of them are armoured, or spiked, or both. Many of the others
are equipped with can best be described as can opener mouthparts. As
human technology has indicated, once an arms race gets going it takes on
a life of its own. Antelope are sleek, fast runners only because there
are lions and cheetahs and wild dogs and such like. Sleek fast muscles
and lithe limbs are expensive things energetically. So is armour on a
worm, so when you suddenly begin to see armoured worms when previously
there were none you have a big part of your explanation.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>> But all you [Dave in Lake Villa] need to know is that each proposed
>> explanation [of the Cambrian Explosion] is fully consistent with
>> Darwinism.
>> My favorite (as an interested outside, and not a professional
>> paleontologist) is that the development of eukaryotic cells during
>> the Cambrian period opened up large number of evolutionary possibilities
>> that weren't available to the simple bacteria that existed before.
>> Multi-celled eukaryotes could live in ways that no living things before
>> them could live.
>
> There was an article in the last few months in New Scientist on new
> discoveries and evidence from the Ediacaran period that precedes the
> Cambrian, including linking Ediacaran fossils with Cambrian forms. It is
> clear that the large Ediacaran fossils were eukaryotes, not bacteria.
My mistake. Thank you for the correction. I really should have known
better, having recently read "The Ancestors' Tale" The development of
eukaryotic cells couldn't have been the trigger (although it may well
have been a prerequisite).
> It
> is also my understanding that a lot of evidence points to a much deeper
> origin for eukaryotes. Remember that plants, including the algae, are
> also eukaryotes as are the funghi and they were definitely present in
> Ediacaran ecosystems. I can try and find the refs if you are interested.
Is there evidence for some sort of "explosion" after eukaryotic cells
came on the scene?
> I think the dominant idea is that what happened was an arms race, there
> are few if any indications of predation amongst multicellular animals in
> Eidiacaran ecosystems, some worms crawling along the mud is about all
> you get, until later periods. If you remember your Cambrian animals an
> awful lot of them are armoured, or spiked, or both. Many of the others
> are equipped with can best be described as can opener mouthparts. As
> human technology has indicated, once an arms race gets going it takes on
> a life of its own. Antelope are sleek, fast runners only because there
> are lions and cheetahs and wild dogs and such like. Sleek fast muscles
> and lithe limbs are expensive things energetically. So is armour on a
> worm, so when you suddenly begin to see armoured worms when previously
> there were none you have a big part of your explanation.
This is what I attempted to say in the second part of my explanation,
but I expressed poorly. The real development of predation would
certainly trigger the kind of feed back cycle that would lead to very
rapid change (we are still talking about 10 million years when I say
"rapid").
Also when did sex first appear. Sexual selection offers another
domain for a more limited form of arms race (but within a species). So
any time I see some really rapid development of anything for which there
isn't some strong apparent natural selective pressure, sexual selection
comes to mind. This is why I tend to be inclined think that sexual
selection played a major role in the recent (past 2 million years)
development of the human brain. What puzzles me about that story,
though is the lack of strong sexual dimorphism.
Anyway, if there is a lesson in here for Creationists, it's not that
there are problems and puzzles which deeply undermine Darwinism, but
that, like in any science, we don't know all there is to know, and so
there is debate about fine tuning the theory. Gould and Eldredge's
Punctuated Equilibrium in no way challenged Darwinism in any way that a
Creationist could take refuge in, but it did challenge how many people
thought about Darwinism.
-j
Peter Ashby
> Peter Ashby wrote:
>
> > Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>
> >> But all you [Dave in Lake Villa] need to know is that each proposed
> >> explanation [of the Cambrian Explosion] is fully consistent with
> >> Darwinism.
>
> >> My favorite (as an interested outside, and not a professional
> >> paleontologist) is that the development of eukaryotic cells during
> >> the Cambrian period opened up large number of evolutionary possibilities
> >> that weren't available to the simple bacteria that existed before.
> >> Multi-celled eukaryotes could live in ways that no living things before
> >> them could live.
> >
> > There was an article in the last few months in New Scientist on new
> > discoveries and evidence from the Ediacaran period that precedes the
> > Cambrian, including linking Ediacaran fossils with Cambrian forms. It is
> > clear that the large Ediacaran fossils were eukaryotes, not bacteria.
>
> My mistake. Thank you for the correction. I really should have known
> better, having recently read "The Ancestors' Tale" The development of
> eukaryotic cells couldn't have been the trigger (although it may well
> have been a prerequisite).
>
Certainly we only see things even close to multicellularity in
eukaryotes. Even those things which look like animals but are colonies,
like slime moulds or some cnidaria (jellyfish) are eukaryotes.
IIRC the current analysis of the frond organisms from garden of Ediacara
is that they are cnidaria, some exceptionally well preserved fossils
helped there.
> > It
> > is also my understanding that a lot of evidence points to a much deeper
> > origin for eukaryotes. Remember that plants, including the algae, are
> > also eukaryotes as are the funghi and they were definitely present in
> > Ediacaran ecosystems. I can try and find the refs if you are interested.
>
> Is there evidence for some sort of "explosion" after eukaryotic cells
> came on the scene?
>
Not that I am aware of, there are after all still a lot of unicellular
eukaryotes Amoebas for eg. Eventually it seems some of them tried out
colonial life and some got stuck and couldn't go back again.
> > I think the dominant idea is that what happened was an arms race, there
> > are few if any indications of predation amongst multicellular animals in
> > Eidiacaran ecosystems, some worms crawling along the mud is about all
> > you get, until later periods. If you remember your Cambrian animals an
> > awful lot of them are armoured, or spiked, or both. Many of the others
> > are equipped with can best be described as can opener mouthparts. As
> > human technology has indicated, once an arms race gets going it takes on
> > a life of its own. Antelope are sleek, fast runners only because there
> > are lions and cheetahs and wild dogs and such like. Sleek fast muscles
> > and lithe limbs are expensive things energetically. So is armour on a
> > worm, so when you suddenly begin to see armoured worms when previously
> > there were none you have a big part of your explanation.
>
> This is what I attempted to say in the second part of my explanation,
> but I expressed poorly. The real development of predation would
> certainly trigger the kind of feed back cycle that would lead to very
> rapid change (we are still talking about 10 million years when I say
> "rapid").
>
Yes, that should always be born in mind. The Cambrian was rapid in
contrast, not actuallity by our standards.
> Also when did sex first appear. Sexual selection offers another
> domain for a more limited form of arms race (but within a species). So
> any time I see some really rapid development of anything for which there
> isn't some strong apparent natural selective pressure, sexual selection
> comes to mind. This is why I tend to be inclined think that sexual
> selection played a major role in the recent (past 2 million years)
> development of the human brain. What puzzles me about that story,
> though is the lack of strong sexual dimorphism.
>
Again, I'm not sure we know when sex happened. Certainly simple
replication is very similar to a colonial animal simply budding off new
cells. Proper sex requires some sort of dimorphism between eggs and
sperm. I think we are still arguing about how that came about. It is
probable I think that natural variation might have produced slight
differences that then got amplified. For eg if my gamete is smaller than
usual I am putting less into the embryo so yours will have to compensate
if our embryo is to be viable etc.
As for brains being sexually selected, the lack of dimorphism might not
be a problem. It is possible to be an intelligent woman but still find
intelligent men attractive. Remember that simple physical facts about
human pelvic anatomy act as a brake on that becoming runaway. I can't
remember which one, but at least one of our African based ancestors had
bigger brains than us, since then there has been a small trend
downwards. Perhaps it was too big to be sustainable.
> Anyway, if there is a lesson in here for Creationists, it's not that
> there are problems and puzzles which deeply undermine Darwinism, but
> that, like in any science, we don't know all there is to know, and so
> there is debate about fine tuning the theory. Gould and Eldredge's
> Punctuated Equilibrium in no way challenged Darwinism in any way that a
> Creationist could take refuge in, but it did challenge how many people
> thought about Darwinism.
>
Yes, much of the argument about PE was people taking entrenched
positions which involved obstinately not accepting various facts about
the other side. For eg while Gould and Eldredge did hypothesise about
actual saltations (discrete jumps) they were mainly concerned about the
rate of change not being constant. They were not actually defeated, it
is acknowledged now that large opportunities, a mass extinction or
virgin territory (islands particularly) do result in periods of fast
change followed by long intervals of stasis as the anmials settle into
their new environments and being adapted to them don't then change much.
The argument has become whether the mutation rate actually changes or
greater selection pressures tease out hidden variation. It seems that
bacteria can increase their mutation rates by slackening off the error
correction when copying their dna when under selection pressures. We
eukaryotes have error correction mechanisms too.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Ken <flak...@aol.com> contains these words:
> And now that Dimwitted Dave been kicked to the curb, AGAIN, he'll
> disappear for a few weeks only to return with his same stupid faith
> based arguments and links to other equally stupid creationists...K
Would it not be better to then totally ignore the dimwit? He thrives on
getting the attention he seeks.
--
********
DavidWG
********
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Would it not be better to then totally ignore the dimwit? He thrives on
> getting the attention he seeks.
I know that you are right, but somehow I keep letting myself get into
discussion with him. After the 133 parameters puddle discussion a few
months ago I should know that nothing, even under the best of
circumstances, will come of trying to explain anything to him or answer
his questions.
He reminds me of a joke some university instructor from Romania once
told me.
A man and his son go off to the woods bear hunting. The shoot and kill
bear. The son says to his father, "wait here while I go and get some
rope so we can tie up the bear to carry it out." The father agrees.
The son comes back later with the rope and notices that the bear is
gone. "What happened to the bear?" he asks. "What bear?" says his father.
"Well remember this morning we decided to go bear hunting?"
"Yes, of course I remember."
"And we found and killed a bear, right."
"Yes, of course."
"And I went back to the car to get some rope while you waited here
by the bear?" asks the son.
"Yes. I'm not senile you know. Of course I remember that!"
"So papa, where's the bear?"
"But son, what bear?"
I was told the joke in Hungarian and so in our house the expression in
Hungarian meaning "but son, what bear?" (de fiam, milyen medve?) is used
to describe discussion with certain sorts of people.
That is what it is like talking to itisdave. I did tell him that
discussing things with him was like talking to an Alzheimer's patient.
But he's probably forgot that by now (or at least doesn't understand the
relevance of the simile).
I know all this, but like someone with some self-destructive habit, I
fear that I will allow myself to get into further discussions with him.
Cheers,
-j
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> contains these words:
> I know that you are right, but somehow I keep letting myself get into
> discussion with him.
It is a tremendous temptation to respond when one of these halfwits
comes out with their ridiculous twaddle and I have often yielded to it.
However, as you say Dimwit Dave is a hopeless case and better left to
stew in his invincible ignorance!
--
********
DavidWG
********
Dave in Lake Villa
of suggestions what caused that 15 million years (about 530 million
REPLY: Well then, where are the billions and billions of transitional
fossils if Darwinian Evolution is true ? Punctuated Equalibrium
philosophy is nothing but a Lizard laying an egg and out pops a Bird
with feathers ! The Evolutionist only digs himself in deeper by such
wild assertions. But, before we can even ponder the Pond Scum to Human
Being fairy tale, we must first determine how life came from non living
matter -- something which totally violates the Law of Biogenesis and
which was proven impossible in the last century thru spontaneous
generation experiments.
'(I don't really care what picture people paint of Richard Lewontin
since he's known distort science for his own political purposes as well
as any Creationist.)'
REPLY: You should since he is an avid Evolutionist . His forthright
statement about how the MO of Evolutionists is 'not to allow a divine
foot in the door' just goes to sum up the apriori philisophical bias
that many Scientists have . Instead of being open to where the findings
lead , whether to natural or intelligent causes), they protect their own
prior conclusions from an already madeup mind.
'My daughter noticed that at meals in her friends' houses they said
things like "God is Great. God is Good. And we thank Him for our Food."
Well she wanted to do something similar but more toward our needs, so
its
Dogs are Great
Dogs are Good
But they get no table food
'
REPLY: Cute play on words Jeff ; but, to go on denying the personal
Creator whom you know has to exist due to the enormous amount of Design
and Engineering of highly complex systems for the sake of your own
pride... then to be the Pie'd Piper of your family indoctrinating them
to think of themselves as nothing more than glorified accidental Pond
Scum for no good purpose...is about as heinous a sick joke as a Dad
could possible lay on his family. Perhaps one day , your children will
question why you pretended so much on such a vital issue as the purposed
Creation of this Universe.
Ken
wrote:
nothing worth reading
Dimwitted dave's back to get his fat ass kicked to the curb..AGAIN
Dave in Lake Villa
Fossils exists.
We have the evidence. Living things mutated from one species to
another.......
There might not be enough evidence for you butnonethe less, the evidence
exists.'
REPLY:
Scientists tell why evolution is NOT supported by the facts! :
Address:http://www.chick.com/bc/1987/evolution.asp
'But first, we must accept that evolution is evidenced....'
REPLY: Many EVOLUTIONISTS disagree with you (in fact, over 600 of the
worlds foremost Doctorate-held Scientists) :
" It is therefore a MATTER OF FAITH on the part of the biologist that
biogenesis (evolution) did occur and he can choose whatever method of
biogenesis happens to suit him personally ; the evidence for what did
happen is not available" --- Evolutionist Prof. G.A. Kerkut of the
University of Southampton. Source : Implications of Evolution. London.
Pergamon Press, 1960, page 150.
This Evolutionist is a strong supporter of Evolution theory : " The more
one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is
based on FAITH ALONE" -- Evolutionist Prof. T.L. Moor . Origins ? The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1988 page 22.
Another confession from an evolutionist - " We Palenontologists have
said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive
change) , all the while really knowing that it does not" -- Dr. Niles
Eldredge. Darwin on Trial. Regnery Gateway, 1991, page 59.
This person comes clean finally. A confession of extraordinary honesty :
" The record of reckless speculation of human origins is so astonishing
that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in
this field at all" -- Evolutionist Dr. Solly Zuckerman. Darwin on Trial.
1991. page 82.
From an article in Science Digest Special--- " Scientists who utterly
reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial
minorities ... Many of the scientists supporting this posiiton hold
impressive credentials in science" . -- Educators Against Darwin. winter
1979, page 94
A huge number of Scientists know Darwinian Evolution is an utter fraud
--
" I believe that one day the Darwinnian myth will be ranked the greatest
deciet in the history of science "--- Prof. Soren Lovtrup, Embriologist.
Darwinism : The Refutation of a Myth. 1987. page 422.
Mark declared: 'His forthright
statement about how the MO of Evolutionists is 'not to allow a divine
foot in the door' just goes to sum up the apriori philisophical bias
that many Scientists have .
Well that's also pretty much how avid, fundamental religious devouts
behave, isn't it...??'
REPLY: Actually...no. Creationists realize that there are natural
causes and causes which can only come from personal Intelligence and a
willful Mind at work. Whereas Naturalists (atheists) , must never admit
to the latter (even though deep down inside they can see the causes
which only come from Intelligence , which means A PERSON). Atheism is a
convenient secular religion which gives one a credit card to live as he
likes because it eliminates (so he thinks) the factor of ultimate moral
accountability from the Absolute Moral Law Provider.
'Instead of being open to where the findings lead , whether to natural
or intelligent causes), they protect their own prior conclusions from an
already madeup mind.
Hardly the position of serious science though is it..??'
REPLY: I agree with your conclusion ; but, just because they wear white
coats in a Lab. doesnt mean they automatically are ingenuous to
themselves and the public. In fact, they have a long history of
deliberate frauds with the Monkey Men as an example.
'Do you hope that asserting endlessly that a creator has to exists will
somehow enable it to become true...??'
REPLY: No, fortunately, I dont have 'to hope' ; it is clear to ALL by
his divine works of Creation / the scientific laws of science that came
into existence out of nothing then work unchangeably in a collaborative
manner...that there is a Masterful Mind at work with incredible power .
Do you hope that asserting , 'by faith' , that everything is just one
big accident for no purpose in order to have justification of rejecting
the Personal Creator who is YOUR personal Creator and in whos image you
were made ? (lest you think the distinctive personal qualities you have
just came from non-personal hydrogen gas).
'And as for indoctrination, I think we have witnessed over centuries the
levels and manner in which religion stoops to indoctrinate would be
followers.
Glass houses and stones come to mind...'
REPLY: Thats a strange statement to make since all of the Modern
Founders of the Sciences were Theists/Christians in which sciences you
live your daily life according to !! . As for stones, you as 'an
atheist' admit to the few large rocks at Stonehenge as coming from an
Intelligent personal Cause....yet you wont admit to 133 confirmed
scientific parameters of our solar system which are all needed,
simultaneously/working collaboratively, for you to live on earth as
coming from an Intelligent Personal Cause ??. Now that certainly shows
your MO of not allowing a divine foot in the door for the purpose of
desiring complete autonomy in your life (thus making yourSELF 'god').
Its not a matter that there isnt enough scientific evidence --- its a
matter of personal Pride and not seriously wanting to considering the
scientific evidence due to the inconvenience that it would cause to ones
lifestyle MO. At one time i was an asserted 'atheist' too --- but i
couldnt keep on being disingenuous toward myself , even though it
offered the most fun in life. (or so i thought).
Jeffrey Goldberg
> the late Julian Huxley, once a leader among Darwinists, admitted
> that sexual freedom is a popular motivation behind evolutionary dogma.
> When he was asked by talk show host Merv Griffin, "Why do people believe
> in evolution?" Huxley honestly answered, "The reason we accepted
> Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn't want God to interfere
> with our sexual mores."
> Julian Huxley never say anything remotely like that. Julian Huxley was
> never even interviewed by Merv Griffin.
> So there is a lie. '
>
> REPLY: Please prove that it is 'a lie' .
Well, Dave, I've looked and can't find any reference to the interview
that appears near the time of the interview date. But of course you
shouldn't take that as proof. After all, I may not have looked hard enough.
> Because I am unable to produce the exact airing of that TV Show does not
> mean that the statement is a lie. I havent made it a quest to find out
> the date of the Show
Dave, how hard would you have to look for independent early evidence of
the Huxley interview before you began to suspect that it never happened?
Of course if you find the verifiable evidence than that will settle the
matter. But my question is how hard would you have to look (and not
find anything) to conclude that in all likelihood the alleged event
never took place.
The integrity of two sources you trust is at stake here. If you find
clear evidence that enables us to determine once and for all whether
Julian Huxley said what you say he said, I will put it up on a website
and apologize publicly apologize for calling your sources liars.
But here are reasons to be suspicious.
(1) The sentiments expressed run counter to things that Julian Huxley
is known to have said and written on other occasions.
(2) There are listings of the guests of the Merv Griffin show, Julian
Huxley is not on any such list.
(3) The number of people claiming to have been first hand witnesses of
the broadcast seems to have gone into a rapid decline after people like
me started asking for evidence a few years back.
(4) The reports of the Huxley quote are nearly word for word identical
from the various sources. If people were remembering what someone said
on television from long ago, they would not remember the exact wording.
Therefore it is unlikely that two first hand reports would be so
identical. However, if both "first hand" reports are actually second
hand reports relying on some unnamed written account than you would get
that close match.
(5) The quote is so outrageous that it would have been widely commented
on at the time.
(6) The quote is remarkably similar to something attributed to Aldous
Huxley from the 1930s (when A Huxley was a Christian Apologist.)
So, in the light of this, I'll ask you again to keep your promise to
find the evidence for this quote. Or at least look hard enough so that
if you don't find the evidence for it, you will recognize that it is a lie.
-j
Ian Smith
> Scientists tell why evolution is NOT supported by the facts! :
> Address:http://www.chick.com/bc/1987/evolution.asp
>
> 'But first, we must accept that evolution is evidenced....'
>
> REPLY: Many EVOLUTIONISTS disagree with you (in fact, over 600 of the
> worlds foremost Doctorate-held Scientists) :
In fact very few are "evolutionists":
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
So only 0.1% reject it then? You're not making a very good case, are
you?
You've been pointed to:
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
... who have 814 scientists who say this is rubbish (Oh, and they
only allow you to sign if your name is Steve,and they still
outnumber your list!)
But you know all this Dave, as you've posted this complete list
before, haven't you?
And you've been pointed to:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
So, why do you keep posting these here when it has been pointed out
that these quotes are selectively made, in most cases, to
deliberately misrepresent what the original author was saying?
You Christians must be getting desperate as you sense that you are
already in the end-game, and losing!
regards, Ian
Stan Lund
Ian Smith <news0107R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
[...]
> So, why do you keep posting these here when it has been pointed out that
> these quotes are selectively made, in most cases, to deliberately
> misrepresent what the original author was saying?
As many losers of his kind, regardless of their religious convictions,
he's expecting to find new naive readers willing to help him feel
reassured in his lunacy. I personally bet that these critters would just
go away if completely ignored.
--
Stan
Dave in Lake Villa
worlds foremost Doctorate-held Scientists)
'In fact very few are "evolutionists":'
REPLY:
CSC - Center for Science and Culture
Address:http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Dave in Lake Villa
REPLY: Because its imperative that you be reached before Eternity starts
for yourself, during which time you will automatically become a bonified
full-blown Creationist just like David Humme and Bertrand Russell is....
but one with very long lasting severe regret. I dont want to see that
happen to you even if you like pretending youre an 'atheist' now Ian.
In eternity, there is no pretending --- only stark reality.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Stan Lund <s...@mail.net> contains these words:
> [...]
It seems to be a desperate attempt to try and pretend that the
allegorical fairy story of the creation in Genesis is really true.
Possibly because of the erroneous belief that everything in the Bible is
inerrant.
--
********
DavidWG
********
Dave in Lake Villa
evolution then.....'
REPLY: Macro Evolution is totally impossible of ever have occured
simply because life can only come from life itself so there never was
any Chemical Soup which brought about our little Pond Scum protozoa
ancestor friend ! . Thus, abiogenesis, totally debunks the THEORY of
macro evolution. ANd it would be wise for Evolutionists and 'Atheists'
to stop talking as if Macro Evolution is anything other than A THEORY.
Real Science disproves macro evolution on many fronts , including the
scientific FACT that there is never any new information in the genome of
a cell necessary for one species to turn into a different one ; ONLY
within each kind is it ever possible. Talk to any MicroBiologist on this
issue and you shall see. Dr. Micheal Denton is one s uch world reknown
M.B.
'I do not see ANY evidence of fundamental christians allowing the notion
of evolution into their idealogy.
Portraying an absolute conviction that a creator exists is somewhat of a
bias...is it not. Hardly impartial.
Indeed, you are not impartial and refuse to accept ANY evidence that
contradicts your postion and ideaology.'
REPLY: If youd read the Bible, youd learn that Christians do in fact
hold to MICROevolution (within a kind). But not a kind turning into a
different kind. The Crreator purposely prevented the sort of perversion
that Darwinian Evolution purports. Its not a bias that a Creator exists
--- a personal Creator is always necessary whenever there is complex
Design and razor edge engineering abounds. The Universe shows great
Design and Engineering and hence, it had to have come from an
intelligent mind at work. One who is over the creation he created...a
Theistic Divine all powerful Being. The opposite of believing this is
the lunacy of Designs coming into existence from nothing or pre-existing
materials . How does abstract thinking come about from hydrogen gas
'naturally' ?! This is what you choose to believe if you pretend there
is no Creator .
'I question and refute your assertion that the non belief in a god is
*religion*'
REPLY: Atheism has all the requirements of a (secular) religion ; in
fact, quite concisely. Consider :
1. It is highly organized thruout the US and UK. There are many large
Atheist Organizations that would love a greater constituency.
2. There are even Atheist Camps thruout the USA with a well publicized
large one in Ohio.
3. They meet regularly to discuss local and national agendas which
include the ridiculing of Theists and Christians (when they themselves
know that every design requires A Designer and Human DNA requires a
Programmer., et al....
4. The Atheist Organizations collect dues regularly just like Churches
collect free will offerings on a Sunday to cover overhead, expenses,
activities, and material distribution.
5. They have very large national Conferences yearly just like Church
Denominations do. A very large one was held last year in Colorado, USA.
6. There are active Internet Atheist NG's to educate followers in the
sheer impossibility of matter and naturalism accounting for the many
many complex designs and engineering of our Universe, Solar System,
Planet, Human Bodys, DNA, et al...
7. They collaborate to build up each other in their freewill chosen
lifestyles the same that Church Members build up one another in
following and obeying Christ as a lifestyle.
8. They want macro evolution theories taught as 'scientific fact' in
public schools without ANY time for Creationism ; whereas Creationists
want both to be presented so students can make a clear and concise
decision based on rationale and what REAL science has discovered.
9. Most National Atheist Organizations have logos, flags, and
banners...the same that national Church Denominations have
..and 10. They have Museums located around the Country that show well
prepared artistry on fancy posterboards how apes gradually turned into
cave-men that turned into modern man (despite the fact that no
observation has ever occured for macro-evolution , to which even Prof.
Richard Dawkins (the Atheists Guru) freely admits .
<snip the rest>
Time to go. C Ya.
Steve Marshall
"Dave in Lake Villa" <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote
Claim CA111.1:
More than 300 scientists (over 400 as of 7/18/2005) from all disciplines
have signed a statement expressing skepticism of the ability of random
mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
Source:
Discovery Institute, 2004. Doubts over evolution mount with over 300
scientists expressing skepticism with central tenet of Darwin's theory.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2114
Discovery Institute, 2005. Eighty years after Scopes trial new scientific
evidence convinces over 400 scientists that Darwinian evolution is
deficient.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732
Response:
1.. The criticisms of the general claim that many scientists reject
evolution apply also to this list of scientists.
a.. Claims of skepticism are worthless without reliable evidence as a
basis for the skepticism. Such evidence is lacking. Claims for such
evidence by the Discovery Institute (DI) have been repeatedly examined and
dismissed by those who understand evolutionary biology.
b.. Compared with all the scientists who accept evolution, 400
scientists is a minuscule amount. The National Center for Science Education
has compiled, as a parody of lists such as that from the Discovery
Institute, a list of more than 500 scientists all named Steve, or with
variants of that name, who support evolution (NCSE 2003). There are only
five Steves on the DI's list of 400.
c.. The DI's list is exaggerated as an anti-evolution document (see
below).
2.. The statement which the signatories agreed to is not anti-evolution.
It says,
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and
natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
(Discovery Institute 2004)
Since scientists are trained to examine evidence and to be skeptical of
everything, even ardent evolutionists could sign such a statement. Indeed,
it is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the
only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms
such as genetic drift and symbiosis are important, too. The statement
signed by the scientists of "Project Steve" is more more specific:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the
biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor
of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there
are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there
is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural
selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically
inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist
pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be
introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. (NCSE
2003)
Although many of the people on the Discovery Institute's list are
anti-evolutionists, it is likely that most of them would disagree with
fixity of "kinds" and a young earth (Evans 2001). In another list, the
Discovery Institute put out a bibliography of publications that "represent
dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism
. . ., discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest
important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining
origins." When the authors of the publications were contacted, none said
that their works support "intelligent design" or challenge evolution
(Branch 2002). Bob Davidson, one of the signators of the DI's list of 400,
says, "the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming" and now
thinks the Discovery Institute is an affront to both science and religion
(Westneat 2005).
3.. Most of the signators to the DI's list (about 80%) are not
biologists; some are not even scientists. Generally speaking,
mathematicians, electrical engineers, philosophers, and so forth are only
marginally more qualified to comment on the validity of evolution than the
average person on the street.
Links:
Evans, Skip. 2001. Doubting Darwinism through creative license.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7306_pr87_11292001__doubting_dar_11_29_2001.asp
NCSE. 2003. Project Steve, http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18
Schafersman, Steven. 2003. Texas Citizens for Science responds to latest
Discovery Institute challenge.
http://www.texscience.org/files/discovery-signers.htm
References:
1.. Branch, Glenn. 2002. Analysis of the Discovery Institute's
"Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Instruction."
Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22(4): 12-18,23-24.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol22/4583_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_12_30_1899.asp
2.. Evans, Skip. 2001. Doubting Darwinism through creative license.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7306_pr87_11292001__doubting_dar_11_29_2001.asp
3.. NCSE. 2003. Project Steve,
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18
4.. Westneat, Danny. 2005. Evolving opinion of one man. Seattle Times,
Aug. 24, 2005.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002450329_danny24.html
>
Ken
wrote:
> 'So, why do you keep posting these here '
>
Ken
wrote:
> 'Seems like far more, probably most scientists actually agree with
> evolution then.....'
>
> REPLY: Macro Evolution is totally impossible
Sorry Dumbwit, just because you can't assimilate scientific facts,
doesn't mean they don't exist.
Soccer:
If one consider these facts about soccer, then it becomes highly
evident that soccer should also be labeled a religion using the same
criteria as Dimwit's assessment of atheism
1. It's highly organized
2. There are soccer camps through the world
3. They meet at regularly scheduled times
4. People pay to get in
5. They have large national conferences
6. They have many NG's on the internet
7. The teams have a support structure
8. They have clearly defined rules and procedures
9. They have banners, flags and logos
10.There are soccer museums all around the world
Ian Smith
>
> REPLY: Because its imperative that you be reached before Eternity starts
> for yourself
Gosh, fully-blown mumbo jumbo! No wonder you struggle with rational
thought!
regards, Ian
Martin
> On Jul 6, 12:10 pm, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)
> wrote:
>> 'Seems like far more, probably most scientists actually agree with
>> evolution then.....'
>>
>> REPLY: Macro Evolution is totally impossible
>
> Sorry Dumbwit, just because you can't assimilate scientific facts,
> doesn't mean they don't exist.
>
> Soccer:
>
> If one consider these facts about soccer, then it becomes highly
> evident that soccer should also be labeled a religion
I'm amazed you think it might not be. Go to Liverpool or Manchester and
visit a local :)
Steve Marshall
"Dave in Lake Villa" <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote
> 'So, why do you keep posting these here '
http://www.gillan.com/wordography-4.html
Steve M
Jeffrey Goldberg
> of suggestions what caused that 15 million years (about 530 million
> years ago) lead to such diversity.'
>
> REPLY: Well then, where are the billions and billions of transitional
> fossils if Darwinian Evolution is true ?
I'm sorry Dave, but I don't see how that is a reply to what I wrote.
The book says that the facts of the Cambrian Explosion are incompatible
with natural selection. I have pointed out that there are several
competing Darwinian accounts of the Cambrian Explosion. It is true that
it isn't a settled question yet. But the problem isn't one of a lack
of Darwinian accounts of the facts, but that there are currently too
many accounts. Hopefully as more evidence and analysis comes to light
we can weed out and reject some of the candidate explanations.
So there. I've given you another lie in the book. You haven't properly
addressed either one. If you try to change the subject again, I'll
assume that you recognize that those lies really are lies.
> '(I don't really care what picture people paint of Richard Lewontin
> since he's known distort science for his own political purposes as well
> as any Creationist.)'
>
> REPLY: You should since he is an avid Evolutionist .
I have my (very strong) disagreements with much of what Lewontin says,
but most of that is about issues which require too much science for you
to grasp. I also have serious problems with the manner in which he
argues his case. He is nearly as nasty in his misrepresentations of
others as you people are. (I'm wondering if Peter Ashby has read "The
Doctrine of DNA" and what his view on that polemic are.)
> His forthright
> statement about how the MO of Evolutionists is 'not to allow a divine
> foot in the door' just goes to sum up the apriori philisophical bias
> that many Scientists have .
You are, believe it or not, actually right about something. It must be
by accident since from all experience you don't usually even understand
the arguments that you yourself present.
But let me tell you where you are right. Scientists seek non-magical
explanations for the natural world. That what science is. The great
thing about Darwinism is that something that had up until that point
appeared magical (the existence of complex design in nature) suddenly
had a non-magical explanation which relied solely on clear and
observable physical processes of the world.
> REPLY: Cute play on words Jeff ; but, to go on denying the personal
> Creator whom you know has to exist due to the enormous amount of Design
> and Engineering of highly complex systems for the sake of your own
> pride... then to be the Pie'd Piper of your family indoctrinating them
> to think of themselves as nothing more than glorified accidental Pond
> Scum
Ah, but there you are wrong. My wife and I encourage our daughter to
try to understand other peoples' points of view. Most of her friends
are religious, some of them quite seriously. The parents of some of her
friends (with our full support) gave her a children's study bible and we
told our daughter (and those parents) that we are happy to have Timea
ask them any questions she might have about it or their beliefs. She
has even gone to Church with some of her friends' families a few times.
Of course we have also tried to provide her with information about other
religions. She loved the Paiute creation stories. That was after she
moved on from the Greek ones.
Indeed, for a long time we actually concealed our beliefs from her
giving vague answers to questions like is there a God. We would
typically respond that what we think doesn't matter but that as she
grows up she will slowly come to her own conclusions.
I remember the incident when I finally clearly revealed what I thought
about things. She had come home from Kindergarten and as the sun set
she said, "I know why the sun is red at sunset, it is because God
something or other" (I don't remember what the something or other was,
but it was some fairy tale kind of just-so story.)
I told her then that a long time ago when people didn't understand what
made rain or what made the seasons they had stories about gods that
created them. But that as scientific understanding advanced stories
about gods causing the seasons or rolling the sun across the sky like a
piece of dung were no longer needed. Before people could travel in the
sky, they believed that angels lived in the clouds and so on.
Then I did the home "why is the sky blue" (which also answers why the
sun is yellow and, at sun rise and sun set, red) demonstration. (Hint,
you'll need milky water in a transparent container, a dark room, and a
flashlight.)
There was an earlier incident when I didn't express my atheism, but I
did tell her that I didn't think that God was a crybaby. My daughter
had said "God doesn't like it when you say 'Oh my God'. And He gets
really upset if you say he doesn't exist". And that was when I told
her that I don't think that God is a crybaby. This initially got her
very worried because she thought that God would be really angry with me
for suggesting that He was a crybaby. It took her a while (she was just
four or five) to realize that her concern proved my point. Thought I
doubt that Dave will ever develop the mental capacity to understand that.
Of course a child is going to be influenced by what her parents believe.
And certainly she knows that despite our insistence that she come to
her own conclusions that we would be disappointed if she became a
religious fanatic. On the other hand, when she rebels against us some
years from now, that may be exactly what she chooses to do.
Cheers,
-j
Jeffrey Goldberg
> "Dave in Lake Villa" <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote
>> REPLY: Because its imperative that you be reached before Eternity starts
>> for yourself, [...]
> http://www.gillan.com/wordography-4.html
Cool. I just bought that track from iTunes.
Cheers,
-j
Ken
wrote:
>
> Gosh, fully-blown mumbo jumbo! No wonder you struggle with rational
> thought!
>
> regards, Ian
I-Phone picture of Dave in his shower
http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/images/2003/03/20/headUpAss.jpg
Steve Marshall
"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote
Glad you liked it. There is the original recording and a recent reworking
for the 'Gillan's Inn' album celebrating his previous career. I'm not sure
which is available for download.
Steve M
Ian Smith
Now that is very thoughtful of you Dave.
However, it does mean that you've fallen into the trap of possibly
"avoiding the wrong hell".
If such a god exists, how do you know it is your god?
What of the other 460 various gods that we know of?
What if this god isn't on the known list at all? What if he watching
your every move to ensure that you use the faculties that he has
endowed you with to reason for yourself, instead of falling for a
bit of silly mythology?
It could be me up there with the 72 virgins, eternal ecstasy,
infinite peanut butter and jam sandwiches and you down stoking the
fires!
regards, Ian
Peter Ashby
>
> I have my (very strong) disagreements with much of what Lewontin says,
> but most of that is about issues which require too much science for you
> to grasp. I also have serious problems with the manner in which he
> argues his case. He is nearly as nasty in his misrepresentations of
> others as you people are. (I'm wondering if Peter Ashby has read "The
> Doctrine of DNA" and what his view on that polemic are.)
I have not read it. Hold on I shall google and see if I can find at
least a precis online. Hmmm, he seems to have stirred up a bit of a
hornet's nest. Best seems to be that it is a bit of a curate's egg of a
book. I suspect I will agree with much of what he says but only up to a
point. It is true that you can read stories about a gene for this and a
gene for that. But do scientist's actually think like this? not in my
experience. What seems to be going on her is a combination of our
propensity to talk in code and the media not understanding that. It is
also true that in todays publish or perish academic environment it is
sadly necessary to hype your work, at least in the title. However so
long as everyone remembers it is only window dressing no harm is done. I
suspect Lewontin has neglected to point this out.
It is also not as though the interactions between genes and environment
are not under intense study, they are all over the place and it is
yeilding understanding. I last worked in a lab doing just such studies
on large dna collections from case matched controls. I am one such
control. That was for Type 2 diabetes risk and all sorts of things were
measured. Some markers that strongly associate with risk came out of
that and just recently they have published work on childhood asthma,
that one is a pharmacogenetic study looking at how different genotypes
react to asthma medication.
So I am at a bit of a loss as to who Lewontin's book is targetted at.
Social Scientists perhaps, no informed biologist is going to fall for
this stuff.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net
Ian Smith
>
> I have not read it. Hold on I shall google and see if I can find at
> least a precis online. Hmmm, he seems to have stirred up a bit of a
> hornet's nest. Best seems to be that it is a bit of a curate's egg of a
> book.
Rotten all the way through?
regards, Ian
Ken
>
> > Soccer:
>
> > If one consider these facts about soccer, then it becomes highly
> > evident that soccer should also be labeled a religion
>
> I'm amazed you think it might not be. Go to Liverpool or Manchester and
> visit a local :)
I can easily accept soccer as a religion more than I could the
worthless worship of imaginary sky fairies
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>> (I'm wondering if Peter Ashby has read "The
>> Doctrine of DNA" and what his view on that polemic are.)
> I have not read it. Hold on I shall google and see if I can find at
> least a precis online. Hmmm, he seems to have stirred up a bit of a
> hornet's nest. Best seems to be that it is a bit of a curate's egg of a
> book. I suspect I will agree with much of what he says but only up to a
> point.
What he says about genetics isn't incorrect, but what he implies about
his opponents. Roughly speaking (and it's been a long time since I read
it) he considers any effort to apply sociobiology to humans to have
fascistic motivations.
It is because he is so unfair in how he represents his opponents that
lead me to have no sympathy to how Creationists misrepresent him.
> It is true that you can read stories about a gene for this and a
> gene for that. But do scientist's actually think like this? not in my
> experience.
That is exactly it. He presents a straw man argument.
> It is also not as though the interactions between genes and environment
> are not under intense study, they are all over the place and it is
> yeilding understanding. I last worked in a lab doing just such studies
> on large dna collections from case matched controls. I am one such
> control. That was for Type 2 diabetes risk and all sorts of things were
> measured. Some markers that strongly associate with risk came out of
> that and just recently they have published work on childhood asthma,
> that one is a pharmacogenetic study looking at how different genotypes
> react to asthma medication.
Let me quote what my wife and I wrote on this matter. ... Damn! I can't
seem to find it.
The gist was that the people who use the expression that what we is is
the "complex interaction of genes and the environment" tend to be the
people who are least likely to investigate those interactions. It is
those who do look at the genetics or at "human nature" who do
investigate the interactions most carefully. An example that we gave
was about a study that indicated that girls whose fathers were absent
during their early childhood tend to reach puberty early even when
economic and other social status factors are taken into account. If
this actually holds up under further investigation and the most obvious
evolutionary story is what is playing a role than we have a case where
we have a genetic tendency to be sensitive to some social factors
(paternal investment in infancy) which then influences a biological
process (onset of puberty).
The study wasn't rock solid in my opinion, but it illustrates the kind
of complex interaction that the human sociobiologists can look at.
While all of those who oppose trying to understand human nature in terms
of evolution would never come close to encountering such interesting
interactions.
> So I am at a bit of a loss as to who Lewontin's book is targetted at.
> Social Scientists perhaps, no informed biologist is going to fall for
> this stuff.
Yes. And a particular kind of social scientist. He is addressing his
fellow Marxists. I have seen Marxist social scientists state
misunderstandings of genetics and evolution that could only originate
from someone like Lewontin.
Now I know that Peter has some sympathies with some of the ideas of
Marx, but at this point it is useful to remember that western Marxists
have have abandoned one of Marx's great ideas, Cultural Materialism.
(Cultural Materialism is the notion that much of a societies culture is
a function of its economic, or material, basis). Instead western
Marxists have adopted a kind of Cultural Relativism. As such, they are
hostile to developing any sophisticated account of human nature.
A very good account of this battle is captured in Andrew Brown's book
"The Darwin Wars". I don't fully agree with the picture that Brown
paints, but it is the fairest account that there is.
-j
Jeffrey Goldberg
At least in the US iTunes Store it is a live session from an album
called "The Gillan Tapes, Volume 3". It's a bit of a rough cut, but
that seems fitting to the alternative/hard rock genre.
-j
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Again, I'm not sure we know when sex happened. Certainly simple
> replication is very similar to a colonial animal simply budding off new
> cells. Proper sex requires some sort of dimorphism between eggs and
> sperm. I think we are still arguing about how that came about. It is
> probable I think that natural variation might have produced slight
> differences that then got amplified. For eg if my gamete is smaller than
> usual I am putting less into the embryo so yours will have to compensate
> if our embryo is to be viable etc.
I've somewhere read exactly that story.
Anyway for species with sex, there is suddenly an ability to have some
harmful (or non-useful) mutations exist in a population and meet up with
other similar things to produce useful combinations. Also sex allows
something with a beneficial mutation to spread that benefit to the
descendants of those who don't carry the mutation. In both cases, it
allows more genetic variety to exist withing the population.
> As for brains being sexually selected, the lack of dimorphism might not
> be a problem. It is possible to be an intelligent woman but still find
> intelligent men attractive.
Yes. It takes intelligence to recognize intelligence, but still you'd
expect larger differences than we seem to find. But also in support of
the sexual selection side is that (with the possible exception of naked
mole rats) humans are the mammals with the greatest paternal investment.
So there should be less sexual dimorphism than in other mammals where
sexual selection has played a role.
>> Anyway, if there is a lesson in here for Creationists, it's not that
>> there are problems and puzzles which deeply undermine Darwinism, but
>> that, like in any science, we don't know all there is to know, and so
>> there is debate about fine tuning the theory. Gould and Eldredge's
>> Punctuated Equilibrium in no way challenged Darwinism in any way that a
>> Creationist could take refuge in, but it did challenge how many people
>> thought about Darwinism.
>>
> Yes, much of the argument about PE was people taking entrenched
> positions which involved obstinately not accepting various facts about
> the other side. For eg while Gould and Eldredge did hypothesise about
> actual saltations (discrete jumps) they were mainly concerned about the
> rate of change not being constant. They were not actually defeated, it
> is acknowledged now that large opportunities, a mass extinction or
> virgin territory (islands particularly) do result in periods of fast
> change followed by long intervals of stasis as the anmials settle into
> their new environments and being adapted to them don't then change much.
I think that it is also clearly acknowledged arms races can quickly
change the selective pressures. Exactly as you described for the
Cambrian explosion. I also think that this is important for
understanding human evolution. For a long time, a key factor of success
hasn't been whether you could hide from a lion, but how well you
functioned in the society of other humans. Human society became a
primary selective pressure, selecting for social skills.
>
> The argument has become whether the mutation rate actually changes or
> greater selection pressures tease out hidden variation. It seems that
> bacteria can increase their mutation rates by slackening off the error
> correction when copying their dna when under selection pressures.
Yes, I remember reading about that. I've always felt that things like
junk DNA clocks are very hard to calibrate.
Cheers,
-j
PS: I've finally started reading Steve Jones' "Almost Like a Whale"
which you've been recommending for years. It is a great book, though
there are a few passages I don't always follow.
Peter Ashby
> Peter Ashby wrote:
>
>
> > As for brains being sexually selected, the lack of dimorphism might not
> > be a problem. It is possible to be an intelligent woman but still find
> > intelligent men attractive.
>
> Yes. It takes intelligence to recognize intelligence, but still you'd
> expect larger differences than we seem to find. But also in support of
> the sexual selection side is that (with the possible exception of naked
> mole rats) humans are the mammals with the greatest paternal investment.
> So there should be less sexual dimorphism than in other mammals where
> sexual selection has played a role.
>
But naked mole rats have huge sexual dimorphism. They are vertebrate ant
colonies dominated by a single female. I'm not sure how paternal
investment leads to sexual dimorphism. For eg in the birds both sexes
can be very hard to distinguish on the basis of size yet both parents
invest heavily in rearing offspring. In other birds there is great
sexual dimorphism (think peacocks and birds of paradise). But who is
actually competing there? the males compete with each other, not in
fights but for being most 'attractive'. We see the greatest sexual
dimorphism often where males must compete amongst themselves. Think bull
elephant seals, lions and many male deer. No parental investments there,
but large dimorphism.
> >> Anyway, if there is a lesson in here for Creationists, it's not that
> >> there are problems and puzzles which deeply undermine Darwinism, but
> >> that, like in any science, we don't know all there is to know, and so
> >> there is debate about fine tuning the theory. Gould and Eldredge's
> >> Punctuated Equilibrium in no way challenged Darwinism in any way that a
> >> Creationist could take refuge in, but it did challenge how many people
> >> thought about Darwinism.
> >>
> > Yes, much of the argument about PE was people taking entrenched
> > positions which involved obstinately not accepting various facts about
> > the other side. For eg while Gould and Eldredge did hypothesise about
> > actual saltations (discrete jumps) they were mainly concerned about the
> > rate of change not being constant. They were not actually defeated, it
> > is acknowledged now that large opportunities, a mass extinction or
> > virgin territory (islands particularly) do result in periods of fast
> > change followed by long intervals of stasis as the anmials settle into
> > their new environments and being adapted to them don't then change much.
>
> I think that it is also clearly acknowledged arms races can quickly
> change the selective pressures. Exactly as you described for the
> Cambrian explosion. I also think that this is important for
> understanding human evolution. For a long time, a key factor of success
> hasn't been whether you could hide from a lion, but how well you
> functioned in the society of other humans. Human society became a
> primary selective pressure, selecting for social skills.
>
I agree. In the Lewontin subthread I get the impression he has taken
this fact and thinks it freed us from our genes when in fact it simply
meant social genes were being selected instead of running away from lion
genes. If he thinks genes are not determinist in social interactions he
hasn't met many autistics.
BTW there was an article in New Scientist that bears on the evolution of
altruism. It used a system where rats were enabled to press a lever that
fed another rat. Seems that if altruistic rats are exploited by non
cooperative rats they simply move away so you get groups of rats, some
cooperative, others not and those groups would then compete. It shows
how altruists can prosper without being overrun with exploiters.
> >
> > The argument has become whether the mutation rate actually changes or
> > greater selection pressures tease out hidden variation. It seems that
> > bacteria can increase their mutation rates by slackening off the error
> > correction when copying their dna when under selection pressures.
>
> Yes, I remember reading about that. I've always felt that things like
> junk DNA clocks are very hard to calibrate.
>
The second most heated science meeting I have ever attended was in
Edinburgh in iirc '94-'95. It was joint between the Society for
Developmental Biology and a group of evolutionary bods (Simon Conway
Morris was there for eg). The room divided into supporters of dna
clocks, those who thought the rate varied and the audience (which
included me). It was at the start of evo-devo and the arguments and the
fact that the room was packed was I think a good indications it would
become the vibrant field it is.
I think at the moment the assumption is that down amongst the protists
you are on very shaky grounds but in multicellular animals things are
ok, sort of, just, possibly. It is my understanding that there is a lot
of calibration with well attested fossil series going on.
>
> PS: I've finally started reading Steve Jones' "Almost Like a Whale"
> which you've been recommending for years. It is a great book, though
> there are a few passages I don't always follow.
Great ;-) What do you think of his self imposed strictures of sticking
to Darwin's chapters? I do wish Itisdave should read it, at least so he
will realise the difference between Darwin's theory and the Modern
Synthesis. But then it is a standard creationist tactic to just talk
about Darwinism, pretending no progress has been made since the
publication of The Origin of Species.