Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   creationists side-stepping
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 15 (6341)
03-08-2002 9:04 PM


i'm really starting to pull my hair out because this is what the creationists do when an evolutionist addresses them with a tough question:
a) run away
b) ignore it
c) start ranting about nep-nazi evilutionist conspiracies
d) start barraging evolution with unfounded claims.
if creationism is truthful in its entirety, then you yecs out there should be capable in answerering these questions in a few presses of the keyboard.
so here's your DOUBLE-dare
go to these following threads
"the ultimate question"
"QUESTION"
and
"animals on the ark"
no stuttering allowed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by KingPenguin, posted 03-09-2002 1:53 PM quicksink has not replied
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 03-12-2002 12:59 PM quicksink has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 2 of 15 (6423)
03-09-2002 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-08-2002 9:04 PM


your twelve year old self is really shining here. those are all basic human nature and like ive said creationism is based on nothing more than faith.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 03-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-08-2002 9:04 PM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 03-11-2002 10:01 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 3 of 15 (6564)
03-11-2002 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by KingPenguin
03-09-2002 1:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
your twelve year old self is really shining here. those are all basic human nature and like ive said creationism is based on nothing more than faith.

You shouldn't attempt to patronise an enquiring mind ... its naughty.
Most of the evolutionists here would agree that Creationism is
nothing but faith.
If it's faith, don't use it to argue science.
If it really happened, where is the supporting evidence. Nothing
happens without leaving a trace if we look hard enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by KingPenguin, posted 03-09-2002 1:53 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 15 (6691)
03-12-2002 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-08-2002 9:04 PM


Then explain to me why Dick Boyd did not show up for a meeting with me he said last semester we could have and last week gave me a time for? Who is running from whom?? Maybe he had an emergency. No need to get frustrated by parents were told a Lie and the Bought it. I simply am having to pay back the interest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-08-2002 9:04 PM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by KingPenguin, posted 03-12-2002 5:18 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 6 by nator, posted 03-12-2002 10:10 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 5 of 15 (6701)
03-12-2002 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brad McFall
03-12-2002 12:59 PM


im completely lost
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 03-12-2002 12:59 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 6 of 15 (6710)
03-12-2002 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brad McFall
03-12-2002 12:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Then explain to me why Dick Boyd did not show up for a meeting with me he said last semester we could have and last week gave me a time for? Who is running from whom?? Maybe he had an emergency. No need to get frustrated by parents were told a Lie and the Bought it. I simply am having to pay back the interest.
Um, who the heck is Dick Boyd and why should any of us care?
I'm going to say this a little more forcefully and clearer this time, Brad.
Your posts rarely make any sense at all, which is why you rarely get any replies to your messages.
Can you please speak more plainly and less cryptically? Just make a point now and then, plainly and clearly, about creation and evolution.
Most of the time your replies don't seem like replies at all, just vague ramblings about and references to people and concepts that nobody has ever heard of.
Perhaps try to be more conversational.
Just trying to help you participate a bit better.
"eschew obsfucation"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 03-12-2002 12:59 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 03-13-2002 1:59 PM nator has not replied
 Message 12 by Joe Meert, posted 03-14-2002 1:26 PM nator has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 15 (6749)
03-13-2002 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by nator
03-12-2002 10:10 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
Um, who the heck is Dick Boyd and why should any of us care?
I'm going to say this a little more forcefully and clearer this time, Brad.
Your posts rarely make any sense at all, which is why you rarely get any replies to your messages.
Richard Boyd is a philosopher (realist, who has had a run in with Kuhn over the interpretation of p102 in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions) in the Cornell Sage School of Philosophy who in another time rather inaccurated labeled me with being an idealist. I am more this than any DSM category but actucally neither. If you want to know more about dynamics it has alaways been a burden for me to get the discussion beyond any that had or may have with this Marxist (and friend I think if I remember correctly to Richard Lewontin who is adroit at seperating out the poltical in biology and biology AT the politics ...)who edited a major book on Evolution Theory out of MIT. These works should all regardless of his hairy historical view of science as categorically divisible by threes into positivism, realism and phenomenology be second nature and a prerequisite to all c/e board discussions but lamenting with Maxwell attractively they are not.
Can you please speak more plainly and less cryptically?
[QUOTE] I hope that was not the plain bagel and was the breadbowl. I think I said that if not I will try to respond more and go to the requested threads but I HAVE NOTICED that the finesse that I achieved on the ICR discussion forum has not occured here only that the point I asked on true seekers was after they had avoided it finally be addressed on this cite and for that I am 1/2 happy.
How an organism comes out of crypsis I do not yet respond to becasue Mr. Pam may be developing this thread but I am genuily sorry any nominal Christianty I retain is often the stepping off point. I do have this as a burden and really I wish the most thanks for responding. I am not upset at how much response I get. If none I just ask another question. Thanks for the sensitivity.
Just make a point now and then, plainly and clearly, about creation and evolution.
[b][QUOTE] Most of the time your replies don't seem like replies at all, just vague ramblings about and references to people and concepts that nobody has ever heard of.
Have you ever heard that Newton thought about the difference of lizards and fish using the concepts of coasts of audibles AS compared to visibles (we are having problems with these computers goto go about to be shut down
Perhaps try to be more conversational.
Just trying to help you participate a bit better.
will edit later
"eschew obsfucation"
[/b][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 03-12-2002 10:10 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 03-13-2002 2:53 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 9 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 4:08 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 8 of 15 (6750)
03-13-2002 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brad McFall
03-13-2002 1:59 PM


Brad,
I am the LAST person who can criticise punctuation. But some more commas would help. Also, you might want to give some explanation on the people, or at least the arguments they put forward (general point). You tend to advance a paragraph on some theory of someones that only a few of us have heard of, much less understand.
Here's a paragraph I've just written for JP (not posted at time of writing).
Regarding accuracy of derived phylogenies. There are several reasons a phylogeny may not produce the correct tree. If the sequences aren’t homologous, sampling error, incomplete data, mismatching method & genetic information, long branch attract, method limiltations etc. Molecular Evolution (referenced above) is full of examples of incorrect phylogenies, & explains why the phylogenies are incorrect. In fact, if your interested in molecular phylogeny, this book is excellent in that it spends half the time explaining what CAN go wrong. In the vast majority of cases, however, highly concordant trees are derived. This is unexpected if an ID is involved recently. There is no reason a phylogeny derived from gene sequences, pseudogenes, retroviral insertions, nucleotide sequences, amino acid sequences, SINEs, LINEs, etc. should produce phylogenies that match at all, let alone to the high degree that they do. Taking cytochrome c as an example, it is an enzyme used in Krebbs Cycle, & as such is used by ALL life, so why is there such a disparity in nucleotide & amino acids for the molecule? They ALL do exactly the same job. If your argument is that similar organisms have similar gene sequences, then why don’t similar protein function having similar sequences?
Here it is again, sans commas.
Regarding accuracy of derived phylogenies. There are several reasons a phylogeny may not produce the correct tree. If the sequences aren’t homologous sampling error incomplete data mismatching method & genetic information long branch attract, method limitations etc. Molecular Evolution (referenced above) is full of examples of incorrect phylogenies & explains why the phylogenies are incorrect. In fact if your interested in molecular phylogeny this book is excellent in that it spends half the time explaining what CAN go wrong. In the vast majority of cases however highly concordant trees are derived. This is unexpected if an ID is involved recently. There is no reason a phylogeny derived from gene sequences pseudogenes retroviral insertions nucleotide sequences amino acid sequences SINEs LINEs etc. should produce phylogenies that match at all let alone to the high degree that they do. Taking cytochrome c as an example it is an enzyme used in Krebbs Cycle & as such is used by ALL life so why is there such a disparity in nucleotide & amino acids for the molecule? They ALL do exactly the same job. If your argument is that similar organisms have similar gene sequences then why don’t similar protein function having similar sequences?
It may make sense when you write it, but reading it is a different matter. I've noticed some mistakes of my own, but you get my drift
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 03-13-2002 1:59 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 03-14-2002 1:20 PM mark24 has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 15 (6789)
03-14-2002 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brad McFall
03-13-2002 1:59 PM


brad- are you aware of the concept of commas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 03-13-2002 1:59 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 03-14-2002 12:54 PM quicksink has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 15 (6818)
03-14-2002 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by quicksink
03-14-2002 4:08 AM


As for commas, yes, I put them in after I spill my guts,,, but usually I have no time to correct spelling which "," usually shows errors in puntuations. My typing skills are not as fast but there was an acutal problem, here in Ithaca, yesterday and I wanted to transmit, the information, before I lost the thought and would have to comment on second thought. So On, second cardinal no, and for the comma before "and" I have always thought THAT useless. Sorry for bringing in things too fast.... But Richard Boyd had been the person who Caused the start of my problems at CU and He appears to be trying to save face now. I am not as hostile as this emoticom. Thanks fed throughout back.
I will try to be more "conversational." The Point, I have been making is that some posters indeed have learned to operate what I. Newton termed "coasts of audibles" which for me were 'holograms' before the audibles (conformal programming) could be "audible" as you may have heard sitting down aT dIsney ... but obvioulsy before the techonoly were mere "visibles" coasted or not. The telephone (not the modem) changed this, but the generation, one older than me, never grew up with this caller ID which for me was 8-track tape ...etc digressing and being not conversational.
The thing was that Clerk Maxwell clearly understood this difference even if he had not read the letter of Newton to Briggs to which I refer the term "coast" attempting to find out if the pluvocal use is actually an univocal track of Croizat's WITHIN Maxwell's electro-tonic state. I had thought when I first started posting that it would be a mere communication of the information that would capitulate others to be able to read Science as I clearly can but this broadcast has not turned out the case.
So it is for this case of Web,Internet links that I hope to accomplish with modem what Phone was in what I think should be provisionally called coasts of tonics which is not a geometry in sound or light but what I know not but I do know, commas, or no that it would be what a French scientist in the 60s thought on baking bread was the ability of life to submit biological transmutations of elements but again, I was wrong to think that by pointing out how I read that the reader would take the intention rather then the capacity as cause for tension and hence, religion or no, to either commit me as adults have done or babbled with me as youngas do. So it was wrong for me to teach at this point and I certainly will not be found preaching in public. This is not conversational as you started to read the breach in Freud as my thinking goes beyond most "radars" so Let me stop and say OK it may rather be a coast of an audible that is also visible but not a visisble that is also audible. I know it takes more listening to get through that unedited text. Less next.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 4:08 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 15 (6821)
03-14-2002 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mark24
03-13-2002 2:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Brad,
I am the LAST person who can criticise punctuation. But some more commas would help. Also, you might want to give some explanation on the people,

You have been more than fair, the reason I was trying to introduce Richard Boyd's realism is less about my "contract" with Cornell, than with his inability to communicate with Thomas Kuhn. As everyone here probably knows, Kuhn put forth a philosophical position that has animated some if not a lot of talk, at least in the sociology of science as you probably already know. The particular confrontation between Richard and Thomas was that on p.102, where Kuhn asserts (I write this from mememory so sorry in advance) that; "GRAVITY" had changed after Einstein from Newton's TIMES and Boyd had realistically challenged this {page} asserting that, gravity can not change just because a theoritician(sp) finds a better fit to the data. The only thing I am going to say directly about this debate, at this point, is that Newton (if I understand him correctly) had denied a point to Galileo that if these were the ones Einstein got that no one before him less Galileo then, this gravity "could" have changed, if Galileo was/were to agree. So here Is the religious issue as well, but it needs to not be. It is absurd for many if not most scientists, to agree with my "niave" thought, on this point for which I held as a teenager and when I was at Cornell this possibility (which for Richard Boyd had called it "downward causation" which (disTORTED) I had read, about, before I got to (go) Cornell to CU.)therewhere that there may be a "Physical" basis of Sheldrakes "morphic resonance" by solition gravity waves such that the brains of one kind could baraminically be associated in the mind of another! Fantastic, but dynamically for this,,,,, to be true, Galileo would have to agree and I do not consider this my mature thought, but only the ability to think 'chemically' without any influence of the one-gene one-enzyme hypothesis. Thus Herny Morris told me to be careful about how I introduce math into the revival. So less this possibility, I do not believe that gravity changed just because Einstein got a-hold of Reimann, even thought Cantor likely larger than Maxwell's infinity (is) due to the Christian account out Farday or not had not, but should, have been discussed, simultenously for the use of concurrence in dissucsions that tend to avoid the "slant" I put in the thought (was kinase phosphyrlations and confusions about what "denaturation" consisits in ).
quote:

or at least the arguments they put forward (general point). You tend to advance a paragraph on some theory of someones that only a few of us have heard of, much less understand.
Here's a paragraph I've just written for JP (not posted at time of writing).
Regarding accuracy of derived phylogenies. There are several reasons a phylogeny may not produce the correct tree. If the sequences aren’t homologous, sampling error, incomplete data, mismatching method & genetic information, long branch attract, method limiltations etc. Molecular Evolution (referenced above) is full of examples of incorrect phylogenies, & explains why the phylogenies are incorrect. In fact, if your interested in molecular phylogeny, this book is excellent in that it spends half the time explaining what CAN go wrong. In the vast majority of cases, however, highly concordant trees are derived. This is unexpected if an ID is involved recently. There is no reason a phylogeny derived from gene sequences, pseudogenes, retroviral insertions, nucleotide sequences, amino acid sequences, SINEs, LINEs, etc. should produce phylogenies that match at all, let alone to the high degree that they do. Taking cytochrome c as an example, it is an enzyme used in Krebbs Cycle, & as such is used by ALL life, so why is there such a disparity in nucleotide & amino acids for the molecule? They ALL do exactly the same job. If your argument is that similar organisms have similar gene sequences, then why don’t similar protein function having similar sequences?
Here it is again, sans commas.

yOU Do not need to put the commas in for me because I understand what you wrote all the way up to the questionmark. But putting in a question at this point makes me wonder if you really understood what you wrote?? As far as I am aware, it is only a provisional hypthesis that carbon is passed on in biochemical rxns that appears to hold up (less some biochem I am not familir with and I am not familir with a lot of it)so ANY absolute disparty belied by the questioning mark seems out of place given the clarity of communication without commas above. My mind goes striaght to Morowtiz's wish for better Chemsitry education and the existence of "perversions" dyads create at this point and that is how igorantly I would if presented with the your question answer on the test. And as for the second question, I mentioned on True Seekers yesterday the existience of my specuation that protein genetic polymorphism may be due to repulsions in biology that are unavailable to the material of the test tube chemsity analysis and little on the synthesis end as well
So in fact you commas would have made no difference for how in real time i resopond On second thought ,,,,,how-whatever. Thanks for the thought.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 03-13-2002 2:53 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 12 of 15 (6822)
03-14-2002 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by nator
03-12-2002 10:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Can you please speak more plainly and less cryptically? Just make a point now and then, plainly and clearly, about creation and evolution.

JM: This is Brad's M.O. Only he understands the points he is trying to make. If you start to understand them, it is time to see a psychologist. Trust me.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 03-12-2002 10:10 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 03-14-2002 1:32 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 13 of 15 (6823)
03-14-2002 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Joe Meert
03-14-2002 1:26 PM


Joe, that was a low blow. I went back and changed the top paragraph which I do not do over on yours because you guys never bothered to come this far. Compare above and blow your own mo horn "genes for horn" sometime. Please do not flame over here. I am done with you guys but to set the record straight. IF you need to see a psych guy then you did not just pledge $40 for a Christian radio station out of Syracuse. Lay off dude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Joe Meert, posted 03-14-2002 1:26 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 03-14-2002 2:02 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 14 of 15 (6824)
03-14-2002 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Brad McFall
03-14-2002 1:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Joe, that was a low blow. I went back and changed the top paragraph which I do not do over on yours because you guys never bothered to come this far. Compare above and blow your own mo horn "genes for horn" sometime. Please do not flame over here. I am done with you guys but to set the record straight. IF you need to see a psych guy then you did not just pledge $40 for a Christian radio station out of Syracuse. Lay off dude.
Umm, whatever dude. Your nonsensical ramblings at true seekers were fun to read, but they were still nonsensical. I believe the term for your behavior is called 'frequent derailment of thought'.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 03-14-2002 1:32 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 03-18-2002 1:17 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 15 (7230)
03-18-2002 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Joe Meert
03-14-2002 2:02 PM


Joe,
This would be the "small beer" I communicated with or to etc on MSN other board but I thank you for following up on my dead end post to you. The point and it is buried in this web site and I do not intend that you had seen it was that though the True Seeker's QUEStion was being answered on this board the sensistivty of the ICR forum has not been matched in any subsequent communications with me since I left Taxacom. ALL stuff on true seekers is tainted by the story of me on ICR which was not true. There is some interchange available on the lighter MSN to enable be to dischage through head aches or otherwise what should have not been a question but a group effort wich I applaud those here who have seen and maybe even do know what I post in some posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 03-14-2002 2:02 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024