Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for evolution
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 110 of 136 (168616)
12-15-2004 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by robinrohan
12-15-2004 3:11 PM


Who is "handwaving" away anything, Crashfrog?
Anyone who asks for single examples for the purpose of dismissing them, and through singly dismissing each example, claims there's no evidence for evolution.
Is it your intent to do that? We'll see. You can "disprove" anything with that method, but at the end of it, all you have is an enormous pile of ad-hox explanations, and your opponents still have a coherent theory that explains a whole lot of data, all at once.
Try to have an open mind--which questions everything.
It's one thing to question everything. It's quite another to never accept any of the answers. I have questioned everything, by the way. And the answers were given, and were acceptable to me. That took a long fucking time to do, and that I'm not willing to repeat that entire process again just to appear to you to be "open-minded" should not be taken as evidence that I don't question things.
I do. I did already, and until you show me something I haven't seen before, I see no reason to repeat the questioning process when I can be pretty sure what the answers are, already.
It's good to have an open mind, but not one so open that your brains fall out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by robinrohan, posted 12-15-2004 3:11 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2004 3:40 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 112 of 136 (168620)
12-15-2004 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by NosyNed
12-15-2004 3:40 PM


I think you are mixing up the Abiogenesis question and the evolution question.
Since my post addresses neither of those questions, nor makes reference to either of those terms, I don't see how you would come to that conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2004 3:40 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2004 3:47 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 114 of 136 (168629)
12-15-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by NosyNed
12-15-2004 3:47 PM


Re: Questions
It looks like you directly addressed the evolution question.
Did you miss my immediate next sentence, where I made it clear that I was speaking in the abstract, not to any specific case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2004 3:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by robinrohan, posted 12-15-2004 4:55 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 116 of 136 (168657)
12-15-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by robinrohan
12-15-2004 4:55 PM


There's nothing unreasonable about being uncertain about abiogenesis and certain about evolution.
Maybe I don't understand. When you say "abiogenesis", what are you talking about?
Whether or not the origin of life is entirely chemical, or the result of supernatural intervention breathing the spirit of life into the nostrils of a man shaped from clay; it's still life from lifelessness, or "abiogenesis". So when you say that you don't believe in abiogenesis, to me you're saying that you don't believe life has an origin at all, which would be stupid, because we know that life is here now, but has not always been. Therefore it must have an origin.
What do you really mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by robinrohan, posted 12-15-2004 4:55 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by robinrohan, posted 12-15-2004 5:10 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 118 of 136 (168662)
12-15-2004 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by robinrohan
12-15-2004 5:10 PM


I'm uncertain that non-life by itself can produce life.
Well, hell, when it comes to that, so am I. But that's not at all the impression your previous posts have given me. I guess we just had a failure to communicate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by robinrohan, posted 12-15-2004 5:10 PM robinrohan has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 134 of 136 (196702)
04-04-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Legend
04-04-2005 12:02 PM


what illusion? how? the code behind this page (html / cgi script) is as unchanging as they come.
I think he's talking about the fact that if you're viewing this on a CRT monitor, you're not seeing a static image, but rather a sweeping electron beam energizing phosphorus pixels so fast that it paints the whole image upwards of 60 times a second.
LCD displays don't really work that way, I understand.
And if you're viewing a moving image, then you're seeing about 30 different still images a second, which blur into an illusion of motion (persistence of vision, etc.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Legend, posted 04-04-2005 12:02 PM Legend 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