Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 3:50 PM
28 online now:
CosmicChimp, GDR, JoeT, PaulK, PurpleYouko, ringo, Taq (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,830 Year: 9,866/19,786 Month: 2,288/2,119 Week: 324/724 Day: 49/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Distinguishing Baramins
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3205 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 61 of 80 (169518)
12-17-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by derwood
12-17-2004 4:50 PM


Re: baraminology is crap pseudoscience
Ok, but it's not "up" for me. I am very very very concerned for the failure of a leading herpetologist, Kraig Adler, to notice my ability to discern possible herpetological speciation. It is possible that this is ONLY a symptom of what Richard Lewontin drew attention to at the end of the 60s but seeing how discussions on unisexual amby(bly) stoma's has changed since this time I am willling to try to use the seperations that creationists might provide to get some more from the cold blooded dichtomies that seem to be used more against creationists than FOR the creatures themselves. Of course I perfer the warm-blooded kind but a job is a job. You have some interesting observations but crap sometimes migt be the new rap muse.

The citing of scrripture I take it to have been a means to try to self-unify the differences among baraminologists. On geographically associating the various logical categories of baramins I have committed myself to a stake in the empirics no matter how consensus reaches the larger community but something from nothing it was not.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-17-2004 05:02 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by derwood, posted 12-17-2004 4:50 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 62 of 80 (173276)
01-03-2005 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by derwood
12-17-2004 4:50 PM


Re: baraminology is crap pseudoscience
Since Scriptures clearly imply that humans were specially created (Genesis 1:26-272:7, 22), and thus phylogenetically distinct from other organisms, we utilize the human-nonhuman primate relationship as a control.
This will be of interest later.

i don't know much on the subject of phylogeny, but that was just so totally absurd that it made me laugh, uncontrollably .almost as much as brad's diagram above. did you really need to keep reading to figure out they were a tad biased?

Forcing the data to fit a preconceived notion based on a metaphysic produces statistically significant error.

if i had a quote book, that would go in it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by derwood, posted 12-17-2004 4:50 PM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 01-03-2005 11:59 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3205 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 63 of 80 (173424)
01-03-2005 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by arachnophilia
01-03-2005 3:38 AM


Re: baraminology is crap pseudoscience
Actually the idea of using it as a "control" is a very good one else the bteen theology that IrishRockhound and TC might moderate equitably elsewhere might tend to bias in the creationist direction. Laughing is a symptom. My diagram could possibly put Wise in a YaleMan rather than being Harvard2 as corneLL is sometimes labELLed. This would be a dent against creationism if that happened. I am letting the cookie crumble without playing God. I didnt think it would fall that way and as long as laughter is what EvC called up for service i doubt that Tc'S and IR's good intention can free willy any better. I hope this observation is off mark. I realized however when reading Agassiz's life history that the internet facilitates the idea the of rate changes faster than one can navigate the labrinth of either direction but this was mediated by the difference of dynamcis and kinematics but as long as evolution is mostly concieved in terms of probablisms it will be difficult to show that the contingency was already a priori divided. I might be mistaken about the fusion of Croizatvicariance and Discontinuity Systematics but I would like to see more intricate talk than we have accomplished here V wise so far.

You see, if the control is "set up" properly it enables the worker to avoid the ambigous biological psychology difference between anthropologies vs culturalities. Gladyshev feels confident that sexual and social hierarchies are entailable by divide and rule phenomenologically but should the noumena negatively exist being in the subject of thermostat and SEX ALSO (it may not) be constitutive inherently therin not only would such a control be sufficient it would be necessary. Creeping things arose!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2005 3:38 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by derwood, posted 01-05-2005 10:10 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 64 of 80 (174054)
01-05-2005 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Brad McFall
01-03-2005 11:59 AM


Re: baraminology is crap pseudoscience
Controls are nice and a good idea when used appropriately.

However, declaring Scripture to be a good source of scientific control is not only idiotic, it is intellectually fraudulent in my opinion.

Relying on this criterion forces the creationist to concoct ad hoc just-so stories every time a pair of baramina that are 'known' to be related have a larger baraminic distance than do humans and chimps.

Standard creationist pseudoscience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 01-03-2005 11:59 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Brad McFall, posted 01-12-2005 11:11 AM derwood has responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3205 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 65 of 80 (176226)
01-12-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by derwood
01-05-2005 10:10 AM


Re: baraminology is crap pseudoscience
Control of SCIENCE and control of scientists are two different things. I suggested scripture was a means to organize the discrete community of discontinuous thinkers of the morphospace. I have reached the conclusion that MODERN 1900 science FAILED to incorporate biology into it's DYNAMICS. Control of the difference of process and system IS NEEDED. I was not suggesting that this change MUST occurr through reorganization of creationist curricula as I wouldagree that a minority group of scientists ought never to dictate for all and this was not how I would have thought the change would occurr. If baraminologists can suggest algortithms that novelly combine morphospace in a posteriori ways that better grade up this failure then I dont think it matters should the people doing the work are those who go to Church or not. Actually, had I myself not be failed by the current pedagogic system I would have thought that science was compentant itself to DO THE WORK! The reliance on non-linear and less non-equilibrium modes of thought have caused the problem that by itself SHOULD NOT have failed a student such as myself. That it did only point the fact that the scientists but no the science needs change. The problem is with the scientists at the top of the "food chain", the elite, whom every one HAS to read etc. Imagine if I WAS THE elite! Someday I will have to take Carl Zimmer to task for wasting THIS generation with "contradictions" over a or the GOD gene. According to Gladyshev the sense I recognize and I could get Z's words to mirror, FIND NO CONTRADICTION. Yes DETERMINING the equilibrium in a potentially vicariant situation is more work than fiding a computer bug but I find that chance evolution FAILED and should this not be rectified with supramolecular chemistry etc nanotechnology will not reveal its errors until there is a systemic ecological catastrophe, in addition to the discussion of global warming. Besides, if creationists are to make these advances, then they will be for everyone, regardless. I had hoped that people here would not be as pesimistic as they are for thier is plenty of positive work that can be done.

I am not in a place to work in the lineage response specifically. The last time I gave this thought some attention I was working up Croizat's notion of Occam's Razor and his chapter on Panbiogeography and Catholocism. The analysis I have done would enable me to make some comments but I do not have all of my materials during this winter break. You however need the synthesis and this depends ON THE ACTUAL biogeographic material in the literature as well. I have not done a through enough literature search of that. If you are serious

NO ONE HAS BEEN THIS SERIOUS ABOUT THE CREATIONIST INTEREST I GIVE SO FAR HERE

please append ONE further post indicating that you will more than follow in the mode of ALL other posters to me here and that you will follow up as I continue with THAT. That specifically COULD involve discussions of computer programs used to determine various distances but first we must air ALL the theoretical possibilites. If you are only interested in still saying the word "Crap" dont bother.

I am suggesting that EVOLUTIONISTS have cashed in their own TRUE historical uncertainty for ad hoc, arbitary, AND capricious faiiling of students. That is against the law. That is my claim it is prior to discussion to truth claims IN science for if there are no scientists there can be no science and if your position does not afford me BEING one, then you are not in the position to let EvC talk substitute.

That would be a mistake and false on your part, as I have already, used, EVC to advance Science, and I can show that it has more value than all of Zimmer's ENGLISH combined, whether you recognize it or not. If Baramin's go the way of phlogiston that is ok with me, but my INTUITION, the likes of which Russel denied to futher/future science by not taking Cantor's marginal notes seriously (or my many posts here for example), exists, and should I die, I only hope I am able to dismeniate the discipline that I have used to achieve what I KNOW.

We do not look at organisms as wet enough. There is too much machine in the man and not enough machinations. Baramins provide a further division of the soma so that we can get more water into view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by derwood, posted 01-05-2005 10:10 AM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by derwood, posted 01-14-2005 9:22 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 66 of 80 (176929)
01-14-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Brad McFall
01-12-2005 11:11 AM


Re: baraminology is crap pseudoscience
Well, I once decraled that I would not read, much less respond, to Brad's often bizarre posts, but what the heck - I am really bored.

quote:
Control of SCIENCE and control of scientists are two different things. I suggested scripture was a means to organize the discrete community of discontinuous thinkers of the morphospace. I have reached the conclusion that MODERN 1900 science FAILED to incorporate biology into it's DYNAMICS. Control of the difference of process and system IS NEEDED. I was not suggesting that this change MUST occurr through reorganization of creationist curricula as I wouldagree that a minority group of scientists ought never to dictate for all and this was not how I would have thought the change would occurr.

The above is utterly incomprehensible and those few segments that I could decipher were irrelevent.
The issue was using Scripture as a source of experimental control.
What FAILING to incorporate bioogy into science's DYNAMICS has to do with that is a mystery.
quote:

If baraminologists can suggest algortithms that novelly combine morphospace in a posteriori ways that better grade up this failure then I dont think it matters should the people doing the work are those who go to Church or not.



It has nothing to do with going to church, as you should have understood. It has to do with using the bible as the ultimate arbiter of science. It is about using the bible as a framework within which all scientific endeavors must fit, and whose experiments must all support a precopnceived conclusion.

If you think that is somehow better than what actual scientists do, then you are as wacky as I have thought all along.

quote:

Actually, had I myself not be failed by the current pedagogic system I would have thought that science was compentant itself to DO THE WORK!


I'm noit sure the failure was pedagogical...

quote:

The reliance on non-linear and less non-equilibrium modes of thought have caused the problem that by itself SHOULD NOT have failed a student such as myself.



Wel, aren't you special? Your argument seems to be against the educational system. As such, what on earth are you doing defending pseudoscience?
quote:

That it did only point the fact that the scientists but no the science needs change. The problem is with the scientists at the top of the "food chain", the elite, whom every one HAS to read etc.



Like whom?
Newton? Einstein? Koch?
Those bad, bad people?
quote:

Imagine if I WAS THE elite!



Well, let's see....
Nobody would be able to understand a thing...
Writing would be incompresenhible gibberish, writen in stream-of-consciousness babble...
Sounds great!
quote:

Someday I will have to take Carl Zimmer to task for wasting THIS generation with "contradictions" over a or the GOD gene.



Please do. I'm sure all will be transfixed by your astute observations.
quote:

According to Gladyshev the sense I recognize and I could get Z's words to mirror, FIND NO CONTRADICTION. Yes DETERMINING the equilibrium in a potentially vicariant situation is more work than fiding a computer bug but I find that chance evolution FAILED and should this not be rectified with supramolecular chemistry etc nanotechnology will not reveal its errors until there is a systemic ecological catastrophe, in addition to the discussion of global warming.



Computer bug... chance evolution fails... global warming..

Riiight! I see it all clearly now!

If you are so smart, why then did you refer to "chance evolution"?

quote:

Besides, if creationists are to make these advances, then they will be for everyone, regardless. I had hoped that people here would not be as pesimistic as they are for thier is plenty of positive work that can be done.



I sincerely doubt that creationmists wioll be making any advaces anywhere. Relying on the bible as their arbiter of scientific truth hasd all but guaranteed that.
quote:

I am not in a place to work in the lineage response specifically. The last time I gave this thought some attention I was working up Croizat's notion of Occam's Razor and his chapter on Panbiogeography and Catholocism.



Wow. Sounds groundbreaking.
quote:

The analysis I have done would enable me to make some comments but I do not have all of my materials during this winter break. You however need the synthesis and this depends ON THE ACTUAL biogeographic material in the literature as well. I have not done a through enough literature search of that.


Synthesis of what again?

Catholocism and something? Why on earth would anyone need that?
Are you on something?

quote:

If you are serious

NO ONE HAS BEEN THIS SERIOUS ABOUT THE CREATIONIST INTEREST I GIVE SO FAR HERE



I amnot the least bit interewsted in your inane ramblings supporting creationmist pseudoscience and fraud.
quote:

please append ONE further post indicating that you will more than follow in the mode of ALL other posters to me here and that you will follow up as I continue with THAT. That specifically COULD involve discussions of computer programs used to determine various distances but first we must air ALL the theoretical possibilites. If you are only interested in still saying the word "Crap" dont bother.



Well, baraminology IS crap, so I don't know what exactly you think you can offer. It appears that what you want to discuss really has no relevance to it.
quote:

I am suggesting that EVOLUTIONISTS have cashed in their own TRUE historical uncertainty for ad hoc, arbitary, AND capricious faiiling of students.



Failing of students? What the hell are you talking about?
quote:

That is against the law.



What is?
quote:

That is my claim it is prior to discussion to truth claims IN science for if there are no scientists there can be no science and if your position does not afford me BEING one, then you are not in the position to let EvC talk substitute.


What, YOU being a scientist?

Well, at the very least, a scientist needs to be able to communicate effectively, at least to his or her peers. I cannot decipher one united train of thought in your posts. I have no idea what your position is. I have no idea what do and do not support (except for your silly reference to 'chance evolution').
If you cannot get your points across is an understandable way, then what good are you?

quote:

That would be a mistake and false on your part, as I have already, used, EVC to advance Science, and I can show that it has more value than all of Zimmer's ENGLISH combined, whether you recognize it or not.



I have no clue what you are talking about.
quote:

If Baramin's go the way of phlogiston that is ok with me, but my INTUITION, the likes of which Russel denied to futher/future science by not taking Cantor's marginal notes seriously (or my many posts here for example), exists, and should I die, I only hope I am able to dismeniate the discipline that I have used to achieve what I KNOW.


What DO you know?

quote:

We do not look at organisms as wet enough. There is too much machine in the man and not enough machinations. Baramins provide a further division of the soma so that we can get more water into view.



What the fuck are you talking about? Wet? Water?
quote:

Control of SCIENCE and control of scientists are two different things.



Who said anything about control? Why, YOU DID.
quote:

I suggested scripture was a means to organize the discrete community of discontinuous thinkers of the morphospace. I have reached the conclusion that MODERN 1900 science FAILED to incorporate biology into it's DYNAMICS. Control of the difference of process and system IS NEEDED. I was not suggesting that this change MUST occurr through reorganization of creationist curricula as I wouldagree that a minority group of scientists ought never to dictate for all and this was not how I would have thought the change would occurr. If baraminologists can suggest algortithms that novelly combine morphospace in a posteriori ways that better grade up this failure then I dont think it matters should the people doing the work are those who go to Church or not. Actually, had I myself not be failed by the current pedagogic system


I know, you already wrote all this above.

quote:

I would have thought that science was compentant itself to DO THE WORK! The reliance on non-linear and less non-equilibrium modes of thought have caused the problem that by itself SHOULD NOT have failed a student such as myself. That it did only point the fact that the scientists but no the science needs change.


You also wrote all of this before, too. Up your dosage maybe?

quote:

The problem is with the scientists at the top of the "food chain", the elite, whom every one HAS to read etc. Imagine if I WAS THE elite! Someday I will have to take Carl Zimmer to task for wasting THIS generation with "contradictions" over a or the GOD gene. According to Gladyshev the sense I recognize and I could get Z's words to mirror, FIND NO CONTRADICTION. Yes DETERMINING the equilibrium in a potentially vicariant situation is more work than fiding a computer bug but I find that chance evolution FAILED and should this not be rectified with supramolecular chemistry etc nanotechnology will not reveal its errors until there is a systemic ecological catastrophe, in addition to the discussion of global warming. Besides, if creationists are to make these advances, then they will be for everyone, regardless. I had hoped that people here would not be as pesimistic as they are for thier is plenty of positive work that can be done.
I am not in a place to work in the lineage response specifically. The last time I gave this thought some attention I was working up Croizat's notion of Occam's Razor and his chapter on Panbiogeography and Catholocism. The analysis I have done would enable me to make some comments but I do not have all of my materials during this winter break. You however need the synthesis and this depends ON THE ACTUAL biogeographic material in the literature as well. I have not done a through enough literature search of that. If you are serious

NO ONE HAS BEEN THIS SERIOUS ABOUT THE CREATIONIST INTEREST I GIVE SO FAR HERE

please append ONE further post indicating that you will more than follow in the mode of ALL other posters to me here and that you will follow up as I continue with THAT. That specifically COULD involve discussions of computer programs used to determine various distances but first we must air ALL the theoretical possibilites. If you are only interested in still saying the word "Crap" dont bother.

I am suggesting that EVOLUTIONISTS have cashed in their own TRUE historical uncertainty for ad hoc, arbitary, AND capricious faiiling of students. That is against the law. That is my claim it is prior to discussion to truth claims IN science for if there are no scientists there can be no science and if your position does not afford me BEING one, then you are not in the position to let EvC talk substitute.

That would be a mistake and false on your part, as I have already, used, EVC to advance Science, and I can show that it has more value than all of Zimmer's ENGLISH combined, whether you recognize it or not. If Baramin's go the way of phlogiston that is ok with me, but my INTUITION, the likes of which Russel denied to futher/future science by not taking Cantor's marginal notes seriously (or my many posts here for example), exists, and should I die, I only hope I am able to dismeniate the discipline that I have used to achieve what I KNOW.

We do not look at organisms as wet enough. There is too much machine in the man and not enough machinations. Baramins provide a further division of the soma so that we can get more water into view.


Wow...

Trippindicular, man....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Brad McFall, posted 01-12-2005 11:11 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Brad McFall, posted 01-20-2005 7:04 AM derwood has responded

    
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 67 of 80 (177689)
01-16-2005 10:10 PM


Hello Brad!
Good to see you active still since your dissapearance from the NAiG board. Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year to you mate.

You said:

Brad: I suggested scripture was a means to organize the discrete community of discontinuous thinkers of the morphospace.

I would like to ask you for your reason for choosing Christian scriptures as a means of organisation as opposed, say to Vedic, Islammic, or even Buddhist scriptures.

What makes Christian (or JUdaeo-Christian if you like) scripture better than all the others?

Your familiarity with it?
Your faith in it?
Or some other less subjective reason?

Look forward to your reply.

Cheers


Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 01-19-2005 3:33 PM MiguelG has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3205 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 68 of 80 (178624)
01-19-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by MiguelG
01-16-2005 10:10 PM


Re: Hello Brad!
I too, like Nosy, was somewhat to more or less impressed by SPLx's post above but it was him, not me that referred to "scripture" first. I just tried to glean from extra EVC internet material what might have been his reason for introducing that into his CRITICISM of actual baraminological literature.

There is reason to consider CHRISTIAN influence here, but I must say your question, this, of YOURS, has already been asked of me on the web especially at Rhain's pet MSN c/e site I once posted on BEFORE they opened up TOO many slots of any kind of opinion on the fact of religion whether biologically based or not. SO instead of such a broad cyber response I will start to narrow/winnow down to focus on SPLX's immediately preceeding since unlike HIM, I am not bored, only mortal with many pressing obligations and obediances.

Here is why Christian fluency is not contraindicated,
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-193a.htm
where was

quote:
Although we have a certain amount of empathy with the anti-Big-Bang astronomers, they are not Biblical creationists. They do not believe in creation, or any kind of beginning at all.

Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. 6

They have to recognize the entropy law, of course, which would indicate the whole universeeven the very structure of matterto be decaying. Consequentlylike the Big Bang theoriststhey have to assume various kinds of "fudge factors" to keep the universe evolving.

Fred Hoyle, for example, postulated in his original Steady-State theory, that hydrogen atoms were being continually "created" out of nothing. Some of the plasma cosmologists think that Prigogine's "order-out-of-chaos" theory can provide the solution.

All such notions are devoid of experimental proof, of course. Yet the universe is definitely running down, and this fact surely points to some kind of beginning.

That is apparently why some Christians


This is INDISTINGUISHABLE as far as I can discern (help me in in case you see this otherwise appropo etc)from Gladyshev's
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=15&t=226&m=27#27
WHERE IS

Unfortunately, this concept, which, in a sense, contradicts the principles of science itself [5, 6], was supported by many researchers. Owing to efficient publicity, these colleagues were convinced by hardly comprehensible (in physical terms) formulas and doubtful argumentation. In my opinion, the supporters of Prigogine's theory were, in a sense, deceived. Although Prigogine's theory proved an impasse, it still has its followers. Nevertheless, no numerical data obtained from either experiment or observation have confirmed the theory even at the qualitative level [20, 22]. Moreover, many physicochemical processes of the formation of spatially periodic structures (which Prigogine and his coauthors regarded as dissipative) were explained long ago in terms of the thermodynamic models of quasi-equilibrium systems (without involving the concept of dissipative structures). It is generally known that W.Ostwald (1897) used the notion of supersaturation to explain the existence of such systems in nature.

ITHINK that the failure of Boltzman as recovered by Georgi in this article between function and energy came from Ludwig NOT heeding Fourier's THEORY OF HEAT Section I. Statement of the Object of the Work
7. In the next place it is to be remarked, that during the cooling, a certain quantity of heat escapes, at each instant, through the external surface, and passes into the medium. The value...and of the time t which has elasped. It is required to determine these functions."

It will take me some effort to enlarge on this but here is the preVIEW AS i BEGIN TO look at SPLx's bored response.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-19-2005 15:45 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by MiguelG, posted 01-16-2005 10:10 PM MiguelG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by MiguelG, posted 01-24-2005 12:35 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3205 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 69 of 80 (178848)
01-20-2005 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by derwood
01-14-2005 9:22 AM


Re: baraminology is crap pseudoscience
It IS NOT dung. It IS NEEDED in HERPETOLOGY lest computer models do in biology what Math did for Fourier. Unfortunately there is NOT a current biological determinism despite my constant inclination to the 19th century view. I already contributed. Thanks for begining to read at me. There is still a way to go if you wish to understand HOW I think that minimal spanning trees as Gibbs's functionals ARE what Croizat OBSERVERED. I might be wrong. Nonetheless the discontinuity of baramins (poly) etc is not counter indicated as far as the track width is concerned with the non-Catholic parts of Occams Razor applied to clade alogrithms.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#discussion

Karl got his biggest first dose of biology from me. If you or Mark or someone else would prefer I respond directly to Zimmer's content first, then go for it. He was an ENGLISH major first and foremost. I think that WORDS are not going to get across the changes that I am completing on line whether you have it followed or not. If you dont like the word "control" use the word "governor" it will do just the same by me. Where creation science is, is where Kant compared triangle sides and alegbraic thought manipulations BUT IN MORPHOSPACE! without this thought your reponse is not boring but just making a hole where none was.

Please compare any and all images of Zimmer
http://www.carlzimmer.com/
with my various pics on EVC and you can learn I have a much more physical linkage where he uses but bad narrative or at best what is already available.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-20-2005 15:47 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by derwood, posted 01-14-2005 9:22 AM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by derwood, posted 01-21-2005 4:13 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 70 of 80 (179393)
01-21-2005 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Brad McFall
01-20-2005 7:04 AM


Re: baraminology is crap pseudoscience
Yes, baraminology is dung pseudoscience.

All of your stream of consciousness protestations cannot change that simple fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Brad McFall, posted 01-20-2005 7:04 AM Brad McFall has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-21-2005 6:19 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4195 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 71 of 80 (179430)
01-21-2005 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by derwood
01-21-2005 4:13 PM


in MORPHOSPACE, no one can hear you MORPHOSCREAM
All of your stream of consciousness protestations cannot change that simple fact.

Well obviously you just don't get it, because you didn't complete your algebraic thought manipulations IN MORPHOSPACE!

Duh!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by derwood, posted 01-21-2005 4:13 PM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Brad McFall, posted 01-22-2005 6:29 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3205 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 72 of 80 (179748)
01-22-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by pink sasquatch
01-21-2005 6:19 PM


Re: in MORPHOSPACE, no one can hear you MORPHOSCREAM
Thank you so very pink much!!!!!!!!!!!!
I feel a bit vindicated, thanks!

I might be wrong but at least You understood what I was trying to get across. That is all I can eVer ask for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-21-2005 6:19 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by derwood, posted 01-22-2005 8:40 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 73 of 80 (179789)
01-22-2005 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Brad McFall
01-22-2005 6:29 PM


Re: in MORPHOSPACE, no one can hear you MORPHOSCREAM
All I can say is....

Wow....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Brad McFall, posted 01-22-2005 6:29 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Brad McFall, posted 01-23-2005 9:27 AM derwood has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3205 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 74 of 80 (179884)
01-23-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by derwood
01-22-2005 8:40 PM


Re: in MORPHOSPACE, no one can hear you MORPHOSCREAM
I just want us not to "waste" time as Richard said.

http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Kurt_Wise

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html

quote:
It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution.

WE CAN AND DO MAKE A DIFF- long live evc

One should try or understand that it is a "trick" of words (as is the whole "devil's chaplin" when Dawk said, "no sensible limit". There is and was. This is only part of the elite's, say Weinberg's, defense that the religious QUESTION is without SENSE. What was needed instead of the social comment was a better science of the maths of limits. THat's all. It was prejudice in words. Sorry to say.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-23-2005 09:31 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by derwood, posted 01-22-2005 8:40 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 75 of 80 (180084)
01-24-2005 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Brad McFall
01-19-2005 3:33 PM


I'm not following you Brad.....
....but I'm not feeling all that sharp this Monday afternoon so forgive my obtuseness.

I believe that the subject under discussion is baraminology?

I've tried following your train of thought without much success as you seem to be wandering into the area of cosmology rather than biology.

My question was for your own personal reason for adopting a Judaeo/Christian outlook on the subject of taxonomy.

Could you perhaps couch your response in the terminology you would use for your own students? (Am I correct in understanding you are a high school teacher?).

Cheers mate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 01-19-2005 3:33 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Brad McFall, posted 01-24-2005 7:12 AM MiguelG has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019