What I have noticed about these debates...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Hi zipzip,

​

Do you then also accept the evidence that the observed biodiversity today is a result of evolution or do you reject it as contrary to the bible? If you accept evolution I would say your view is fairly mainstream for a scientist as most are religious (believe in god/gods and accept evolution). But I am not entirely sure of your position (regarding evolution) from your post.

​

Best wishes,
M

​

[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-03-2002]

---

Hi there, Mammathus. Microevolution in the sense of natural selection and mutatgenesis are observable in the laboratory, and I accept these are reasonable (and intuitive) mechanisms by which species change over time.Macroevolution appears to be a more complicated topic because nobody really understands it (that is why it is such fun for folks to argue), but the general premise that speciation occurs somewhere in the mix of microevolutionary processes and vast (and perhaps not so vast) distances of time is also reasonable. The actual tempo of speciation throughout time (as represented in the fossil record) is problematic for me in terms of making me question the actual (molecular) mechanism or set of events by which speciation occurs, however.That said, yes, as a scientist I accept "evolution" as just another natural process in the world. What is germaine to this discussion, though, is that my belief has little to do with a main premise of the Bible, which is that God is the architect of the universe including its natural laws and including me. I think of evolutionary processes as the flow of a sort of computational automaton that has been set with simple rules that determines what complex patterns will develop.For a God outside of time, how could we tell the difference? He creates every snowflake, snailshell and leaf by his authorship of rules that are embedded in the fabric of the universe. His timeless act of creation of these rules, and hence these objects, is as near to him every moment we see pass by as it was when (which it seems would always be *now* to him) he set them in motion by creating natural law. At the same time, we know from the Bible that God is (or wishes to be) our personal saviour and that he intervenes in the world actively as well, in the sense that he desires an interactive relationship with us and makes himself known to us in many ways.Whatever the case, Christianity rises or falls on the specific claims of Christ, not on my imperfect scientific knowledge or my particular interpretation of Genesis. He claims that he is "the way the truth and the life." If he is right, then to reject him out of hand is the most dreadful mistake a person can make. In other words, we are wise to evaluate his claims seriously.In the meantime, science is great fun and fascinating. I do not see the point in arguing with the Bible when it comes to the creation account because I know that the Bible was not designed so that I could validate my hypotheses about the early universe. If the Bible is right everything we learn about the natural world will all fit in the end.

Hi zipzip,Thanks for the clarification. I also do not see an intrinsic conflict between religion and evolution except where one forces a literal interpretation, not just of the bible, but of virtually any religious text. What I find interesting on this board is I have very frequently heard the claim or the implication that acceptance of evolution by default makes one an atheist. Forget that they are confusing abiogenesis with evolution. I have tried to impart the fact that most scientists are not atheists. You are an example on this board and actually most scientists I know follow some religion. This then often leads to the claim that those who claim a faith but also accept evolution are not real Christians, Muslims, etc. etc. Forget that the catholic church accepts evolution for example.ZZ:
Macroevolution appears to be a more complicated topic because nobody really understands it (that is why it is such fun for folks to argue), but the general premise that speciation occurs somewhere in the mix of microevolutionary processes and vast (and perhaps not so vast) distances of time is also reasonable. The actual tempo of speciation throughout time (as represented in the fossil record) is problematic for me in terms of making me question the actual (molecular) mechanism or set of events by which speciation occurs, however.M: I completely agree that macroevolution is more complicated and poorly understood. That is what makes molecular evolution particularly interesting. You can easily break new ground with an investigation. Tempo of evolution is particularly tricky because of the constellation of variables. I am fairly skeptical regarding molecular clocks for example since you are basically measuring the last time a population suffered a bottleneck and not necessarily a speciation event which can throw phylogenies for example, completely off.Cheers,
Mammuthus

Hi Mams,Thanks for the feedback. Here’s mine:

quote:

---

TS:
Emphasis added. To show the inconsistencies of your beliefs. Soooo, if you sincerely believe (NOT!!) people have "the right to live and believe as they wish," you have outed yourself as a HYPOCRITE in the highest order! Congratulations. Are you one of those feminazis?

​

M: In addition to your extremely limited intellect it is not unexpected that you show the other fundie quality of a profound fear of women.

---

What is a fundie? Seriously, first time I heard the word. Is it some kind of insider insult? Because I didn’t see it in my dictionary. The response I received from Shrafinator vindicated any potential error in profiling a typical liberal American woman who indeed may have become the men they’ve always wanted to be

quote:

---

TS:
Hopefully, you aren't one of the people brainwashing little children in public schools by telling them their parents lied to them about the Bible's creation accounts (or Koran or Torah) and "GOD didn't creat YOU, fool!

​

M: As opposed to those who brain wash children into saying that god did this or that without any evidence? Interesting that you included the Torah and Koran..do you teach children the truths of those works as well? Do you preach the koran...and why did you exclude the Vedas? or Native American creation myths? Or Greek mythology?

---

I don’t exclude any creation belief, even your fairy tale of abiogenesis. The issue, however, is whether governmentally funded public schools and research projects should receive public funds for the brainwashing of an unfounded creation belief not within the realm of science. Religious neutrality is the key issue here. Focus on that and also on the following:Abiogenesis is the logical imperative of evolution; that is, your stated creation belief derived from how science sees the early beginnings of evolution. Agreed?By definition, abiogenesis, presently the only creation belief valid for consideration within your evolution paradigm, excludes ID. Moreover, your creation belief in abiogenesis excludes any other reasonable alternative (remember panspermia? Hahaha) or creationist explanation for the undisputed and most convenient abrupt appearance of life. Yes, even the creationists’ stories in the Torah, Koran, and Bible. But that’s the point. You can’t single out any of them for state support. Including your creationist belief in abiogenesis, of which you have NO EVIDENCE, direct or circumstantial.Now, I understand that some are misled that abiogenesis and evolutioin are TWO SEPARATE THINGS like Mams here, AND say we don’t care if God created the first life form (b/c evolution and abiogenesis are irrelevant of course), to wit: EVOLUTION IS NOT ABIOGENESIS.Fine. We can get busy talking about Intelligent Design then!

quote:

---

Let's see you propose a hypothesis of creation that is
1)testable
2) falsifiable
Hint for the layperson laywer..you can't.

---

Your semantics game is tiring. What exact thought do you really wish to convey when the subject of your conclusion is an oxymoron? Moron.But you unwittingly establish my point, Mams. Your abiogenesis creation myth is BUNK, oppressive, and violative of religious freedom! It is also impossible within the scientific paradigm.

quote:

---

TS:
You were created from a swirling dust ball which collapsed on itself into a molten rock where ALL life came from." Such violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a most egregious manner. The irony is that the 1st Amendment is consistent with your above stated belief.
M: Well, thankfully evolution is not abiogenesis and thankfully nobody who studies abiogenesis proposes a "swirling dustball" as the origin of life. You might actually want to inform yourself on the subjects you are opposed to...otherwise your civil case will not only be a profound defeat for you personally, but a huge farce.

---

First, you would never be on any jury of mine. I would pick you apart in a public voir dire and discard you as biased waste. Just like here.As to the swirling dustball, you have some other opinion of how the solar system was created? Love to hear it Mams. What did the solar system look like before it was a solar system? How about the earth? When you say the earth was formed 4.7 billion years ago, was it molten rock or not?
How was it formed? Was it an instantaneous event? What did it look like? Er, a molten rock? Obviously where all life came from. Everybody knows that given enough time the flatulent properties of molten rocks will randomly ejaculate lifehappens all the time just as in the case of life on this planet, this rock of ours gave us life at the earliest possible time! Must have been just perfect conditions for life to create itself in the early stages of our rock.

quote:

---

TS:
For the record, I don't care if you believe like me, or what you believe. I assume you are an adult and can think for yourself. How about allowing others to do the same when it comes to opining on the ultimate question of life? Unless you've been hiding your evidence of abiogenesis? Perhaps following your own advice would be advisable under the circumstances...

​

M: Can you actually show that abiogenesis is taught in school or taught in school as a fact? Evolution is covered (sometimes) but abiogenesis rarely.
I guess you should sue the schools also for teaching geography and that the world is round rather than flat as you are forced to accept?

---

It is obvious there exists an unwittingly conspired effort to ignore the obvious. The second question you asked was just stupid. Even for you Mams. It’s sad you don’t see the issue or, perhaps more accurately, you don’t wish to discuss it.

quote:

---

TS:
Among other things, aren't you one of the many who falsely proclaim that there are valid logical principles like "the God of the gaps fallacy" and "abiogenesis is illogical to evolution"????????

​

M: Demonstrate that the "god of the gaps" is a fallacy. If you have read Darwin (you clearly have not or you are too limited to undestand what he actually wrote) then you would not have to ask why abiogenesis and evolution are two separate topics. I take from your multitude of question marks that you are seriously confused.

---

Sheesh, don’t you get it? YOU were the one who propagated the illogical phrase, the god of the gaps, unknown to any valid logical paradigm followed by the enlightened man. Where is the reasoning behind your conclusions? You are the one saying ‘the god of the gaps fallacy’ is NOT a fallacy, but RATHER valid logic.Well?The onus is upon you to establish the validity of such a phrase, THEN I will show you why it is a fallacy! So, do tell us what is so logical about the god of the gaps fallacy because it really sounds more like a thinly veiled disguise to publish your negative feelings about a belief in God while simultaneously giving two cheers for your atheist/agnostic confederates.Btw, this phrase wouldn’t be uttered in the classroom would it? Just like abiogenesis isn’t taught in the classroom? Because abiogenesis and evolution aren’t necessarily relevant to eachother, correct?.when are you going to explain to us the logical irrelevance of abiogenesis to evolution?Illogical thoughts are hard to articulate so I understand the delay.

quote:

---

TS:
Because those are LIES, and no less so even if you believe them. Folks, there is NO SUCH THING as a "God of the gaps fallacy" -- it is not contained in any known existing logical paradigm. Don't believe me? How about a "peer-reviewed" resource on the logic behind "the God of the gaps fallacy"??? It doesn't exist.

​

M: Why would there be a peer reviewed article on why the gaps argument is intellectually void? That a laywer with no background in science claim that ALL science is lying hardly bears much weight. Contrary to your personal belief, you are irrelevant to science and as a laywer you are professionally irrelevant to the search for the truth.

---

Gross overstatement. An unethical embellishment, if you adhere to any objective standard of ethics. Btw, does science have any codified ethical rules? Will the answer surprise us?But I must be getting to you if you can no longer address the issues and must resort to flamboyant lies to give yourself the illusory appearance of credibility. I never claimed ALL science is lyingPublishing a patently defamatory statement is clear and convincing evidence YOU are lying. Suggestion: stop it. Lying is not good. It’s bad. Do you believe in good and bad?As far as the peer reviewed article, I was just asking you to back up your unfounded assertions with documented peer reviewed literature just as you ask others to do. If you can’t, you can either take a stab at explaining yourself or admit you are illogical to believe such a thing like abiogenesis and evolution are irrelevant to eachother.

quote:

---

TS:
Only a person shamelessly insecure about their own beliefs in God would make such a statement and brainwash children into believing the same. Again, you are a hypocrite and have ZERO credibility. Shame on you!

​

M: As opposed to all the credibility you have?

---

Indeed. I don’t fabricate or acquiesce to illogical catch phrases and pawn them off to the defenseless uninitiated. You do.

quote:

---

TS:
Finally, abiogenesis IS the logical imperative of evolution!!!!!!!

​

M: Up the dosage of your sedative there big boy...take deep breathe and remove the finger from the exclamation point and shift key..there, feel better? Darwin did not say how life began, his theory covers how it developed subsequently. The origin of SPECIES..not the origin of life. That you cannot grasp that says more about the limitations of your intellect and logical abilities than anyone elses.

---

Fine. I’m ignorant. What was the first population? That was one distinct SPECIES that gave rise to other species via evolution, correct? Let’s start from there.

quote:

---

TS: Believe they are irrelevant to eachother if you want, but it is YOU who are being illogical one here and have absolutely NO evidence for the foundation of your belief in evolution.

​

M: Except all the supporting data from multiple different scientific fields. I am sure you have read all of it and base your objections on a thorough knowledge of the subject you oppose

---

Abiogenesis is the foundation of your belief in evolution. You keep getting sidetracked here. Now cough up the supporting data from multiple different scientific fields on abiogenesis.

quote:

---

TS:
Or maybe you can give us a peer-reviewed article i've been asking for ad naseum on the "logical irrelevance of abiogenesis to evolution"?

​

M: Try reading the Origin of Species and figure it out yourself like most people with half a brain have been able to.

---

No, most people have not been able to figure it out. The origin of species says nothing about origins and nothing about the logical irrelevance of abiogenesis to evolution. Hence, discussions such as these. You’ve also yet to explain yourself though on the precise logic behind your ho-hum god of the gaps fallacy insecurities.

quote:

---

TS:
Or, since one does not exist, you can be the first to take a stab at it and WE will peer review it right here!!

​

M: Well, before "we" peer review it let's see if you have any academic credentials...let's see you demonstrate non-random mutation or genomic imprinting of the H19 locus using your profound legal knowledge. It should be easy if you are such an authority on all things scientific.

---

We are talking about logic, not the H19 locus. Focus! You are having a difficult time sticking with the issue. Do you have any credentials in logic?

quote:

---

TS:
Here is your chance to demonstrate your command over logic and make a fool out of anyone who doesn't believe exactly as YOU do. Hypocrite.

​

M: Your post to schrafinator made a fool out of you already..anything further would be redundant.
How disappointing TS...I thought you might bring a novel angle to creationist arguments against evolution with your legal angle. Instead, you are a below average fundie ranter who has absolutely no idea about science and especially evolutionary biology.
But congratulations on being banned faster than anyone else I have seen on this board...you must be proud of your achievement.

---

But I don’t know what a fundie is, perhaps an inside joke? But thanks for the compliment on getting censored by one of your fellow evolutionists. Can you spell b-i-a-s? Anyway, I’m flattered to be censored without specifically being told why! But I never did expect due process from biased censors.Finally, Mams, using big words and meaningless verbiage to insult a lawyer is hardly consistent with your stated belief I am stupid. Again, you’ve impeached yourself. Congratulations!Peace,Ten-sai

Ten-sai,

quote:

---

Abiogenesis is the logical imperative of evolution; that is, your stated creation belief derived from how science sees the early beginnings of evolution. Agreed?

​

Now, I understand that some are misled that abiogenesis and evolutioin are TWO SEPARATE THINGS like Mams here, AND say we don’t care if God created the first life form (b/c evolution and abiogenesis are irrelevant of course), to wit: EVOLUTION IS NOT ABIOGENESIS.

​

Fine. We can get busy talking about Intelligent Design then!

---

So, if the first complex cells were designed, could evolution then occur, a la Behe?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This is like a hammer horror movie....."Return of the son of Jet" or "It came ranting its way through the ether" maybe....Heres an idea Ten-Sai why don`t you calm down with the invective and stop assuming that everyone wants to be a lawyer (believe me most of us don`t) and try posting a logical and concise outline of how you would argue your case were you ever to bring it?I for one could do with a good laugh...*Fundie is a contraction of sorts for fundamentalist, if you really couldn`t work that out are you sure you are as smart as you think you are?*(Oh and "it still moves" - Gallileo)....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ten-sai:
...a typical liberal American woman...

---

Ok just for fun and giggles which of those liberal, American or woman triggers the nazi part of feminazi?It seems fairly idiotic to me that any of them would....

Hi Tensai!Rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

Please adjust the temper of your posts to be consistent with the guidelines. Treat your fellow members with respect instead of hostility or your stay here will be short.Rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines:

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

I think introducing evidence in support of the skepticism represented by your questions might prove helpful. You can't build an entire case on badgering the witness.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

joz,If you know any women like that, please send them my way.I don't want one who's a doormat, like so many I've seen here in the south.------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

Hi Ten-sai,
I see the 24 hour ban did you some good. While the tone of your post is relatively unchanged, you actually provide slightly more content worth debating.TS:
What is a fundie? Seriously, first time I heard the word. Is it some kind of insider insult? Because I didn’t see it in my dictionary.M: You won't find it in the dictionary. It is short for fundamentalist. It can be fundamentalist christian, islamist, etc.TS:
The response I received from Shrafinator vindicated any potential error in profiling a typical liberal American woman who indeed may have become the men they’ve always wanted to beM: What is a "typical American woman"? Why would schraf want to be a man? Are you implying she is more masculine than you? Nothing from her posts indicate a desire for masculinity nor any feeling of inferiority. If you have specific quotes from her post that specify or this or support you claims regarding her please provide them.TS:
I don’t exclude any creation belief, even your fairy tale of abiogenesis. The issue, however, is whether governmentally funded public schools and research projects should receive public funds for the brainwashing of an unfounded creation belief not within the realm of science. Religious neutrality is the key issue here. Focus on that and also on the following:M: Interesting. Moving away from the abiogenesis versus evolution argument briefly, you don't think research into origin of life should be funded? Why specifically? The project proposals go through exactly the same review as any other type of proposal. Or can you propose a scientific test for your creation belief?TS:
Abiogenesis is the logical imperative of evolution; that is, your stated creation belief derived from how science sees the early beginnings of evolution. Agreed?M: Not really agreed. Evolution occurs post-creation and is not responsible for creation. They are independent fields of inquiry. The only connection is that life had to start to then subsequently evolve. Thus, there are theistic evolutionists i.e. made the first life, self replicating molecules what have you and then it evolved naturally.TS:
By definition, abiogenesis, presently the only creation belief valid for consideration within your evolution paradigm, excludes ID.M: Nope. Plenty of people (not myself however) believe god created the first life and that it then evolved. So evolution does not exclude all creation beliefs.TS:
Moreover, your creation belief in abiogenesis excludes any other reasonable alternative (remember panspermia? Hahaha) or creationist explanation for the undisputed and most convenient abrupt appearance of life.M: Undisputed? And what is "most convenient" mean scientifically?TS:
Yes, even the creationists’ stories in the Torah, Koran, and Bible. But that’s the point. You can’t single out any of them for state support. Including your creationist belief in abiogenesis, of which you have NO EVIDENCE, direct or circumstantial.M: As I said, I do not know that abiogenesis is taught in school..and certainly not as a theory. I certainly did not study abiogenesis in school before college. My college courses only dealt with the subject in passing and it was highly tentative. There is federally supported research into the development of self replicating molecules in conditions thought to mimic early Earth conditions but they are doing no more than hypothesis testing. It is highly tentative and there is not theory of abiogenesis.TS:
Now, I understand that some are misled that abiogenesis and evolutioin are TWO SEPARATE THINGS like Mams here, AND say we don’t care if God created the first life form (b/c evolution and abiogenesis are irrelevant of course), to wit: EVOLUTION IS NOT ABIOGENESIS.M: You have not demonstrated that I am the one confused on this point.TS:
Fine. We can get busy talking about Intelligent Design then!M: Fire away. Though I will point out there is an entire forum on this board dedicated to the subject so you might want to begin any discussion there.M previous post:

quote:

---

Let's see you propose a hypothesis of creation that is
1)testable
2) falsifiable
Hint for the layperson laywer..you can't.

---

TS:
Your semantics game is tiring. What exact thought do you really wish to convey when the subject of your conclusion is an oxymoron? Moron.M: You insult aside, you were unable to address this. It is not a semantics game. It is what separates science from pseudoscience/supernatural/mythology etc. Hardly semantics. I take it though that you concede you are unable to propose a hypothesis. Don't feel bad, no creationist ever has and that is why they fail.TS:
But you unwittingly establish my point, Mams. Your abiogenesis creation myth is BUNK, oppressive, and violative of religious freedom! It is also impossible within the scientific paradigm.M: Well, at least you are now making the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution..imagine that. Progress. However, studying life origins is not impossible within a scientific paradigm. However, the conclusions will always be tentative..like with all science.TS:
First, you would never be on any jury of mine. I would pick you apart in a public voir dire and discard you as biased waste. Just like here.M: So far you have only been able to post insults...you have hardly "picked me apart". And it is clear that for you to win a case you would require a jury devoid of experts. But in any case, have fun with the civil suit TS:
As to the swirling dustball, you have some other opinion of how the solar system was created? Love to hear it Mams. What did the solar system look like before it was a solar system? How about the earth? When you say the earth was formed 4.7 billion years ago, was it molten rock or not?M: And this has what to do with the first life form(s)? With a(bio)genesis...not the formation of stars? Or is your claim now that all biological studies have to first explain stellar formation? You seem to confuse a lot of very basic fields of inquiry...not a very good way to prepare for a civil case. Hope you serve your clients better..for their sakes.TS:
How was it formed? Was it an instantaneous event? What did it look like? Er, a molten rock? Obviously where all life came from.M:Feel free to go over to the Big Bang forum...let's see what else you can confuse yourself with...TS:
Everybody knows that given enough time the flatulent properties of molten rocks will randomly ejaculate lifehappens all the timeM:
Extraterrestrial life? Who knows. Life on Earth? Had to have happened at least once.TS:
just as in the case of life on this planet, this rock of ours gave us life at the earliest possible time! Must have been just perfect conditions for life to create itself in the early stages of our rock.M: Nice comic book description of the planetary formation. However, what is "earliest possible time"? Perfect conditions? Why would they have to be perfect. They had to be merely sufficient.

quote:

---

M: Can you actually show that abiogenesis is taught in school or taught in school as a fact? Evolution is covered (sometimes) but abiogenesis rarely.
I guess you should sue the schools also for teaching geography and that the world is round rather than flat as you are forced to accept?

---

TS:
It is obvious there exists an unwittingly conspired effort to ignore the obvious. The second question you asked was just stupid. Even for you Mams. It’s sad you don’t see the issue or, perhaps more accurately, you don’t wish to discuss it.M: I do wish to discuss it..why is the second question stupid? Is it not contrary to a literal interpretation of some religious text that the world is not flat? Doesnt that discriminate against those beliefs? It seems like you have another civil suit on your plate.TS:
Sheesh, don’t you get it? YOU were the one who propagated the illogical phrase, the god of the gaps, unknown to any valid logical paradigm followed by the enlightened man. Where is the reasoning behind your conclusions? You are the one saying ‘the god of the gaps fallacy’ is NOT a fallacy, but RATHER valid logic.Well?M: Actually, YOU brought up god of the gaps so it is up to you to show that it is a fallacy. Also please list all the "valid logical paradigms followed by the enlightened man". This sounds like a babelfish translation of a swedish porn film title.TS:
The onus is upon you to establish the validity of such a phrase, THEN I will show you why it is a fallacy! So, do tell us what is so logical about the god of the gaps fallacy because it really sounds more like a thinly veiled disguise to publish your negative feelings about a belief in God while simultaneously giving two cheers for your atheist/agnostic confederates.M: You brought up the subject, you made assertions based on what you brought up..the onus is upon you to support why god of the gaps is a fallacy or concede (like with a testable hypothesis of creation) that you cannot.
As to the last sentence...I see that you have discounted the theistic evolutionists (atheist/agnostic confederates) and the RCC.TS:
Btw, this phrase wouldn’t be uttered in the classroom would it? Just like abiogenesis isn’t taught in the classroom? Because abiogenesis and evolution aren’t necessarily relevant to eachother, correct?.when are you going to explain to us the logical irrelevance of abiogenesis to evolution?M: Already dealt with it earlier in this post.TS:
Illogical thoughts are hard to articulate so I understand the delay.M: Is that why it took you until now to actually make any kind of point as opposed to the gibberish you were posting in all your earlier messages?M from previous post:

quote:

---

Why would there be a peer reviewed article on why the gaps argument is intellectually void? That a laywer with no background in science claim that ALL science is lying hardly bears much weight. Contrary to your personal belief, you are irrelevant to science and as a laywer you are professionally irrelevant to the search for the truth.

---

TS:
Gross overstatement. An unethical embellishment, if you adhere to any objective standard of ethics. Btw, does science have any codified ethical rules? Will the answer surprise us?M: You did not or could not answer the question. And what is a gross overstatement..that you consider your opinions to be more relevant than they actually are? Or that your profession does not qualify you to define science? Why are either of those unethical statements?TS:
But I must be getting to you if you can no longer address the issues and must resort to flamboyant lies to give yourself the illusory appearance of credibility. I never claimed ALL science is lyingM: Well I must have gotten to you from the beginning as all you were capable of doing from your first post to this one was to hurl insults and posts without any content. You brought up subjects such as the supposed fallacy of the god of the gaps and then have been unable to defend your claims. You could not propose a testable hypothesis of creation. You claim that abiogenesis and evolution are not separate yet cannot support that claim. Other than that you have done nothing but insult anyone you have interacted with. Mark24 repeatedly asked you to defend your claims and you have ignored him. It seems that you are the one lacking credibility.TS:
Publishing a patently defamatory statement is clear and convincing evidence YOU are lying. Suggestion: stop it. Lying is not good. It’s bad. Do you believe in good and bad?M: Ok then you are a liar by your own definition "What exact thought do you really wish to convey when the subject of your conclusion is an oxymoron? Moron."...or your feminazi diatribe against schrafinator...what goes around comes around there TS TS:
As far as the peer reviewed article, I was just asking you to back up your unfounded assertions with documented peer reviewed literature just as you ask others to do. If you can’t, you can either take a stab at explaining yourself or admit you are illogical to believe such a thing like abiogenesis and evolution are irrelevant to eachother.M: Why would there be a peer reviewed article about the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? There is no peer reviewed article on the difference between tampon commercials and the bible either..does that mean both are inextricably entwined? LOL!

quote:

---

M: As opposed to all the credibility you have?

---

TS:
Indeed. I don’t fabricate or acquiesce to illogical catch phrases and pawn them off to the defenseless uninitiated. You do.M: Where and when? And how are you not a "defenseless uninitiated" with regards to science? You have not demonstrated any understanding of science in general or any branch of science specifically.TS:
Fine. I’m ignorant. What was the first population? That was one distinct SPECIES that gave rise to other species via evolution, correct? Let’s start from there.M: Depends on what you are asking. What was the first life form? What was the population that gave rise to the human gene pool? What was the last common ancestor of elephants and manatees?

quote:

---

M: Except all the supporting data from multiple different scientific fields. I am sure you have read all of it and base your objections on a thorough knowledge of the subject you oppose

---

TS:
Abiogenesis is the foundation of your belief in evolution. You keep getting sidetracked here. Now cough up the supporting data from multiple different scientific fields on abiogenesis.M: Maybe repeating fallacies ad nauseaum makes things appear true in the courtroom but not in science...abiogenesis is not the same as evolution. I am not getting sidetracked here.

quote:

---

M: Try reading the Origin of Species and figure it out yourself like most people with half a brain have been able to.

---

TS:
No, most people have not been able to figure it out. The origin of species says nothing about origins and nothing about the logical irrelevance of abiogenesis to evolution. Hence, discussions such as these. You’ve also yet to explain yourself though on the precise logic behind your ho-hum god of the gaps fallacy insecurities.M: LOL!!! Why doesnt the origin of species have anything to say about abiogenesis? Because the theory of evolution is not about abiogenesis. And you overate yourself...most people have been able to figure this out....also please show in which chapter of the origin of species that Darwin had to disprove the god of the gaps fallacy in order to establish the theory. However, it is clear you have not read the book.

quote:

---

M: Well, before "we" peer review it let's see if you have any academic credentials...let's see you demonstrate non-random mutation or genomic imprinting of the H19 locus using your profound legal knowledge. It should be easy if you are such an authority on all things scientific.

---

TS:
We are talking about logic, not the H19 locus. Focus! You are having a difficult time sticking with the issue. Do you have any credentials in logic?M: I am right on target TS. You have consistently claimed that I and other scientists are morons and that the science is would not hold up in court. You also imply that science has to meet a definition of legal evidence. So, I am asking you to demonstrate some very basic biological phenomenon based on the criteria you claim science has to meet. I don't think you can do it..prove me wrong.TS:
Your post to schrafinator made a fool out of you already..anything
further would be redundant.How disappointing TS...I thought you might bring a novel angle to creationist arguments against evolution with your legal angle. Instead, you are a below average fundie ranter who has absolutely no idea about science and especially evolutionary biology.
But congratulations on being banned faster than anyone else I have seen on this board...you must be proud of your achievement.TS:
But I don’t know what a fundie is, perhaps an inside joke?
M: I think I clarified it at the beginning of this post.TS:
But thanks for the compliment on getting censored by one of your fellow evolutionists. Can you spell b-i-a-s? Anyway, I’m flattered to be censored without specifically being told why! But I never did expect due process from biased censors.M: Ah, the paranoid tendency shines through...Actually, the last person banned was an evolutionist (nos482). And then SLPx (another evolutionist) was threatened with a ban for insulting a creationist. Can you actually prove a bias or are you just trying to make yourself feel better for your inability to play nice? Or nursing a persecution complex?TS:
Finally, Mams, using big words and meaningless verbiage to insult a lawyer is hardly consistent with your stated belief I am stupid. Again, you’ve impeached yourself. Congratulations!M: That you find what I say meaningless should suggest to me that you are smart? I have not altered my posting style to suit you either...boy, do you have an oversize ego..LOL! In any case, considering your posts to me, why should you care if I think you are stupid or not? Oh yeah, which big words? Abiogenesis is kind of long but otherwise?Impeached myself? Damn..at least Clinton got oral sex for his impeachment..all I get is a creationist lawyer ranting at me...life is just not fair.cheers,
M[Fixed quoting. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 12-04-2002]

Dear Joz,You said:
try posting a logical and concise outline of how you would argue your case were you ever to bring it?I say:
It's occurring before your very eyes as it is I who conceived the challenge for the evolutionist to post a "logical and concise" outline of the logical irrelevance between abiogenesis and evolution as asserted herein time and again. Similarly, there is an outstanding challenge for the evolutionist to produce a peered reviewed explanation for the irrational reliance on the phrase "god of the gaps fallacy". I challenged because the evolutionist bragged. Logical minds want to see if there is any logical substantive analytical thought processes behind the boastings. Guess there's not. Case closed...J:
*Fundie is a contraction of sorts for fundamentalist, if you really couldn`t work that out are you sure you are as smart as you think you are?*Me:
Then I correctly identified it as an insider insult?Peace,Ten-sai

Ten-sai,Regarding the "god-of-the-gaps fallacy."It is essentially an argumentum ad ignorantium, used by people, usually theists (hence "god" of the gaps) in an attempt to show they are right & science is wrong because the scientific theory in question has knowledge gaps, therefore it is rational to conclude that god is responsible for said gap.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ten-sai,

quote:

---

It's occurring before your very eyes as it is I who conceived the challenge for the evolutionist to post a "logical and concise" outline of the logical irrelevance between abiogenesis and evolution as asserted herein time and again. Similarly, there is an outstanding challenge for the evolutionist to produce a peered reviewed explanation for the irrational reliance on the phrase "god of the gaps fallacy". I challenged because the evolutionist bragged. Logical minds want to see if there is any logical substantive analytical thought processes behind the boastings. Guess there's not. Case closed...

---

Again, what stops life evolving after cellular life has been designed? It would seem from an ID point of view, certainly ID protaganists such as Behe, that the answer is nothing. Hence, abiogenesis is not the "logical imperative of evolution" as you claim.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ten-sai:Here's a little primer on your abiogenesis vs evolution argument. Biochemical evolution. I. Polymerization on internal, organophilic silica surfaces of dealuminated zeolites and feldspars Biochemical evolution II: Origin of life in tubular microstructures on weathered feldspar surfaces Biochemical evolution III: Polymerization on organophilic silica-rich surfaces, crystal-chemical modeling, formation of first cells, and geological cluesStrange, but to me all these articles on abiogenesis are talking chemistry, not biological evolution. Weird, hunh? Maybe you should be considering putting a chemist on the stand...

Thanks for that information Quetzal.That leads me to ask when is something considered in the realm of Chemistry or Biology? Is abiogenisis chemistry or biology?For Ten-sai:If the basis of Evolution involves several different disciplines, then it would seem that the YEC/ID crowd should be required to present new theories for them as well? A blanket statement damning biological theories is not enough to displace Evolution now so how could they redefine chemistry, physics, and others with nothing more than "it does not work"?Also, it is one thing to attack a position, a completely differnt animal presenting your own position. What theories are there on Creationism?One last thing for now, if Evolution is wrong, would that automatically make Creationism right? If so, whose version of creation? Or, could there be another possibility that is neither creation nor evolution?------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

TS:
Logical minds want to see if there is any logical substantive analytical thought processes behind the boastings. Guess there's not. Case closed...M: Case closed...you do not possess a logical mind.TS:
Then I correctly identified it as an insider insult?M: It depends on the context...I was using it as an insult