Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

quote:

---

Originally posted by David unfamous:
I've only just takn a look into this thread, so I'd like to be told what differentiates us from other animals.

---

You and apparently everyone participating that does not have religion-based preconceived and inflexible notions...

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Here are but a few differences that embody the immense chasm that separates us from the beasts:

---

All of your 'chasm' is accomplished by one (maybe two) things - an enlarged neocortex, which is most likely (we will know soon) the result of develomental gene mutations.Your subjective litany of our 'uniqueness' is no evidence or justificiation for not considering us to be animals as per the definitioon I provided earlier.Emotional rhetoric and subjective opinions have no place in this discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Hi SLPx,

​

Somehow the current discussions have almost dropped dead in their tracks i.e. no arguments about molecular bio, pop. gen. etc etc...I am starting to miss Peter Borger. That we are even in a debate over whether humans are animals completely and sadly verifies the title you chose for this thread.

​

Cheers,
M

---

Indeed!I do wonder what happened to the resident megalomaniac....

Yes, I really wish Borger were here to impress sonnike and put us all in our respective places.He always presented such sound, irrefutable arguments. I am just so humbled by his towering intellect and scientific acumen..Like the time he claimed that a paper that provided evidence that directed mutations do not occur as described by creationists and he pointed that, no, the paper really proved that directed mutations DO happen! Superb!Or the time he claimed that there is an entire field of science dedicated to 'reconsiling' incongruent gene trees and species trees. That he could not demonstrate this does not mean it isn't true - probably just being covered up by the Conspiracy...Or the time that he claimed that there are genes in locus control regions. And extrapolated sequence data from one exon in one gene to the entire genome. Brilliant.Or the time he claimed that a paper indicated that humans and chimps separated 150,000 years ago, when what the paper really said was that humans and the last non-human hominid separated - but they didn't fool Peter!Then the brilliance of the 'creaton' and morphogenic filed hypotheses - yes, to paraphrase the man himself, he is going to change biology, my friends.Make no mistake... change biology, he will...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 12-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

​

if humans = animals
then mathematically, animals = humans.

---

Is it safe to conclude that you have never taken a math class either?Really, this is just getting plain stupid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Sonnike:

​

All nouns are words. Not all words are nouns.

​

Humans may be animals but it does not follow that animals may be human.

---

How true.And yes, some people have class, some do not.Some people have COMMONS SENSE, and many more do not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Hi Percy,
Some thoughts:

​

1. Would the mockery displayed by the experts previously, result in a demotion?

---

Please take a serious, honest look at your previous posts. Ask yourself WHY were you the target of 'mockery'? Ask yourself, Was it something I wrote? If you can find nothing in your posts that you think might have triggered the responses you got, then maybe you really are in the wrong place. A newbies' first few posts determine, at least in my experience, how they are treated by the "old timers". It would seem that posts full of bluster and condemnation accompanied by utterly erroneous statements of implied fact do not sit too well with the 'experts.'

quote:

---

3. "Percy: But demonstrating an ability to engage in productive discussion"...to me, and I admit I'm a novice, that would also mean that the experts should respond with respect and courtesy, without mockery.

---

See above. In addition, you might want to carefully consider the arguemnts you use. Did you really think that your "humans are animals, therefore, animals are humans" schtick was anything other than sophomoric gobbledegook? Does that make sense to you - REALLY make any sense whatsoever?Or did you write it off the top of your head and then, upon realizing that others saw how silly it was, go into defensive mode?

quote:

---

I don't know if it is appreciated the difficulty in discussing matters with "evo-experts", in that they always want "peer-reviewed proof", well the problem lies in that obviously "main stream" science doesn't want to deal with what they call "religious science", so any proof I could offer to back up my claims, would most likely come from an ID reference or a creationist reference.

---

There is nothing to deal with. Any "proof" you could offer that is suposedly "religious science", whatever that measn, form creatinist of ID sources would not BE science. Am I trying to define creationism out of existence? Not at all. Post a link as support for a claim. Be prepared, however, to explain it. And if (when) the support is shown to be in error or otherwise wanting, be prepared to accept it. I say be prepared to explain it because if you cannot do this, how can you be so sure that what you are lining to is correct?

quote:

---

My basis in this thread has been to attempt to show, that when you state something at a basic level, it doesn't seem to make sense, this has been ridiculed.

---

That is because what you wrote does not follow logically or sensibly from the premises that you were attempting to denigrate.

quote:

---

I maintain that even the most advanced and difficult scientific scenario, should and could be explained in simpler terms, and the failure to do so, is in my opinion, a diversion to avoid illuminating obvious flaws.

---

Of course, one should dumb down the concept in a manner that at least is a genrally correct reflection of the concept."Humans are animals, therefore, animals are human" is so utterly devoid of logic or sense that it cannot be considered a legitimate.. anything! That was presented in response to the several definitions of 'animal' presented to you demonstrating that humans are animals and contrary to your repetitive insistence that because humans do certain things that we are not animals.Rubbish.Your pigheaded refusal to acknowledge event he baselessness of your 'syllogism' deserved the wrath it got.

quote:

---

I personally, would sooner have a forum as we have now, but simply agree that we will treat each other with respect and avoid ad hominem responses. If an opponent feels a question or statement is, in their opinion, childish, then simply choose not to respond.

---

That sounds all well and good. However, in my experience, when a creationist presents something that is not responded to, the creationist then uses that fact to claim that there was no response because the "evo" couldn't handle it and that therefore it must be true.
That is fallacious.The easiest, best way to avoid getting crushed is to simply stop making ridiculous posts.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sonnikke:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

... A newbies' first few posts determine, at least in my experience, how they are treated by the "old timers"...

---

I would have thought the "old timers" would have the experience to treat everybody with respect.[/quote] Respect must be earned. When a person's first few posts on a board like this contain condemnations, accusations, the regurgitating of baseless nonsense, how much respect does that poster deserve? It is a two-way street, believe it or not. I disagree utterly with "True Creation" and "Tranquility Base", but I respect them and when I respond to them, I (usually) do so respectfully. Thus far, there are several posters that I have yet to find reason to do so with.

quote:

---

quote:

---

.. Did you really think that your "humans are animals, therefore, animals are humans" schtick was anything other than sophomoric gobbledegook? Does that make sense to you - REALLY make any sense whatsoever?

---

I explained that earlier, I was trying to make an obvious point. If you were so offended simply ignore it, it shouldn't undermine your position.

---

Your 'point' was demolished by several people. It did not offend me in the least. The 'point' I got out of it was your inability to apply standards and criteria in an unbiased, objective manner. Like many creationists, your beliefs supercede objective reality.
Humans ARE animals, regardless of whether or not you like to think so.
And even if you really were trying to make what seems to you like an obvious point, you should have been able to see the stupidity of your syllogism.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is nothing to deal with. Any "proof" you could offer that is suposedly "religious science", whatever that measn, form creatinist of ID sources would not BE science...

---

That was the point I made, and you just verified it. Creationists are in a no-win situation with you evo's.

---

But not for the reasons you probably think. What is "religious science"? From what I gather - and from what I have read - "religious science" is the type of "science" performed by individuals with prior commitments - sometimes via oath - to certain religiouos concepts. Any discoveries that do not lend credence to or at least fit within the framework established by those beliefs is ignored, rejected, or distorted. Is that hyperbole? Ad hominem? Not at all. I possess several creationist books. I have 4 issues (and have read many others) of CRSQ. And in each one, one can find obvious examples of what I mentioned. For example, in one article in CRSQ, it is assumed that humans are not related via descent to other primates. The authors then perform a phylogenetic analysis on many primate species, using humans as the outgroup. That is, they MAKE humans not related to other primates in their analysis, then they 'concluded' that their assumptions were correct!
THAT is what "religious science" means to me. And as such, it is not science at all.

quote:

---

quote:

---

...Of course, one should dumb down the concept in a manner that at least is a genrally correct reflection of the concept...

---

So at least we agree on one thing.

---

Indeed. So describing evolution as "microbe to man" is such nonsense.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your pigheaded refusal to acknowledge event he baselessness of your 'syllogism' deserved the wrath it got.

---

ad hominem

---

No, exhibition of the truth.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The easiest, best way to avoid getting crushed is to simply stop making ridiculous posts.

---

​

Well, I have learned alot from these past weeks. Some of the posts may seem riduclous to you, but only because you are at the other end of the spectrum.

---

No, one's "worldview" need not enter into the observation of illogic.

quote:

---

If indeed, you were a creationist, you would agree that humans are not animals, and the post would make more sense.

---

If I believed that humans are not animals, your syllogism would still make no sense.

quote:

---

At any rate, let bygones be bygones and keep the civil discussions going.

---

Fine by me. Of course, I will continue to call them like I see them. Don't confuse that with being uncivil.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:
... What is "religious science"? From what I gather - and from what I have read - "religious science" is the type of "science" performed by individuals with prior commitments - sometimes via oath - to certain religiouos concepts. Any discoveries that do not lend credence to or at least fit within the framework established by those beliefs is ignored, rejected, or distorted. Is that hyperbole? Ad hominem? Not at all. I possess several creationist books. I have 4 issues (and have read many others) of CRSQ. And in each one, one can find obvious examples of what I mentioned. For example, in one article in CRSQ, it is assumed that humans are not related via descent to other primates. The authors then perform a phylogenetic analysis on many primate species, using humans as the outgroup. That is, they MAKE humans not related to other primates in their analysis, then they 'concluded' that their assumptions were correct!
THAT is what "religious science" means to me. And as such, it is not science at all.

---

​

Sounds like you just described "evolutionary science". "Prior commitments" to naturalism at all cost. If evidence doesn't match naturalistic belief or "framework", it is "ignored, rejected, or distorted".

---

The difference between what I wrote and your attempt at cooption of what I wrote is that I can present concrete examples supportive of my claims. You can only provide opinion.

quote:

---

ie. utter lack of transitional fossils,

---

I may have asked you before - what would you consider 'transitional' and why?

quote:

---

inability of natural selection (and random mutation) to advance organisms to higher order,

---

Your uninformed opinion is noted and found wanting.

quote:

---

origin of life & matter - mystery, etc.

---

Irrelevant, etc...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-04-2003]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]

quote:

---

For example, in one article in CRSQ, it is assumed that humans are not related via descent to other primates. The authors then perform a phylogenetic analysis on many primate species, using humans as the outgroup. That is, they MAKE humans not related to other primates in their analysis, then they 'concluded' that their assumptions were correct!
THAT is what "religious science" means to me. And as such, it is not science at all.

---

MEGAROTFL! Scott, you are correct that the above would indeed be circular reasoning and not science at all. I’d be curious to know which article in the CRSQ this is.[/quote]Robinson, D. Ashley, and David P. Cavanaugh. 1998a. A quantitative approach to baraminology with examples from the catarrhine primates. CRSQ 34(4):196—208I had an online conversation - or tried to - with Robinson. It was funny - first he denied knowledge of the paper (maybe he was embarrassed?), then, after he admitted it, I asked for the dataset (which the paper says is "available upon request") and he said he had no idea where it was.Guess he didn't want the real truth to be widely known.

quote:

---

But the reason for the MEGAROTFL is the huge dose of irony you threw out yet again. You are on a roll today! You engaged in the same flawed logic when you claimed the Wu article contradicted Haldane’s substitution number:

​

404 Not Found

​

And as such, it is not science at all.

---

You can roll on the floor all you want to, however,it will not make you ill-informed nonsense any more correct.
Nor will it erase that odd tendency creationists have of repeatedly brearing false witness (http://geocities.com/huxter4441/Williams.html).
The 'dilemma' isn't, never was, and for the ten-thousandth time, even if ReMine's numbers are correct (there is little reason to believe they are) no creationist has EVER presented a sginle piece of evidence demonstrating that the concept has merit - indeed, you wrote once that you freley admitted that there is no such evidence.
Of course, that doesn't stop you form repeating it over and over, hawking it at any website you happen upon, and, of course, insulting anyone that doesn't buy your drivel.Overconfidence premised on flawed and selective understandings of real science have always been the Achilles heel of creationists.You are no exception.Find any mutations that reproduce yet?Or explain why selection coefficients alter reproductive capacity?[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-04-2003]

Just to reiterate...

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
For example, in one article in CRSQ, it is assumed that humans are not related via descent to other primates. The authors then perform a phylogenetic analysis on many primate species, using humans as the outgroup. That is, they MAKE humans not related to other primates in their analysis, then they 'concluded' that their assumptions were correct!
THAT is what "religious science" means to me. And as such, it is not science at all.

---

​

MEGAROTFL! Scott, you are correct that the above would indeed be circular reasoning and not science at all. I’d be curious to know which article in the CRSQ this is.

---

Robinson, D. Ashley, and David P. Cavanaugh. 1998a. A quantitative approach to baraminology with examples from the catarrhine primates. CRSQ 34(4):196—208I had an online conversation - or tried to - with Robinson. It was funny - first he denied knowledge of the paper (maybe he was embarrassed?), then, after he admitted it, I asked for the dataset (which the paper says is "available upon request") and he said he had no idea where it was.Guess he didn't want the real truth to be widely known...

One will notice that electrical engineer YEC Fred Williams implied that he would challenge my interpretation of the baraminology paper and yet he never responded after I supplied the citation.That tells me quite a bit.

Is this the Jeptha that thinks that el;ectricity holds atoms together?That all living things die as a result of increasing entropy - which Jep defined as heat - therefore, all living things die from excessive heat?That the expression of recessive traits in inbred populations "disproves" the validity of molecular phylotgenetics?Who believes that unless you are provided with full-text articles that they are invalid sources of information?That molecular phylogenetics relies upon beneficial mutations?Nah...Couldn't be....That guy ran away from OCW.. Got chased off ARN...Could it?By the way - what does secular humanism have to do with the intractible ability to lie, cheat and steal wrouight by a strict fundamentalist creationist belief?

quote:

---

I want to see some transition. Show through a series of fossils how my arms formed. If you cannot do this very simple challenge, then perhaps you could show me any macroevolutionary transitional sequence that all interested parties could agree on. such as this transition: Species A > tran A > Tran B > Tran C > Species B. Then we can take Species B > tran A > tran B > tran C > species C. We can take this as far as you would wish from that first protista that squirmed out of the primordial ooze all the way to my Mom and Dad.

---

Here is a very simple challenge for the YECist.Show me all of the 'transitions' from Adam to me. Tell me who was and where the remains are for my great grandparents, their parents, and theirs, and theirs, etc. all the way back. Heck - you can just do it as far back as the flood just a few thousand years ago - the one that the Chinese and Egyptians just by golly didn't seem to notice - to the incestuous orgy that must have ensued post-flood.If you cannot produce these very simple results, then clearly YECism is false.

sounds OK to me.