Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 181 of 214 (378795)
01-21-2007 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by randman
01-20-2007 3:27 PM


Re: uh huh?
Basically you display a classic evo mentality. You assert your model as evidence in order to ignore actual evidence.
This is a lie.
The truth is you have failed to substantiate any equilibrium due to mutations whatsoever.
This is a lie.
In fact, I don't think you even grasp intellectually the concept being discussed here. It's real simple. We observe genetic decreases via microevolutionary processes.
This is, in general, a lie. We see such things sometimes due to such things as reduction of population, but it is not generally true.
You and evos claim that mutations add up to create an equilibrium, but you have failed to demonstrate that.
This is not true. I and others have demonstrated that. Read the links in my post.
Moreover, it's not because there are no factual analysis where you could try. Evos have created models of mutation rates based on molecular clock concepts. You were asked to show that mutaton rates are sufficient to overcome the pressure towards limiting genetic diversity through microevolution.
Instead, you completely ignored that.
This is either a lie, or you have totally failed to understand the model presented. Did you even bother to read the links?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 3:27 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Admin, posted 01-21-2007 9:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 182 of 214 (378796)
01-21-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by randman
01-20-2007 8:24 PM


Re: Admin Decision
I would too, but DA is not interested, and I think that's not me making something up. You guys think I am bad. This guy is absurdly over the top and has clearly indicated he didn't want the kind of discussion, even remotely, that you suggested.
This is a lie. I want you to examine, as carefully as you can, the model of genetics that I've presented to you. Instead, you tell me absurd lies about it. This is not argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 8:24 PM randman has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 183 of 214 (378797)
01-21-2007 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by randman
01-20-2007 3:06 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
I substantiated these points with the TO site thread, which you were invited to, and which you obviously were afraid to debate on.
This is a lie. I am not in the least afraid of you, but so long as we can debate on this thread, I have no interest in debating you elsewhere.
You tell me that I am afraid of debating you when here I am, right here, debating you --- after you begged the moderators to remove me from this thread --- while you are still whining about the moderators reinstating me on this thread --- so EVERYONE READING THIS THREAD KNOWS THAT YOU ARE A LIAR.
How often do I have to explain this?
When you tell lies about what has happened on these forums, everyone who subscribes to these forums can read these forums. So they know that you're lying.
What's the point?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 3:06 PM randman has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 184 of 214 (378802)
01-21-2007 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by randman
01-20-2007 5:25 PM


Re: good comment but...
DA, dictionary definitions are not the same as scientific definitions which can be tested and verifiable. That's a basic concept in science, which you seem unaware of by your response. When someone says there is no "definition", they are referring to a workable, scientific definition of a term that can be understood, verified or at least is theoritical.
The lie that randman told was as follows:
they also fail to offer a definition for "nature" as well; nor "material" or "physical"...
I rebuked his lies by giving definitions.
Of course, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with these vague philosophical concepts, and anyone who pretends that there is a connection is a liar. Nonetheless, randman lied when he claimed that "evos" fail to define these things. I have given definitions.
Of course, these definitions have nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but as only creationist liars pretend that they do, that is your problem, not mine.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 5:25 PM randman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 185 of 214 (378804)
01-21-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by randman
01-21-2007 4:13 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
randman writes:
Yes and no. You admit that God as a concept is natural and so within the realm of science, correct?
No, I wouldn't say that's an accurate summary of my thinking. There is no way I could know whether God is natural or within the realm of science. What I do know is that if God is detectable by us that he is therefore natural and within the realm of science.
People are detecting something in the spiritual arena. You can argue it's just emotions, or you can argue it's Jesus or whatever, but that doesn't mean the thing itself is by definition outside the realm of science and nature.
Yes, this is true. But neither can you assume that it is within the realm of science.
At this point in your message you seemed to understand that our focus was on the spiritual, but you next seemed to forget that and to instead assume I was speaking generally about everything you believe:
You don't really care about science or the advancement of knowledge, you really only care about the advancement of your own ideas. If you cared about science then such fuzzy thinking would be anathema to you.
But here you slip back into the old evo way.....smearing your critics' motives falsely...
But you're thinking is fuzzy about the spiritual. You want science to concede that there is scientifically valid evidence for the spiritual when such evidence does not exist. As I just explained previously, the stories from myths like Troy and Scylla and Charybdis can serve as an impetus to investigate their possible truth, but the myths themselves do not serve as any kind of scientific evidence. And anecdotal stories about appearances of gods and angels can serve as an impetus to investigate the truth of such possibilities, but they do not themselves constitute scientific evidence. Your thinking is fuzzy because you want such evidence accepted as scientific when it clearly isn't.
You see, the evidence of God that you want science to accept is of the same unscientific quality as evidence of many other beliefs that would contradict your belief in God.
Another false smear on your part, and a dumb smear on that, not worthy of a response. Name the evidence I have discussed in a science forum that qualifies as unscientific quality.
Prove your point or withdraw it and apologize, please.
How is discussing Pakicetus, the fossil record, whale fossils, genetics, mutation, definitions of evolution and randomness, Haeckel, peppered moths, quantum physics, etc, etc,.....discussions of unscientific evidence?
You again seem to have forgotten that we're talking about evidence of the spiritual. The quote you provided from me talked about evidence of God and how that evidence is of the same unscientific quality as that for other beliefs in other gods or spirits. There was no mention of Pakicetus or any of that other stuff. Address what I said.
Moreover, though I do discuss how some of the Bible dovetails with factual findings, the simple truth is ID does not make a statement about the nature of the Designer, but is restricted to the concept itself, not theological speculations of what the Designer should and should not do, as evos do all the time.
We're all familiar with ID's bob and weave to avoid addressing the lack of evidence and clear contradictions.
Which is why I am not an evo. Evo models do not match the facts, and evos have presented false data and analysis as facts when they were not, as well as false logic.
Well I guess the only response to bald, unsupported, off-topic declarations is more bald, unsupported, off-topic declarations, but I'll leave that as an exercise for you since you're so good at it. Simply invert your above statement.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by randman, posted 01-21-2007 4:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by randman, posted 01-22-2007 12:17 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 188 by randman, posted 02-09-2007 7:59 PM Percy has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 186 of 214 (378805)
01-21-2007 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dr Adequate
01-21-2007 8:55 PM


Re: uh huh?
Dr Adequate writes:
This is a lie.
I'm surprised and disappointed that you've decided to respond in this way, especially after I spoke up for keeping you here. I told Randman I would suspend you for a week if you continued in the same vein, but this is just beyond the pale. I'm suspending you for a month.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2007 8:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 187 of 214 (378848)
01-22-2007 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
01-21-2007 9:20 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
percy, I only had time to read the post banning DA ....I am heading overseas but will be back in Feb and read and respond to your post and others then.
thanks for your patience

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 01-21-2007 9:20 PM Percy has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 188 of 214 (384031)
02-09-2007 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
01-21-2007 9:20 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
What I do know is that if God is detectable by us that he is therefore natural and within the realm of science.
So if I am positing a concept of God where part of His being and substance is detectable, you admit that this concept of God makes Him natural or partly natural? and so potentially within the scope of science?
But neither can you assume that it is within the realm of science.
If something is detectable by people, why wouldn't it be within the realm of science?
want science to concede that there is scientifically valid evidence for the spiritual when such evidence does not exist.
Really? How would we know if science delves into spiritual areas? Wouldn't the most logical thing to be if we considered what a spiritual tradition claimed about spiritual principles interacting with reality, and then if we see such principles at work, we could say, hey, this looks like we are getting into spiritual realities?
I think if you really studied what spiritual traditions say about reality, and studied QM with an open mind, you would probably agree that QM appears to involve spiritual dimensions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 01-21-2007 9:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 02-10-2007 8:37 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 189 of 214 (384103)
02-10-2007 2:21 AM


Nemesis juggernaut's population genetics thread
If someone wants to see circular reasoning of evos in operation, just check out this thread where nemesis asks.
But you haven't addressed it, and simply saying, "he's wrong, he's all wrong," does nothing to offer your argument. Likewise, RAZD simply saying, "the math is wrong, its all wrong," doesn't explain how or why. If its wrong, I want to be shown why. If anyone can take ReMine's challenge or demonstrate why its wrong, I and ReMine would certainly concede.
http://EvC Forum: Population Genetics -->EvC Forum: Population Genetics
The response of evos is quite predictable.
RAZD doesn't have to explain how or why. The overwhelming abundance of data provides conclusive evidence that common descent is the correct explanation for features in the world that we see around us. Evolution happened, and humans evolved from earlier primates. Any math that shows otherwise is flawed, either in the mathematic manipulations or in the assumptions that went into the model.
In other words, if data does not support ToE, then the data must be wrong because ToE is a fact. This really is the basic approach of evolutionism.
RAZD echoes the same error.
It's wrong because it doesn't explain the facts. That is WHY it is wrong.
No matter what the math is or how it is developed or what assumptions it is based on, evaluation of the math is unnecessary when it doesn' t model reality: it is wrong.
Keep in mind the facts "it" doesn't explain are evo theory. There is no refuting of the math, of the concept on data, but rather because it must be that man evolved from apes naturally, and so any analysis that suggests otherwise must be wrong.....not explaining "reality", better understood as evo doctrine.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 190 of 214 (384141)
02-10-2007 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by randman
02-09-2007 7:59 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
randman writes:
So if I am positing a concept of God where part of His being and substance is detectable, you admit that this concept of God makes Him natural or partly natural? and so potentially within the scope of science?
If you're going to rephrase my position into a form where the existence of God is tacitly assumed, then I can only reject the reformulation.
You originally asked back in Message 176 whether I admitted "that God as a concept is natural and so within the realm of science, correct?" I think one of the most significant flaws in your approach is made clear just from the fact that you're seeking admissions instead of understanding. I assume, given your history, that you think I'm reluctant to make concessions about things that I nonetheless know are true because it would reveal the lies behind my position, and so from your point of view you're trying to argue me into a corner from which admissions can be forced.
I'm only trying to make my point of view clear to you. Your belief that I really know deep inside myself that you're correct is causing you to keep asking me if I agree with ("admit to") statements of your own viewpoint that are expressed using my terminology.
This isn't going to be a productive discussion if you continue thinking this way. I am not someone who agrees with you inside but just can't admit it because of the side I'm on. I am someone who disagrees with you. That means I don't see things the same way you do. Progress can only be made if we both view this as an exercise in seeking mutual understanding, rather than as an exercise for forcing reluctant admissions.
In other words, I appreciate the progress indicated by the restraint you exercise in refraining from things like calling me dishonest and so forth, but by your very approach you're proving unable to hide you're underlying attitude that I actually know the truth, I just won't admit it.
So, to finally answer your question, from a scientific standpoint you don't even have a phenomenon you can identify as God. I can only give the same answer for God as I would give for pink dragons and leprechauns on Mars: anything that is detectable by us is part of the natural universe.
But neither can you assume that it is within the realm of science.
If something is detectable by people, why wouldn't it be within the realm of science?
I was addressing the conclusion rather than the phenomena. For instance, if today you pray for your blind nephew to regain his sight and tomorrow he regains his sight (the example is from the discussion with Truthlover in the Who won the Collins-Dawkins Debate? thread), is that evidence that God exists, is natural and is within the realm of science? Most people would conclude that there's a long chain of missing evidence and reasoning there.
I think if you really studied what spiritual traditions say about reality, and studied QM with an open mind, you would probably agree that QM appears to involve spiritual dimensions.
Scientifically, QM involves only that for which we can gather evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by randman, posted 02-09-2007 7:59 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by randman, posted 02-10-2007 4:30 PM Percy has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 191 of 214 (384239)
02-10-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Percy
02-10-2007 8:37 AM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
I think one of the most significant flaws in your approach is made clear just from the fact that you're seeking admissions instead of understanding.
Well, if you'd just drop all the bull-crap, personal assumptions and nastiness for a minute, you might just see my questions here as completely straightforward. Basically, I am not asking you about your beliefs per se on God, but rather about the concept of God related to science. Let me repeat, about the CONCEPT. The CONCEPT of a God where part of His being and substance is intertwined or partly detectable would make that God "natural" in the sense we are discussing.
Yes, or no?
The point in asking is very straightforward as well. You guys, meaning the evo camp, often claim that God is by definition supernatural and off-limits to science. I am saying this is nothing but sophistry since the concept of God includes an immanent aspect in most spiritual traditions. Immanence refers to God's being and presence within the creation. Transcendance refers to God being above and apart from the creation or universe. Both aspects of God exist within traditional biblical and Christian theology, but some theology only includes one or the other.
So just to reiterate so there is no misunderstanding. The reason to ask you the question is to obtain some clarity to move the conversation forward. Do you or do you not accept that a concept of God where His being is partly detectable makes God at least partly natural per science?
I am not asking you what you believe about God, but rather about a specific concept about God.
Understand?
but by your very approach you're proving unable to hide you're underlying attitude that I actually know the truth, I just won't admit it.
I think you need to look in the mirror. Evos are the ones doing what you accuse me of. You guys have stated as much. You think no reasonable, educated, intelligent, and objective person can look at the data impartially and reject ToE as hogwash, and your attitude and those of most evos here display that underlying, but false belief. I am not the one that thinks you guys are always lying to yourselves. I have said on more than one occasion that I think the indoctrination process in the way ToE is presented clouds sound reason and so in one way, you can hardly help yourself in beleiving the sham.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 02-10-2007 8:37 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 02-10-2007 5:19 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 192 of 214 (384251)
02-10-2007 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by randman
02-10-2007 4:30 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
randman writes:
Well, if you'd just drop all the bull-crap, personal assumptions and nastiness...
I was pointing out something very important for you, which is that you will be unable to maintain a civil dialogue with people who you believe are liars but just won't admit it. The same is true with people you believe have been indoctrinated. Even if you were absolutely right about indoctrination, insulting and rude behavior is not the solution. The same is true of people you believe are engaged in sophistry, as you just accused me.
My answer concerning "a specific concept about God" is unchanged. I don't see God any differently than I see Martian leprechauns or pink dragons. They are all phenomena for which you have no scientific evidence. All I can say is that anything detectable by us is part of the natural universe.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by randman, posted 02-10-2007 4:30 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by randman, posted 02-10-2007 8:11 PM Percy has replied
 Message 194 by randman, posted 02-10-2007 8:26 PM Percy has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 193 of 214 (384292)
02-10-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Percy
02-10-2007 5:19 PM


half-parody of evos, but real also
Percy, you realize that this thread and it's title is basically a semi-parody of the exact same thread promoted on this forum about creationists?
It's not that this is not a serious thread, and in that sense, it is not a parody, but keep in mind the tone and title of the thread is basically copying what you guys promoted in the main forum.
Why do you think promoting these beliefs and attitudes about your critics is appropiate and will further your goals of civil discussion, but that if your critics do the same, it is wrong and should be penalized?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 02-10-2007 5:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 02-10-2007 9:02 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 194 of 214 (384296)
02-10-2007 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Percy
02-10-2007 5:19 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
They are all phenomena for which you have no scientific evidence.
I think the evidence for God is amply provided in the design of the universe. Now, that could be the Christian or Spinozan God admittedly, and we haven't progressed and probably never will to the point where science can be all we need theologically. I think there are aspects of spiritual principles within the domain of science, and aspects of theology that will never be.
All I can say is that anything detectable by us is part of the natural universe.
Ok, so we can move the discussion forward. One of the objections towards ID is that science can never, by definition, deal with the reality of God as a causal agent for the universe and physical reality. My hope is you can see this is wrong.
If you want to ignore, imo, the design argument and say science cannot YET address God as causal, I will disagree but understand you genuinely think that. But what I think is categorically wrong is to dismiss ID as by definition outside the realm of science.
Hopefully you will see this an advancement of nuanced understanding of the debate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 02-10-2007 5:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 02-10-2007 9:11 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 195 of 214 (384307)
02-10-2007 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by randman
02-10-2007 8:11 PM


Re: half-parody of evos, but real also
randman writes:
Why do you think promoting these beliefs and attitudes about your critics is appropiate and will further your goals of civil discussion, but that if your critics do the same, it is wrong and should be penalized?
Is that what this is? You don't like what people are saying in other threads, so you're taking it out on me here by demonstrating that simple civility and rational discussion actually do mean little to you?
The way you show up your critics is not by behaving worse than them, which you manage to a great degree and with great ease, but by behaving better. In a discussion the winners are those who make the most rational arguments, not those who cast the most mud.
I really don't understand you. Be nice to people. That's all it takes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by randman, posted 02-10-2007 8:11 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by randman, posted 02-11-2007 2:54 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024