Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 9:33 PM
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,097 Year: 9,133/19,786 Month: 1,555/2,119 Week: 315/576 Day: 118/98 Hour: 2/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 300 (422638)
09-17-2007 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by CTD
09-17-2007 9:15 PM


Re: And...
One says I made up the differences between hypothesis, theory, and fact. Another says I'm right on the mark, and scientists feel the same way about the issue. (For the record, I'm not old enough to have made up these differences.)

I think you've become confused. Nobody agreed with you that, historically, hypothesis became theory became law.

If evolution is not an accurate scientific theory, that will become obvious when the evidence against it is presented; not because of any philosophical concerns about the nature of knowledge or pissant moaning about the English language changing over a century.

If you have some of that evidence, by all means bring it forward. If all that you have is complaining that "scientific laws ain't what they used to be", then you really have nothing at all.

I see a few things I may get around to, but I don't plan to spend much more time on this thread.

If you're a time-expiring troll, why bother? The second we come close to convincing you, or presenting too much evidence to ignore, you're gone. Why wait? Why don't you just take your parting shots now, and head out? The fact that you think evolution is impossible means nothing to me; I'm in there in the lab doing experiments that would be impossible if evolution were not true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 9:15 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 9:42 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 110 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 10:11 PM crashfrog has responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


(1)
Message 107 of 300 (422639)
09-17-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
09-17-2007 8:42 PM


Don't s'pose I should wash my mouth out
RAZD
quote:
Quoting (we don't need a new word for it)

I absoultely agree.

Cursed internet slang's so contagious!
Thanks R.

I won't bother quibbling over definitions, since I intend not to use the term again. (We've had "quoting out of context" for quite some time as well, so it's not needed in any sense.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2007 8:42 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 108 of 300 (422646)
09-17-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
09-17-2007 9:26 PM


Re: And...
quote:
I think you've become confused. Nobody agreed with you that, historically, hypothesis became theory became law.

SO! Was it you? I haven't looked, but your denial sure came quick. I don't think you had time to carefully read through all those posts, now did you?

But I did ACCURATELY predict that whoever it was'd be plenty happy to change stories, now didn't I? And boy was it ever easy!

And you just missed out, 'cause if I'm not mistaken one of your earlier posts was the one I've been thinking about using as the basis for a funny post that we could all get a chuckle out of. But doing 180s and trying to pretend you're still on the same course is the kind of thing that disqualifies one.

I should start my own science: the study of deluded evolutionists. Think I could call it 'evolutionology'? Anyhow, it's an easy study. Anyone can learn it all in a matter of weeks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2007 9:26 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 10:12 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2007 2:13 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 109 of 300 (422655)
09-17-2007 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by CTD
09-17-2007 9:15 PM


Re: And...
One says I made up the differences between hypothesis, theory, and fact. Another says I'm right on the mark, and scientists feel the same way about the issue.

Of course, you cannot quote anyone saying that you're right on the mark, and that scientists feel the same way on the issue, because you made this up.

Read carefully, and you'll see how many of my points have been confirmed right here by dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists.

Of course, you cannot give a single example of this, because this is something you made up in your head.

They actually did catch me in a mistake. The word 'theory' is not in the title of Darwin's book.

And you were as wrong about the contents of the book as you were about the title. Remember?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 9:15 PM CTD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 09-17-2007 10:44 PM Dr Adequate has responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 110 of 300 (422659)
09-17-2007 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
09-17-2007 9:26 PM


Re: And...
LOL it wasn't even you!

I finally found what you were sweating: post #96, right below the third quotebox. But the stuff above it already made it clear you weren't agreeing with me on that issue.

So what's the penalty, anyhow? What do they do to you guys if you slip up? Must be something awful if you're that paranoid.

You don't have to worry about that issue. I'll let you sweat the others that might be lurking out there, just waiting to be discovered by the evocops.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2007 9:26 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 10:16 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2007 2:15 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 300 (422661)
09-17-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by CTD
09-17-2007 9:42 PM


Re: And...
SO! Was it you? I haven't looked, but your denial sure came quick. I don't think you had time to carefully read through all those posts, now did you?

I, on the other hand, have; but one could deduce it simply from the fact that evolutionists do not recite halfwitted creationist lies --- except in the wonderland that is your imagination.

But I did ACCURATELY predict that whoever it was'd be plenty happy to change stories, now didn't I?

No, you didn't.

For it to be an "ACCURATE" prediction, rather than a self-indulgent daydream, someone would have to actually change their story.

I should start my own science: the study of deluded evolutionists. Think I could call it 'evolutionology'? Anyhow, it's an easy study. Anyone can learn it all in a matter of weeks.

Actually, what you appear to be studying are your own crazy delusions about evolutionists. "Weeks"? I predict that this will keep you happily occupied for a lifetime.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 9:42 PM CTD has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 300 (422663)
09-17-2007 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by CTD
09-17-2007 10:11 PM


Re: And...
LOL it wasn't even you!
I finally found what you were sweating: post #96, right below the third quotebox. But the stuff above it already made it clear you weren't agreeing with me on that issue.

So what's the penalty, anyhow? What do they do to you guys if you slip up? Must be something awful if you're that paranoid.

You don't have to worry about that issue. I'll let you sweat the others that might be lurking out there, just waiting to be discovered by the evocops.

This comes across as a little cryptic to those of us who don't share your daydreams.

You see, it is clear that you are attempting to make a snide allusion to something-or-other. But you see, if it is a snide allusion to something which you have made up in your head, then of course we are hardly likely to see the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 10:11 PM CTD has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 113 of 300 (422676)
09-17-2007 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Dr Adequate
09-17-2007 10:01 PM


Re: And...
Dr Adequate writes:

One says I made up the differences between hypothesis, theory, and fact. Another says I'm right on the mark, and scientists feel the same way about the issue.

Of course, you cannot quote anyone saying that you're right on the mark, and that scientists feel the same way on the issue, because you made this up.

CTD is confusing my agreement with his definition of theory with the corrections to his confusion about hypothesis, theory and law. Here's what I said in Message 95:

Percy in Message 95 writes:

Just look at how the term 'theory' has devolved. It used to mean an idea that was not just possible, but one that had withstood testing and scrutiny. But today it is used to designate any fragment of speculation you could imagine.

You seem to have a great deal in common with scientists. Scientists use the same definition of theory you do, and they, too, bemoan the lay public's misunderstanding of the term when applied to science.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 10:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 10:53 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 114 of 300 (422677)
09-17-2007 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by CTD
09-17-2007 9:15 PM


Re: And...
Hi CTD,

We're drifting far afield from the topic of this thread. The opening post asked a question concerning the degree of relatedness of the Big Bang to abiogenesis and evolution. I think this question has been answered. Do you have any other issues regarding the topic?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 9:15 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 115 of 300 (422679)
09-17-2007 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Percy
09-17-2007 10:44 PM


Re: And...
CTD is confusing my agreement with his definition of theory with the corrections to his confusion about hypothesis, theory and law.

Good heavens ... is he really that confused? Well, perhaps.

When someone distorts what's said to him as much as CTD does, it gets a little difficult to identify the original statement that he's distorting.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 09-17-2007 10:44 PM Percy has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 300 (422724)
09-18-2007 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by CTD
09-17-2007 9:42 PM


Re: And...
SO! Was it you?

No, it wasn't.

But doing 180s and trying to pretend you're still on the same course is the kind of thing that disqualifies one.

You do actually have to prove that happened before you can claim that it did, you know. If I have cause to reverse course 180 degrees, then I'll be the first to let you know.

But it will be because of evidence presented, not any personal attack you're able to muster. Do you have some? Evidence, I mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 9:42 PM CTD has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 300 (422726)
09-18-2007 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by CTD
09-17-2007 10:11 PM


Re: And...
So what's the penalty, anyhow? What do they do to you guys if you slip up? Must be something awful if you're that paranoid.

Paranoid? No, I'm just trying to help you overcome your confusion and arrogance. You're failing to understand what people are saying to you, which makes it rather difficult for you to respond on-point.

No good deed goes unpunished, I guess. Did you have a response to my arguments, or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 10:11 PM CTD has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 657 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 118 of 300 (422731)
09-18-2007 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by CTD
09-17-2007 4:50 AM


Fundymental misunderstandings
This term has been altered over the years to mean 'the closest we can get', because no 'transitional form' has yet been discovered which meets the standard set by Darwin. There is nothing in all the countless fossils which he himself would call a 'transitional form'.

This is one of the most common and most iritating of fundamentalist misunderstandings.

All fossils are transitional forms.

I know this is hard to imagine, so let me demonstrate this mathematically.

Say there is a species "1"
And there is a related species "10"
"5" would be transitional. "5" would ideally having an equal number of features from both 1 and 10.

However, 2 would also be transitional, as would 8, as would 3, as would 7, as would 4 and 6. All of these fall between 1 and 10. All of them are transitional.

Further, not only would 3 be a transitional form between 1 and 10, it would also be a transitional form between 2 and 4.

Even 10 is a transitional form for whatever came after 10, presumably 11.

Think of it like counting.

Yes, this is over simplified, but when dealing with complex topics, you need to first establish a foundation. Without the foundation, people are likely to make claims like "there are no transitional fossils".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 4:50 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2007 2:47 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 120 by CTD, posted 09-21-2007 10:46 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 119 of 300 (422734)
09-18-2007 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Nuggin
09-18-2007 2:34 AM


Re: Fundymental misunderstandings
I think you're assuming that you know what mistake he's making, or that he knows what mistake he's trying to make.

I think it's just flat denial. He's learned to recite this rubbish about no fossils meeting "the standard set by Darwin" --- this doesn't mean that the people who taught him this nonsense also explained to him what he should pretend that "the standard set by Darwin" is.

In support of this hypothesis, I would point out that he has not yet advanced any particular creationist lie about intermediate forms as being "the standard set by Darwin".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Nuggin, posted 09-18-2007 2:34 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 120 of 300 (423334)
09-21-2007 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Nuggin
09-18-2007 2:34 AM


Re: Fundymental misunderstandings
Nuggin
quote:
All fossils are transitional forms.

Good work. You seem to think I've misunderstood something somewhere, but I agree with your assessment of the present-day evolutionist definition.

I note that it differs from past evolutionist definition(s) considerably. Perhaps some don't consider it noteworthy that a formerly specific term has had its meaning broadened to include all fossils (and I dare presume all lifeforms).

Or maybe there was never any difference at all? Maybe there's never been any legitimacy to the searches for 'missing links' because no links were ever missing, right?

But even these days, not all evolutionists have given up hope and adopted the new definition. Some still continue to search for transitional forms which would meet the standards of the past. I think it's a mischaracterization of the situation to claim only creationists continue to care about the 'obsolete' version of the term.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Nuggin, posted 09-18-2007 2:34 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Nuggin, posted 09-21-2007 11:12 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2007 11:43 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 09-21-2007 3:33 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Vacate, posted 09-21-2007 10:50 PM CTD has responded
 Message 283 by bernerbits, posted 10-09-2007 5:54 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019