Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:06 PM
30 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Is there anything up with the "Altenberg 16"?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 31 of 47 (470287)
06-10-2008 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by randman
06-10-2008 2:35 PM


Perhaps the reason is that creationists are known neither for accuracy nor veracity when making claims about science.

Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos.

Then you accept my challenge and will be setting up a thread to discuss the article I cited above?

This is off topic here, so set up the new thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 2:35 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 2:44 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 47 (470288)
06-10-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Coyote
06-10-2008 2:42 PM


Already read all of those sites, and as far as off-topic, maybe so. Please don't digress the discussion further then into off-topic insults and claims such as your bogus claims about me or creationists not understanding the issue.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2008 2:42 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 33 of 47 (470294)
06-10-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by randman
06-10-2008 2:35 PM


randman writes:

Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos.

So, the claim that the earth was created less than ten thousand years ago is a factual claim which is accurate and reliable in your opinion? Good. Now, explain to us why, in your experience you find that reliable.

If you don't find it reliable and accurate, why were you lying above?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 2:35 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 3:11 PM bluegenes has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 47 (470296)
06-10-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by bluegenes
06-10-2008 3:09 PM


pretty far off-topic
So no answer....any lurkers please note that my response is strictly to avoid being banned and not an inability to answer...nor is the poster correct in stating I have lied here.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bluegenes, posted 06-10-2008 3:09 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by bluegenes, posted 06-10-2008 6:42 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 35 of 47 (470298)
06-10-2008 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Copasetic
06-09-2008 11:09 AM


Copasetic writes:

You are clearly unqualified to object to any aspects of evolution as you can't seem to even wrap your head around why "new phyla aren't emerging". Let's face it, you have no idea what you are talking about and your rejection of evolution is clearly not on scientific grounds.

From the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.

And coincidentally, your message is a reply to someone who has violated rule 10 so many times that his next suspension will be permanent. What would take you a solid month of dedicated Forum Guidelines violating he can achieve on his next faux pas. I've read ahead in this thread and can see he's not taking such challenges lying down, so cut him a break and don't tempt him.

Please, no replies to this message.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Copasetic, posted 06-09-2008 11:09 AM Copasetic has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 36 of 47 (470308)
06-10-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
06-10-2008 1:00 PM


It's an interesting phenomena among evos that they will strenously object to even admitting basic facts if someone that is a critic brings them up but when one of their own discusses the same fact in reevaluating or modifying evo models, then somehow the same fact or argument has become magically true.

Your ridiculous fantasies would be more convincing if there were any examples of this; and if we didn't all know better than to take your word for anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 1:00 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 37 of 47 (470311)
06-10-2008 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by randman
06-10-2008 2:35 PM


Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos.

Really? Then may I be the first to welcome you to planet Earth and hope that you learn something during your stay here.

In my experience, not only are creationists ridiculously inaccurate as to the facts, but they also tell the most stupid and ludicrous lies about the opinions and arguments of their opponents.

What's more, to put the cap on how dumb they are, they tell these stupid lies to their opponents, who are the last people in the world they could hope to fool.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 2:35 PM randman has not yet responded

  
grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 3523 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 38 of 47 (470316)
06-10-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by randman
06-10-2008 2:35 PM


Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos.

uh huh. remind me again which "side" was found to have lied deliberately and repeatedly (under oath, even) in Kitzmiller v. Dover, would you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 2:35 PM randman has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 39 of 47 (470348)
06-10-2008 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
06-10-2008 3:11 PM


In my experience, the four corners of the earth...
randman writes:

Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos.

So, the claim that the earth was created less than ten thousand years ago is a factual claim which is accurate and reliable in your opinion? Good. Now, explain to us why, in your experience you find that reliable.

If you don't find it reliable and accurate, why were you lying above?

randman writes:

So no answer....any lurkers please note that my response is strictly to avoid being banned and not an inability to answer...nor is the poster correct in stating I have lied here.

randman writes:

Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos.

To spell it out simply. in your experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos

So, the claim that the earth was created less than ten thousand years ago is a factual claim which is accurate and reliable in your opinion? Good. Now, explain to us why, in your experience you find that reliable.

It's easy, son. All you have to do is describe your experience which leads you to believe in the accurate factual claims of creationists.

Never be shy. Just tell us about your experience. As you say, in your experience, the factual claims that......

Have you got photographs? Or were these just.... err... experiences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 3:11 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 407 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 40 of 47 (470384)
06-10-2008 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
06-02-2008 1:43 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
randman writes:

Personally, I don't object to some aspects of evolution on religious grounds but simply because it's not factual.

I wonder whether you extend the same consideration to some aspects of biblical text -- i.e. object to it because it's not factual. If you don't, why not?

Having seen that you express an interest in this "Altenberg 16" meeting, I hope that you will follow through with an interest in its outcome. It is not impossible that some of the "not factual" issues you currently object to would be addressed in a way that would answer your objections. That is a common enough process in science, in stark contrast to religious doctrine.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 1:43 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 1:33 AM Otto Tellick has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 41 of 47 (470395)
06-11-2008 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Otto Tellick
06-10-2008 10:33 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
I wonder whether you extend the same consideration to some aspects of biblical text -- i.e. object to it because it's not factual. If you don't, why not?

That's a different topic, but I certainly don't believe everything in life should be decided upon via the scientific method. However, I do think scientific theories should follow scientific standards or at least be qualified with a caveat if they do not.

It is not impossible that some of the "not factual" issues you currently object to would be addressed in a way that would answer your objections. That is a common enough process in science, in stark contrast to religious doctrine.

I think you misunderstand the nature of religion personally and also seem to think religion and science should work on the same sort of basis, which is a fundamental error but then again, I think of evolutionism as religion.

I do hope the conference and other sorts of things will address issues with evo theory that need to be addressed and not glossed over as somehow non-existent. Also, I don't mean to sound so harsh as some of my comments above and do appreciate that you address the possibility of some items needing to be revised, updated or whatever in evo theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-10-2008 10:33 PM Otto Tellick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-11-2008 10:14 PM randman has responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 407 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 42 of 47 (470685)
06-11-2008 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by randman
06-11-2008 1:33 AM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
randman writes:

I think you misunderstand the nature of religion personally

Personally, I think people who hold firm religious beliefs misunderstand nature.

and also seem to think religion and science should work on the same sort of basis, which is a fundamental error

On the contrary, I know that religion and science each work on fundamentally different sorts of bases. My initial comment (considering some portions of biblical text open to objection due to being counter-factual) was an attempt to pinpoint a sort of cognitive schism in your world view. Some of the things you say seem to indicate an open-mindedness toward findings based on observation and physical evidence, yet based on other things you say, you absolutely accept certain assertions that are physically impossible, simply because they derive from your chosen interpretation of some fragment of biblical text (or you reject assertions that are based on firm observation because they contradict your interpretation of the text).

but then again, I think of evolutionism as religion.

I find it astonishing and sad how frequently and persistently this opinion is expressed. If religion were like "evolutionism" (i.e. scientific method), my initial comment (objecting to biblical text because its counter-factual) would have been on topic, or you might have at least responded that you are open to re-interpreting some portions of the text (e.g. as being metaphorical or symbolic in some way, rather than as historical record), as you improve your own understanding of the physical world around you.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 1:33 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 2:17 PM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 43 of 47 (470772)
06-12-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Otto Tellick
06-11-2008 10:14 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
of the things you say seem to indicate an open-mindedness toward findings based on observation and physical evidence, yet based on other things you say, you absolutely accept certain assertions that are physically impossible, simply because they derive from your chosen interpretation of some fragment of biblical text (or you reject assertions that are based on firm observation because they contradict your interpretation of the text).

No, it's because I have seen the things you say are physically impossible occur in my life and many other people's lives. The fact these things are not the types of things anyone has figured out how to test scientifically, and perhaps never will, doesn't change the fact they've been observed. So when you see the Bible true on so many "impossible" things, it's track record is very good and there is little reason to doubt that such things occured then just as they are occuring now.

You choose to reject people's testimony of such things and that's your perogative, but don't mischaracterize it as solely based on some ancient writings absent genuine experience.

In terms of the text, you also incorrectly assume you know what I believe about it. Of course, any Bible scholar or educated person knows that certain things such as mountains dripping with wine knows that's an expression of an abundant land with many vineyards, not that literally mountains run with wine streams and rain day and night or some such.

Other areas are meant to be taken literally. Actually, figurative language in some sense is meant to be taken literally as an expression. In the mountains dripping sweet wine, it is meant to literally suggest a fruitful and abundant land for agriculture.

Biblical analysis though belongs on a different thread so let's not delve into it here.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-11-2008 10:14 PM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2008 11:39 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 47 by ICANT, posted 07-20-2008 12:53 AM randman has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 44 of 47 (475894)
07-19-2008 3:21 PM


The "Altenberg 16"
Some preliminary descriptions of what went on at the Altenberg conference from Massimo Pigliucci.

here

So far as I've read, there's stuff on contingency and the importance of the order in which mutations happen, fitness landscapes, sympatric evolution, evolution of lactose tolerance, epigenetic inheritance, niche construction and inheritance, and many other things. I didn't notice any surprises, but lots of interesting stuff.

The author of the O.P. of this thread will find little comfort in the proceedings, unless it's in historical contingency seemingly limiting the importance of natural selection in favour of drift. The intelligent designer doesn't get a look in, apart from a brief mention of Lyle's views in the nineteenth century. ;)


Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2008 11:41 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 45 of 47 (475941)
07-19-2008 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by randman
06-12-2008 2:17 PM


Interesting ...
No, it's because I have seen the things you say are physically impossible occur in my life and many other people's lives.

Please give examples.

So when you see the Bible true on so many "impossible" things ...

... then I shall be the first to let you know.

In terms of the text, you also incorrectly assume you know what I believe about it. Of course, any Bible scholar or educated person knows that certain things such as mountains dripping with wine knows that's an expression of an abundant land with many vineyards, not that literally mountains run with wine streams and rain day and night or some such.

Other areas are meant to be taken literally. Actually, figurative language in some sense is meant to be taken literally as an expression. In the mountains dripping sweet wine, it is meant to literally suggest a fruitful and abundant land for agriculture.

Well, if you want to duck out, I shall content myself with the one word: "Galileo".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 2:17 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019