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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 106 of 331 (473838)
07-03-2008 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Admin
07-03-2008 7:49 AM


Let's be civil apes.
Your Admin post doesn't say "don't reply", so I hope this is O.K.
Point taken. But remember, the argument being put forward is that fossils that appear to support evolution are being presented by brainwashed paleontologists (post 100). It is a technical argument and does relate to fossils, so it has to be countered.
The creationist viewpoint relies entirely on this kind of argument. It's impossible to have an evolution/creation debate without it.
So, I'm not complaining at Beretta putting forward his view that the paleontologists are brainwashed, because that is the creationist argument. If they were to agree with the experts on fossils, they would no longer be creationists.
But he has to accept that it is therefore either he or the world-wide scientific consensus which is suffering from brainwashing or delusion, and that I'll suggest the point.
I think Beretta might agree with me that his way of thinking requires a lot of topic license, and I'm a bit similar (I like bringing in ERVS to any argument at the moment!).
I agree that Beretta is not knowingly lying, but he brought up the old "non-theists believe what they believe so they can be free of God's moral laws" argument, which isn't a very good idea around me (see thread on superstition/behaviour) etc.
I think I was correct (although off topic) to explain that "evolutionists" do not believe we descended from other animals because we love the idea of having ape cousins. The belief is, as you know very well, evidence based.
Personally, I'd rather be closely related to elephants, as they're much nicer creatures, and, IMO, more intelligent than chimps.
But, as creationists illustrate, the reality that science reveals will not necessarily be that of our desires.
So we're apes, like it or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Admin, posted 07-03-2008 7:49 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 107 of 331 (473859)
07-03-2008 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by bluegenes
07-03-2008 4:33 AM


Brainwashed by Imagination/Evolution
Have you considered the possibility that you want to see them to be brainwashed? Or that you've been brainwashed yourself?
No I've just read too many quotes from paleontologists that give the game away -they're too sucked in to realize that they're playing the game not following the evidence and drawing real conclusions from what they really see.
Have you considered the possibility that you want to see them to be brainwashed
No I didn't even realize they were until a few years ago nor did I care - now I notice and I care.
Isn't lying against your religious beliefs?
Yes it is and it should be against the scientific method as well -fortunately that is irrelevant here, it just suits you to imagine that I would have to be lying to mention the things I do.
I think most biologists would say that the best evidence is in the genes and the anatomy of living creatures.
Perhaps but only those biologists not in genetics or anatomy.
What do you think of the research results just published by Lenski?
If I recall correctly, the reference you gave me didn't say much or explain anything of note, perhaps if you give me another reference so that I can look into it properly?
Beretta, we share a distinct pattern of common viral damage with our nearest animal relatives.
I'd like to see how this conclusion was reached -any references?
The design hypothesis held sway for centuries, and is now dying out due to a complete absence of evidence.
No, naturalistic evolution is dying after an illegitimate innings, due to the gap between the facts and the conclusions - paradigm shift coming, ship's going down - wake up or drown!
Follow the literature closely, and you can watch the evidence roll in.
I watch constantly and remain unimpressed.
Never "proof". Just overwhelming evidence.
...and evolutionists interpretations of the evidence.
Intelligent and honest people are convinced.
And intelligent and honest people are unconvinced -to make time to argue about an issue doesn't necessarily mean that you're right but it's unlikely to mean that you're intentionally dishonest. I know lots of decent people on both sides of this issue - I don't mistake their faith in evolution for dishonesty; blindness perhaps, inability to see outside the box possibly...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by bluegenes, posted 07-03-2008 4:33 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by RickJB, posted 07-03-2008 11:00 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 109 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2008 12:32 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 110 by bluegenes, posted 07-03-2008 12:33 PM Beretta has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 108 of 331 (473868)
07-03-2008 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Beretta
07-03-2008 10:22 AM


Re: Brainwashed by Imagination/Evolution
Beretta writes:
...blindness perhaps, inability to see outside the box possibly...
If, unlike scientists, you can truly "see outside the box" then perhaps you'd like to contribute to the discussion about the nature of a proposed designer in the Spotting Beretta's designer thread that I started and you appear to be ignoring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Beretta, posted 07-03-2008 10:22 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Beretta, posted 07-04-2008 6:39 AM RickJB has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 109 of 331 (473885)
07-03-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Beretta
07-03-2008 10:22 AM


Re: Brainwashed by Imagination/Evolution
Hello Beretta,
I've just read too many quotes from paleontologists that give the game away -they're too sucked in to realize that they're playing the game not following the evidence and drawing real conclusions from what they really see.
Do you not think it is a teensy bit arrogant to consider that your are a better palaeontologist than all the professional palaeontologists on the planet? You freely admit that you have only been an armchair creationist for a few years. You have never done field work. There are experts out there who have spent their entire careers examining the evidence, but you seem to think that in a few short years of cribbing from creationist websites, tat you now know better than all of them. That is astonishingly arrogant, one might say prideful.
No, naturalistic evolution is dying after an illegitimate innings, due to the gap between the facts and the conclusions - paradigm shift coming, ship's going down - wake up or drown!
Creationists have been saying this for over a century Beretta, meanwhile those transitional forms just keep piling up. I'm sure it is of great comfort to you to think this way, but the truth is that the paradigm shift has already been and gone. Creationism was the ruling paradigm for millennia. It has had its day. Paradigms may shift, but they don't shift back again.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Beretta, posted 07-03-2008 10:22 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Beretta, posted 07-04-2008 5:40 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 110 of 331 (473886)
07-03-2008 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Beretta
07-03-2008 10:22 AM


Re: Brainwashed by Imagination/Evolution
Beretta writes:
Yes it is and it should be against the scientific method as well -fortunately that is irrelevant here, it just suits you to imagine that I would have to be lying to mention the things I do.
Well, we could exchange views on who we think is brainwashed, lying or deluded, of course, and never agree. Perhaps looking at some evidence will help. You ask:
Beretta writes:
bluegenes writes:
Beretta, we share a distinct pattern of common viral damage with our nearest animal relatives.
I'd like to see how this conclusion was reached -any references?
Yes. I was referring to endogenous retroviruses. These can be described as sort of scars due to viral invasions in our genomes. They stick around for a long time, and those that happened before our split from the chimps can be seen in both species.
First, have a look at the brief video, which gives a general view similar to mine, and is easy to understand. But after, much better for you, I've put in a link to a paper about research on an area of the subject which is nothing to do with people debating creation/evolution, but gives you an idea of the kind of research going on that might indirectly effect future EvC debates.
A paper on the Demographic Histories of ERV-K in Humans, Chimpanzees and Rhesus Monkeys.
NCBI
If you find this stuff as interesting as I do, then you might like to search around for some more papers on the subject. The best way to learn stuff is by looking at the research ourselves. The authors of these papers aren't trying to prove evolutionary theory to be correct.
ERVS
As it's new stuff, I'd recommend reading the most recent material.
You'll soon know more than I do!
Beretta writes:
bluegenes writes:
What do you think of the research results just published by Lenski?
If I recall correctly, the reference you gave me didn't say much or explain anything of note, perhaps if you give me another reference so that I can look into it properly?
I didn't give you a reference (maybe you're thinking of someone else on the thread). I thought you'd know what I mean because it's a hot topic in evo/creo circles. This is about historical contingency observed in a 20 year experiment.
Lenski:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
Just a moment...
http://EvC Forum: "Bacteria make major two step evolutionary nutritional shift in the lab." -->EvC Forum: "Bacteria make major two step evolutionary nutritional shift in the lab."
If you're interested in evolution from any point of view you'll be interested in this.
And intelligent and honest people are unconvinced -to make time to argue about an issue doesn't necessarily mean that you're right but it's unlikely to mean that you're intentionally dishonest. I know lots of decent people on both sides of this issue - I don't mistake their faith in evolution for dishonesty; blindness perhaps, inability to see outside the box possibly...
Possibly.....so let's look at as much evidence as possible. That's the honest thing to do, IMO.
Beretta writes:
bluegenes writes:
The design hypothesis held sway for centuries, and is now dying out due to a complete absence of evidence.
No, naturalistic evolution is dying after an illegitimate innings, due to the gap between the facts and the conclusions - paradigm shift coming, ship's going down - wake up or drown!
I'm a superb swimmer, but a baby couldn't drown in the evidence for I.D. anyway.
{Apologies to RAZD and others for a slight deviation from the topic, but I think Beretta will find the links stimulating}
Edited by bluegenes, : typo
Edited by bluegenes, : extra Lenski link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Beretta, posted 07-03-2008 10:22 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Agobot, posted 07-10-2008 10:41 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 111 of 331 (473971)
07-04-2008 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Granny Magda
07-03-2008 12:32 PM


Stand aside for the professionals
Hello Granny Magda,
Do you not think it is a teensy bit arrogant to consider that your are a better palaeontologist than all the professional palaeontologists on the planet?
Well actually I'm not professing to be a better paleontologist than the paleontologists,I am saying that the comments of people like Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould give the game away -not intentionally but the things they say are very supportive of intelligent design even though they have kept the evolution faith despite what they know to be the facts.
There are experts out there who have spent their entire careers examining the evidence
...with preconceptions -with a worldview that renders them blind to the problems. You believe in evolution because everyone knows it's true; minor brainwashing as a child (if you had TV), little more intense in the high school years (where it's thoroughly convenient to believe that you are here by mistake and are accountable to no-one)and then the major mindbenders come in tertiary education where I personally remember a few outdated evolution myths being presented as fact -I also remember that no-one objected, everyone just believed what they were being told because they were taught by people believed to be far more learned than themselves. My respect for authorities' proclamations about reality no longer exists. I question everything. It's a very healthy turn of events.I like to see both sides of the picture and I find what I hear on the other side extremely interesting - my brain feels unlocked,fresher and happier and exhilerated by the possibilities.I also believe in God now, something that I found very difficult to do under the heavy hand of evolutionary indoctrination.
You have never done field work.
Which doesn't make me less capable at assessing what comes out of the mouths of the 'experts' in any particular subject. Unfortunately 'science' has put itself on an undeserved pedestal due to its success with technology and the real repeatable experimental side of science and now holds forth about everything outside of its jurisdiction expecting to be believed on every front while sprouting philisophical nonsense.Outside of their speciality, they are laymen too.Obviously not every scientist is guilty of this practice but more than enough are not shy to wander from the confines of their jurisdiction.
There are experts out there who have spent their entire careers examining the evidence
And there are other experts just as well qualified, just as capable of assessing the evidence who do not agree with the evolutionists' pronouncements -they are the ones that the 'Expelled' movie is designed to bring to the limelight. They are the ones saying "this is not necessarily the only possibility and this is why" and they are the ones being shut down and bullied into submission.It's hard to get a hearing when you're not following the party line.We now know what it must have been like in Communist Russia for the dissentors. Wear the right T-shirt or die.Vote for Mugabe and keep on voting until you get it right!
That is astonishingly arrogant, one might say prideful.
...or confident, it depends what side you're looking from as to what you would call it. Granny Magda, you sure are sounding like a school teacher now!
Beretta writes:
No, naturalistic evolution is dying after an illegitimate innings, due to the gap between the facts and the conclusions - paradigm shift coming, ship's going down - wake up or drown!
Creationists have been saying this for over a century Beretta
Apparently, but they couldn't have been holding the microphone because I never heard one thing from them in all the time I was an evolutionist. I wonder how that could be? I never heard even a whisper of dissent nor a bit about the scientific evidence leading to dissent.How could all of that dissent remain smothered for so long?
meanwhile those transitional forms just keep piling up.
And each new one is just what we needed to prove evolution catagorically until it is discredited and quietly disappears or is found not to be as convincing as they once thought. Looking at 'transitionals' is what intelligent design proponents do to avoid being rude. It's for the most part utterly unconvincing.
but the truth is that the paradigm shift has already been and gone
Belief in a creator -belief that no creator is necessary -belief in a creator again - still shifting, not necessarily limited to one per millenium so keep watching...the Berlin wall also eventually came down: no wall, wall, no wall again -the nature of change.
Paradigms may shift, but they don't shift back again.
Like finch beaks I suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2008 12:32 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Granny Magda, posted 07-05-2008 1:48 PM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 112 of 331 (473974)
07-04-2008 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by RickJB
07-03-2008 11:00 AM


Re: Brainwashed by Imagination/Evolution
perhaps you'd like to contribute to the discussion about the nature of a proposed designer in the Spotting Beretta's designer thread that I started and you appear to be ignoring.
Sorry RickJB only went to check on it yesterday -maybe you started it while I was off line and not receiving mail. I really had no idea that we were trying to spot the designer.I have only managed to read your intro but none of the comments but I am interested to see what's happening there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by RickJB, posted 07-03-2008 11:00 AM RickJB has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 331 (474010)
07-04-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Beretta
07-01-2008 8:08 AM


Back to the topic: variation between species < variation in dogs, ergo possible
Hey Beretta, I'll try again and see if the third time is the charm. Having trouble with my laptop (it must be less evolved than newer ones).
The ones which are certainly related remain one kind with variations of a limited kind.The kind invariably arises suddenly and without provable precursors because they are fossils.
Because "kinds" is an undefined all inclusive category, this is essentially a truism, and true for all evolution, no matter what scale you look at it: descendant organisms are descendants of their parent organisms. Duh.
The other problem is that there are no limitations to variation that have been observed, especially when you step from one species to the next, and that is the purpose of this thread: to demonstrate that there is no observed barrier to variation.
But they start out as pelycodus and remain pelycodus ...
And always will remain descendants of pelycodus, however in later generations\ages they become classified as a new different genus. This is just the first step of that diversification, just as speciation is the first step in all taxon differentiations.
... much like bacteria show variation but only faith says they change into something that is not bacteria.
Or it is just a matter of calling it something else, a totally arbitrary human identification. All cells are similar, the cells that make up your body are not significantly different from the cells of eukaryotic single cell bacteria, they have the same basic elements, and they reproduce cells similar to themselves in the same way: your skin, for instance, is totally replaced every 3 or 4 weeks by new skin cells that have all, every one, come into being by asexual cell division.
Creationist like to pretend to themselves that humans are different from all other organisms, but at the cellular level no such difference can be distinguished.
The fossil record cannot be tested for interfertility and so relationship has to be assumed based on morphology.
The test for speciation is not whether the two branches can breed, but whether they do breed. Thus when we look at the asian greenish warbler we see two variations of a species that no longer choose to breed between the two sub-populations. This is the same thing we see in pelycodus: two populations that do not choose to breed, so they diverge in size into two distinct populations accumulating differences in morphology as they no longer share and mix genes that would bridge the gap between the sub-populations. It is a simple observation of fact: hereditary traits are no longer shared between two sub-populations, but are only shared within the sub-populations.
We don't need to call it anything, but that doesn't change the fact that where there was one population there are now two populations and the diversity of life has increased. We call it speciation for convenience in further discussions.
Relationships can only be guessed at based on morphological and philisophical considerations.
There is no guesswork in foraminifera, there is no guesswork in pelycodus, there is no guesswork in the hundreds of similar examples that populate the entire fossil record, all you need to do is observe the fossils and the variation with time.
In general variation within a species in the fossil record is far less than that seen in dog breeding and any further connections between kinds can only be surmised.
But, and this is why we can use dogs as a metric, the variation from wolf to one particular breed is the same kind of variation that we see in the fossil record. What all the different breeds show is the effect of multiple instances of isolation of breeding populations - that is all that dog breeding involves - and how this can result in morphological differences. Humans don't introduce mutations, all they do is isolate different dog populations ... and why dogs are identified as "purebreds" for those different breeds.
And we are not interested in just the variation within a species, but the variation between species, as one species becomes another, and then another, and another ... etc: is the variation between each of these populations possible with evolution? If it is less than the variation we see between wolf and a dog breed then yes, it is possible.
We know that the variation seen in dogs is possible with population isolation, so when we compare the variation between wolf and a breed, or between breed, we are looking at the results of different population isolations.
But punkeek is the rule and not the exception in the fossil record -if punkeek can be considered to have any credibility at all since it is really an excuse for lack of evidence of gradualism.
Nope.
There are many instances of gradual evolution within the fossil record, and this is one of the reasons that both paleontologists and biologist objected/criticised punk-eek. Just because there is no complete record of every stage of evolution doesn't mean that there are NO records of various stages of evolution.
Nor can you ignore the evidence of gradual evolution when you claim that "de novo appearance" is a viable explanation. To be a valid explanation your theory needs to explain all the evidence.
As far as I can make out and having read practically everything he has written, Phillip Johnson is an extremely logical man that is questioning the gap between what is believed by evolutionists and their ability to prove scientifically that any such thing as large scale evolution has occurred.He is questioning their assumption that a creative intelligence had nothing to do with it and that natural law alone can account for what we see. He specialized in the logic of argument and shows how far science has stepped from the realm of true science and into the philisophical realm. He makes perfect sense to me and your assumption that he is a liar just shows what you prefer to believe and has no necessary connection to the man's true intentions at all. Is a lawyer always considered to be a liar? Do only people with no scruples go into law? I know that that is not true but it is clear that you have a prejudice.
Correct. I have a prejudice against liars. My prejudice against Phillip Johnson is not because he is a lawyer or because he is a creationist, but because he is a liar. He makes "sense" to you only because he is telling you lies you want to believe. A good used car saleman is like that.
Unfortunately science tends to overstep the bounds of science and make pronouncements about what they 'believe is real and true and only later when it is proven to be false says well let's fix it up a bit and now this is true for sure. This usually happens when they make pronouncements that cannot be proven by repeatable experimentation and are in reality based on philisophical considerations.It's those pronouncements which make people less inclined to believe them when they come with their revised conclusions.
Please start a thread to document this assertion. WIthout any evidence of science (not scientists) "overstepping the bounds of science" all you have is an assertion, and when you say they are forced by evidence to change, then all you are doing is repeating what I said: "Science progresses by new evidence and discarding invalid concepts." This leaves you in the curious position of arguing that science doesn't progress by new evidence and discarding invalid concepts (ie you disagree with me) because they discard invalid concepts when there is new evidence (ie you agree with me).
But it still involves dead bones and morphological similarities and a good degree of guesswork with no prospect of ever being proven to be true -it may be possible but that doesn't mean that it is true.
Curiously this is all science can ever do on any topic - show what is possibly the truth. It does this by the process of eliminating what is not possible. Nobody claims that the fossil evidence is proof that evolution occurred, rather that evolution is the best known method of explaining all of the fossil evidence, the evidence of the natural history of the earth that extends back to single cellular life 3.5 billion years ago.
Nor does it make it provably true -it depends whether you 'believe' that it is possible or not.You're still outside the bounds of experimentally provable science since those 'horses' are all dead.
And again, no theory in any single science is provable, but what we can do is eliminate concepts that don't work and that are contradicted by the evidence. All we need to do is show that there is no barrier between eohippus and mesohippus that is outside the known variation from evolution - and in this particular case all we need to do is show that the variation from eohippus to mesohippus is less than the variation within dogs, our "known basis of variation possibility" - and by this method we can prove that it is possible.
Which nonetheless doesn't make it provably true, only possible theoretically. Those are the things that 'science' should not be allowed to make fact pronouncements about.
And no scientific theory in any science is provably true, and all we can do is demonstrate - prove - that it is possibly true. When we have a number of theories that are all demonstrated to be possibly true, then we can test one against the other, and see if evidence can determine which is more likely than the other/s.
For instance we can say you have a theory of "de novo creation" of new species and we can test that against evolution.
Evolution explains all the diversity of life on earth by known possible variation from one species to the next.
"De Novo Creation" only explains the evidence that does not show evolutionary steps: it fails to explain the diversity of foraminifera, it fails to explain the diversification of pelycodus.
Evolution explains how population isolation can result in different hereditary traits in sub-populations being passed from one generation to the next, and thus how new species can arise, and these mechanisms can (and have been) tested.
"De Novo Creation" doesn't explain how anything happens - there are no mechanims to "it's magic" that can be tested.
Ergo, evolution is the better theory for explaining all the evidence, and it can be (and has been) scientifically tested.
Well there is certainly a vast difference between the pronouncments that are possible about something like gravity and those that are historical and therefore not even vaguely testable. We know for a fact that plants require water and light for growth and that is something we can prove - on the other hand horse evolution belongs to the 'maybe, possibly, we believe so' type of science which is what makes it soooo questionable and so philisophically based.
Denial does not make the evidence go away, the evidence that shows the horse evolution does not require anything more than the same mechanisms and processes we observe in life around us today as this life continually evolves and changes.
And thus should not be considered to be fact as evolutionists pronounce and should not be taught as truth in school rooms until such time as it is a proven fact.In the meantime lets just be honest with the younger generation and just say that this is what some scientists believe based on these facts and these are the objections other scientists have based on these facts, and this is what other scientists believe based on these facts and open the entire subject up to debate and open enquiry instead of the stifling of opposition which is happening in education at the moment. Instead of asking children to rehash certain beliefs as fact, they should be exposed to all the objections.
But there are facts of evolution that are true and no amount of hand-waving and denial by creationists is ever going to change that. Nor do we need to wait to prove evolution when no other science needs to prove their theories, NOR do we need to satisfy the beliefs of some people to teach science that is inconvenient to their belief.
What we teach in science class is science. Facts, evidence, theory, and what it means if the theory is true, the parts that are testable.
If you disagree with the possibilities of science then you need to show that they are not possible. Protesting that you don't believe them is not enough. Denial of facts is not science.
The earth is old, that is a fact.
The universe is older, that is a fact.
Life on earth is old, that is a fact.
The first known life on earth was single cell organisms, that is a fact.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 07-01-2008 8:08 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 114 of 331 (474118)
07-05-2008 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Beretta
07-04-2008 5:40 AM


Re: Stand aside for the professionals
Hello again Beretta,
RAZD has requested that the off-topic discussion end, so I will respect his wishes and leave the majority of your post unanswered. Suffice to say that (unsurprisingly) we are still not in agreement.
The following however, I cannot ignore.
We now know what it must have been like in Communist Russia for the dissentors. Wear the right T-shirt or die.Vote for Mugabe and keep on voting until you get it right!
That is in extremely poor taste dude.
Dissenters in the USSR were tortured and killed. Dissenters in Zimbabwe (as everyone in your part of the world is only too aware) are tortured and killed.
Evolutionists are not engaged in the torture or murder their opponents. Richard Dawkins has never cut anyone's hand off for disagreeing with him. PZ Myers has never, to my knowledge, demolished his interlocutors' neighbourhood for daring to challenge his authority. If Eugenie Scott were to beat Ben Stein to death, I would be very surprised to say the least.
The kind of hyperbole and false comparison you are engaging in here is sick and inappropriate, not least because it cheapens the lives of those who suffered under Soviet communism and those who suffer today under Mugabe, by using them for cheap point-scoring.
Please don't do this again. It demeans us all and does nothing to further your argument.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Beretta, posted 07-04-2008 5:40 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Beretta, posted 07-07-2008 2:09 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 115 of 331 (474237)
07-07-2008 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Granny Magda
07-05-2008 1:48 PM


Torture and death
Dissenters in the USSR were tortured and killed. Dissenters in Zimbabwe (as everyone in your part of the world is only too aware) are tortured and killed.
Evolutionists are not engaged in the torture or murder their opponents.
Gee granny, that reply is just a spot over the top isn't it -you must be having a bad day. Actually I was thinking more along the lines of 'no job and no food aid' -you know the sorts of things that happen in universities when you don't toe the party line, like as the movie 'Expelled' so aptly portrayed. Just because I used the word die doesn't mean you literally need to die in this instance- I was talking about oppression of opinion and stifling of free speech but I think,despite the tear jerker, you actually know what I mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Granny Magda, posted 07-05-2008 1:48 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Granny Magda, posted 07-07-2008 7:03 PM Beretta has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 116 of 331 (474350)
07-07-2008 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Beretta
07-07-2008 2:09 AM


Re: Torture and death
Gee granny, that reply is just a spot over the top isn't it -you must be having a bad day.
No, what is over the top is comparing a handful of cases of alleged academic misconduct to the genocide of millions. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. "Expelled" takes this same sick line and since you are parroting that, you would predictably go along with it, however sleazy it might be.
I did not object to your behaviour because I was in some bad mood but rather, because I found your behaviour objectionable. Making these kind of comparisons is just plain sick. It cheapens the suffering of those who have been tortured and murdered when you use their plight to score cheap points in some internet debate. Please, please just stop it. It is unworthy of you.
Please don't bother replying to this message, because I have said all I have to say on the matter and I am not interested in hearing more of your excuses.
If you want to reply to someone, you could try answering RAZD in Message 113, which I note, you chose to ignore, or answering RickJB in his thread, which you have also, so far, ignored.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Beretta, posted 07-07-2008 2:09 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Beretta, posted 07-08-2008 7:14 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 117 of 331 (474360)
07-07-2008 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Beretta
07-01-2008 8:08 AM


The brief version -- step by step?
Going back to this one comment:
In general variation within a species in the fossil record is far less than that seen in dog breeding ...
Agreed, however two points:
(1) (already mentioned) that we need only compare variation of one breed to wolf, not the whole gene pool of dog vs wolf.
(2) (already mentioned) we are concerned with variation from one species to the next in order to go beyond variation within a species ...
... and if we limit ourselves to the known variation seen in species for the maximum amount of variation we can consider between species in order to show hereditary lineages, then we are being conservative.
... and any further connections between kinds can only be surmised.
If your whole argument boils down to (1) all variation seen is within a species and (2) we can only look at variation within a species, then of course your argument is banally true, and it proves nothing (other than that you don't want to look at evidence).
What you cannot say, however, is that you have in any demonstrated that the evolution of horse by standard evolution of hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation has not in fact occurred, or that the evidence in the fossil record is not sufficient to show this evolution, or that there is any limitation to evolution.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 07-01-2008 8:08 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Beretta, posted 07-10-2008 2:43 AM RAZD has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 118 of 331 (474396)
07-08-2008 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Granny Magda
07-07-2008 7:03 PM


Re: Torture and death
It cheapens the suffering of those who have been tortured and murdered when you use their plight to score cheap points in some internet debate. Please, please just stop it. It is unworthy of you.
Over the top no.2!More ridiculous that the last.
Excuse me, who's trying to score points here? Oh yes it's the morally superior,ethically exceptional evolutionary Granny Magda beating ID Beretta's reprehensible behaviour hands down."Please don't answer this Beretta, I'd like to have the last word."
Give yourself a pat on the back, Granny -you deserve an oscar!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Granny Magda, posted 07-07-2008 7:03 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by redneck22, posted 07-09-2008 10:03 AM Beretta has not replied

  
redneck22
Junior Member (Idle past 2954 days)
Posts: 2
From: Australia
Joined: 05-14-2008


Message 119 of 331 (474555)
07-09-2008 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Beretta
07-08-2008 7:14 AM


Re: Torture and death
Granny Magda says
It cheapens the suffering of those who have been tortured and murdered when you use their plight to score cheap points in some internet debate. Please, please just stop it. It is unworthy of you.
Maybe all those murders and tortures would not have happened if the perpetrators weren't atheists. Maybe these internet debates will sway people away from the religion of atheism and its central tenet, evolution.

“The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live” (Sam Harris-The End of Faith, p. 52).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Beretta, posted 07-08-2008 7:14 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2008 10:02 PM redneck22 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 120 of 331 (474642)
07-09-2008 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by redneck22
07-09-2008 10:03 AM


TOTALLY OFF TOPIC
Welcome to the fray, redneck22.
Please note that Granny Magda said this was off-topic. It is. The topic is about dogs and evolution, not murder and torture.
If you really feel compelled to talk about that issue, then please start a new thread.
Maybe these internet debates will sway people away from ... evolution.
The question for you is whether you really understand evolution. You can start at the beginning of this thread and reply to this topic or start a new one.
Enjoy.
ps - as you are new here,
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by redneck22, posted 07-09-2008 10:03 AM redneck22 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024