Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Give your one best shot - against evolution
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 224 (6654)
03-12-2002 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Floris O
03-12-2002 4:45 AM


you do know he's joking, right "O"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Floris O, posted 03-12-2002 4:45 AM Floris O has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 224 (6655)
03-12-2002 5:13 AM


but assuming that phillip is not joking- where is the evidence of this conspiracy
anything you can dish out an share.
meanwhile, Floris O/ we better call the Boss- this guy knows too much.

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Floris O, posted 03-12-2002 5:23 AM quicksink has replied

  
Floris O
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 224 (6658)
03-12-2002 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by quicksink
03-12-2002 5:13 AM


If he were joking, I wasn't in the mental state to detect such a thing like sarcasm. It was early in the morning over here and, well, it does look like he's joking
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by quicksink, posted 03-12-2002 5:13 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by quicksink, posted 03-12-2002 5:43 AM Floris O has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 224 (6659)
03-12-2002 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jet
03-12-2002 3:15 AM


Jet, convince me that it is going to be worth my while researching the range of quotes that you have provided. Prove that you are going to recognise when a quote has been taken out of context. Prove that you will recognise when a quote is shown to be inconsistent with the person's published works then there is a valid question of accuracy of the quotation. Prove that you will accept that a generalised statement on evolution from the first half of the 20th century is not an accurate reflection on the current state of knowledge and thinking on evolution.
If you can do this with your own words then I might make the effort to address your cut-n-paste piece.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jet, posted 03-12-2002 3:15 AM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 03-12-2002 9:32 AM wj has not replied
 Message 42 by Jet, posted 03-12-2002 10:03 PM wj has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 224 (6660)
03-12-2002 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Floris O
03-12-2002 5:23 AM


i pray he's joking- that's all i can say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Floris O, posted 03-12-2002 5:23 AM Floris O has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 224 (6665)
03-12-2002 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Mister Pamboli
03-12-2002 1:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Would any evolutionists care to comment on this? Why do you think human beings have evolved mental powers which seem far in advance of what might be needed for mere survival?
Probably because competition has been between humans and humans instead of humans and other species for a long while, also about the only thing us hairless apes have going for us is our brains, no claws, no big scary teeth, we`re not the biggest, fastest or strongest. So under survival of the fittest smarter is better for us hence the species gets smarter on average.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-12-2002 1:02 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by joz, posted 03-12-2002 8:33 AM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 224 (6666)
03-12-2002 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by joz
03-12-2002 8:31 AM


Of course I`d argue that the average was again in decline presently but thats because our societies are no longer survival of the fittest....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by joz, posted 03-12-2002 8:31 AM joz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 224 (6671)
03-12-2002 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by wj
03-12-2002 5:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Jet, convince me that it is going to be worth my while researching the range of quotes that you have provided. Prove that you are going to recognise when a quote has been taken out of context. Prove that you will recognise when a quote is shown to be inconsistent with the person's published works then there is a valid question of accuracy of the quotation. Prove that you will accept that a generalised statement on evolution from the first half of the 20th century is not an accurate reflection on the current state of knowledge and thinking on evolution.
If you can do this with your own words then I might make the effort to address your cut-n-paste piece.

Don't hold your breath.
He did this in the Yahoo Club. Lots of huge cut n paste messages and no replies when he was shown to be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by wj, posted 03-12-2002 5:28 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by joz, posted 03-12-2002 9:39 AM nator has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 224 (6672)
03-12-2002 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by nator
03-12-2002 9:32 AM


Hey Schraf maybe thats the research he`s been doing for those "Arizona Independent Research Center for Creation and Evolution Studies" buggers.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 03-12-2002 9:32 AM nator has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 40 of 224 (6687)
03-12-2002 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jet
03-12-2002 3:15 AM


Jet, that was silly. Why didn't you post a link to the page?
Also the content of the post is poor - if the point you are trying to make is that there is debate about the evolutionary process even within mainstream science this can be made by a few well chosen examples and a discussion of their context. You defeat your purpose by quoting from such old sources becaue it suggests that you lack knowledge of current thought or how scientific thought has developed since then.
I have no axe to grind with you - I don't know who you are, or what you're background is. I would like to debate with you. Can you summarise your one best shot against evolution briefly and then we can proceed with some closely reasoned argument?
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jet, posted 03-12-2002 3:15 AM Jet has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 41 of 224 (6690)
03-12-2002 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Mister Pamboli
03-11-2002 2:27 PM


I saw Carl Sagan lecture in AD White HoUse once and I know it was told to Lynn that she had the answer, whatever that means but I do not think much of the mitochondira are beneficial bacteria idea. The point In the cell was that organelles have DETERMINATE positions. Population genetics never said how to understand location for a bunch of egg laying birds so the Poik domain of the small is vexing for me to focus on. There could be something in it but I usually end up thinking of torque I had this prepared on signals hope it helps. Sincerely, Brad
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The equation this answer questions by clarifying qualifers due to reading Cantor if not Wright is
# "Now let three small magnets whose lengths are l1, l2, l3 by ordertypes and ordinal strengths m1, m2, m3, exist at the point x,y,z with their axes parallel to the axes of x,y,z; then resolving the forces on the three magnets cardinally in the direction of X, we have
-X= m
=m
where I am fairly confident (a=radius) -a compared to a is [with{in}] Farday 1792. and 1793. copied below
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Halliday and Slater state - "The recognition of one particular stimulus cannot just be because the sense organs are tuned to this alone."*
but this is just what Faraday said years ago (1792+1793)(Hopkins may think this is an & gate!)
1792. The kind of experiment I am bold enough to suggest is as follows. If a gymnotus or torpedo has been fatigued by frequent exertion of the electric organs, would the sending of currents of similar force to those he emits, or of other degrees of force, either continuously or intermittingly in the same direction as those he sends forth, restore him his powers and strength more rapidly than if he were left to his natural repose?
1793. Would sending currents through in the contrary direction exhaust the animal rapidly? There is, I think, reason to believe the torpedo (and perhaps the gymnotus) is not much disturbed or excited by electric currents sent only through the electric organ; so that these experiments do not appear very difficult to make.
and if the any Mendelian mechanism is a subset of Maxwell's spin on Faraday's electrotonic state not only is the edited sentence in the series false, it is untrue as per the very discussion the editors sought to mediate as the coding or internal state discussed throughout the articles edited.
Has Maxwell's "might be traced with the dialectric itself" ##been done (in sufficient expts by physics to create proper biology at the action and reaction influentially involved) such that the tracing is extensible to any material that may operate in Neo-Mendelism apply for instance Maxwell's also "###"When the muscles of our bodies are excited by that stimulus which we are able in some unknown way to apply to them, the fibers tend to shorten themselves and at the same time to expand latterally. A state of stress is produced in the muscle, and the limb moves. This explaination of muscular action is by no means complete. It gives no account of the cause of the excitment of the state of stress, nor does it even investigate those forces of cohesion which enable the muscles to support this stress. Nevertheless, the simple fact, that it substitutes a kind of action which extends continuously along a material substance for one of which we know only a cause and an effect at a distance from each other, induces us to accept it as a real addition to our knoweldge of animal mechanics
For similar reasons we may regard Farday's conception of a state of stress in the electro-magnetic field as a method of explaining action at a distance by means of the continuous transmission of foce, even though we do not know how the state of stress is produced."??????or is rather Campbell's question determining here "If we recognize that it is untrue we are natraully led to aske whether the physical significance would have been altered if it had been found that KU was numerically, equal not to v^2 but to 2v^2 or 1.5v^2 or 1.5839v^2."[p421 by Norman Robert Cambell FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE The Philosophy of Theory and Experiment]
Using EOD waveforms as Mendels traits and taking the physicality of dominance or recessive tribute within the space electrotonic coasts function the physico-chemical funtions are not ignored in the transmission genetics but already a part of the medium that motion may be forced (inertially), displaced, or speeding along at a less than infinite velocity.
Imaginary electricity and imaginary magnetics can be used to probe any position effect that may breed up since the sphereical geometry can be transformed into the linear one as found due to chromosomes and may have expressed the object Maxwell subjectively lamented was missing on account.
Any between behavior and population genetics correlation that could result will be similarly available to a less loose deduction via Maxwell's Four Laws #p206 provided some insight as was for quantitive characters big vs small size factors is in resemblence (if) found (to find) during the course of work on the Power Spectra of the spark the fish make no matter the F1 F2 genetics etc which if physco-chemically supported more easily bridge the reasoning betwwen transmission and physicological genetics Fourier Analysis is expected to be useful here and I am speculating on how to connect Vortex Momemetums to this idea by software development at most but hopefully discountable.
I have asked Carl to breed fish for this genetics work for him and he pleads grant writing while I mentioned the project to Will Provine who continues to not return my calls. Is this the Galileo affair in reverse (in the secular and not Catholic environment?) or have I still the affect effectively beneficial?? Regardless the style though not the content of this argumentation can be re-writ for the ethological field of pheromone communication rather than signal transfer so the author's subjectivty is not what is being discussed differntially between broadcasts and information transmission so I think that Farady's use of describing the Animal (when "or" means any animal thinkable (for fish the case may not be as this general) as willing the signal (in the concepts of nutrition and rest) is as misplaced as Will Provine asserting that Free Will will become a dynamic scientific category as the only final frontier. It is simply a matter of levels of organization that remain integron by integron seperated despite the ability cardinally to access the proper terminology (including equations) and there-through "scientific method".
*(Full Context p.5-6 "Having dealt with the messages encoded in signals and the form of the signals themselves, we move in Chapter 4 to an account of the sensory aspects of communication. Here Hopkins dsicusses how the sense organs and brain deal with incoming signals and extract from them information on such questions as whether or not there really is a signal present amonst all the other stimuli being received and, if there is, which out of all the possible signals it is and where it is coming from In many species, sense organs are used for a variety of purposes, such as the detection of fodd and of predators, as well as for reveiving signals and passing them on to the brain. Appropriate to this, these animals have sense organs which respond to a wide range of stimulu and thus are not especially well matched to any one of them. The recognition of one particular stimulus cannot just be because the sense organs are tuned to this alone. However, in other cases which Hopkins describes, the sense organs are specifically adapted to receive particular stimuli. The tuning of the bullfrog ear to bullfrog calls is one example and another, though perhaps not strictly speaking lying in the realm of communication, is the greatly enlarged eye of many male flies which enables them to detect and pursue females." Animal Behaviour A Series Edited by T R Halliday and P J B Slater 2 Communication 1983 by Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd)
#p214 all Maxwell refs@# From THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL edited by W.D. Niven Dover Publications Inc.
##p139
###p320-1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-11-2002 2:27 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 224 (6709)
03-12-2002 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by wj
03-12-2002 5:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Jet, convince me that it is going to be worth my while researching the range of quotes that you have provided. Prove that you are going to recognise when a quote has been taken out of context. Prove that you will recognise when a quote is shown to be inconsistent with the person's published works then there is a valid question of accuracy of the quotation. Prove that you will accept that a generalised statement on evolution from the first half of the 20th century is not an accurate reflection on the current state of knowledge and thinking on evolution.
If you can do this with your own words then I might make the effort to address your cut-n-paste piece.

A close examination will reveal that many of the quotes are from leading scientists over the past two decades. As was stated in the post, scientists are often more at ease writing their true thoughts and feelings in papers that they know will never be exposed to the general public in the standard scientific publications. I think you would be hard pressed to show that the people quoted meant something other than what they actually said in the quotes, but you are free to try to show that they did not mean what they said. Three times you ask me to "prove" something to you. That is a pretty tall order from a proponent of a theory that openly states that it makes no attempt to "prove" anything, and in fact is often quoted by evolutionists as saying it is not about "proving" evolution, but rather is about offering a logical position based upon available evidence. Please feel free to offer contradictory quotes from the sources cited, giving their reason as to why they chose to do an about face on their true opinions of the Darwinian ToE. The main point of my post was to show that what is often written in a text book is totally contrary to what specific scientists actually think concerning the ToE and its' claim to be a scientific fact of nature. I am sure there are ample scientists who you could quote that may disagree with the quotes cited in my post. Have at it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by wj, posted 03-12-2002 5:28 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-13-2002 2:09 AM Jet has replied
 Message 44 by Philip, posted 03-13-2002 2:15 AM Jet has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 43 of 224 (6720)
03-13-2002 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Jet
03-12-2002 10:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
A close examination will reveal that many of the quotes are from leading scientists over the past two decades.

61 quotes, only 15 from the last two decades, 5 of them from Michael Denton, an Australian creationist. If we strip out duplicates we find 8 quotes undated, 31 quotes older than 2 decades, 11 quotes in the last 2 decades (actually allowing one which is a quote in the last two decades from James Conant who was a President of Harvard between the World Wars!)
Now we could examine how "leading" these scientists are, or how ludicrous is the selective quotation, but lets not. What's the point when faced with ignorance of this magnitutude?
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Jet, posted 03-12-2002 10:03 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Jet, posted 03-13-2002 10:40 PM Mister Pamboli has replied
 Message 50 by AARD, posted 03-14-2002 1:31 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 69 by wj, posted 03-17-2002 6:10 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 44 of 224 (6721)
03-13-2002 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Jet
03-12-2002 10:03 PM


The prominent evolutionists I have known, that is professors, have been PAID to be evolutionists in their research and in selecting candidates for research studies involving stipends in the USA... you know, tax dollars.
I trust Shrap, and the others aren't being paid to find 'Lucy' and other hoaxes.
Hey O',
Shrap can at least see a 'JOKE' in my apparent overly-paranoid rebuttal of evolutionists being merely paid, financially. Sorry, I may have oversimplified the financial motives of evolutionism. (Nothing compared to those other non-financial motives for justifying free-played lusts, lewdness, pride, despair, suicide, murder, or perhaps mastering ones own destiny at the expense of another person's, etc. (Not us of course, probably myself foremost))
'Don't need to curse out on the web to make a ‘MEANINGFUL’ point, i.e., that I need to be like Spock. I’m intimidated enough by my own ineptness at debating truth, my sins, failures, etc. I get your meaningful logic (if there be such a thing). Your intimidation(s) are readily atoned and forgiven by me. So are the painfully evil Taliban massacres. Consider ‘sucking up’ (if you will) the following:
'JOY', that elusive term many evolutionists seem to despise as arbitrary, meaningless, perhaps, without form or order, chaotic, a 'chance phenomenon', a-scientific, illogical, etc. ...
Searching for origins gives most 'sane' persons a certain degree of 'REJOICING in TRUTH', another example of an FIC
Now back to FICs (FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITIES): what a JOY (oops, there’s the ‘j’ word again), to see SUCH GREAT ORDER amidst all this ENTROPY AND MEANINGLESSNESS. MY SINGLE BEST SHOT AGAINST EVOLUTION e.g.,:
The human 'eye' is the most cited example, because its evolution (micro or macro) from any precursor defies any precursor-chain-like mechanism. To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. (Charles Darwin in The Origin .of Species, 1859.)
As a foot specialist/surgeon, I specialize mostly in the 'foot', another FIC. It simply is too fine-tuned an FIC; every biomechanical lever, fulcrum, joint, osseous-bump, etc. is precisely placed in the foot to allow utmost exquisite and perhaps 'joyful' locomotion (if you will), allowing the average person to walk 100,000 miles on the average and perform numerous other unique complex events: FICs like, ballet, running, jumping, gait- variances peculiar to humans, climbing, kicking, prancing, Karate, skiing, swimming, biking, and hosts of other uniquely complex events. Practically all pedal events are real-time FIC’s.
Warning: Do not let a foot-surgeon resect a vestigial-like sesamoid bone from the first metatarsal, nor a heel spur from the calcaneous; your locomotion will likely become about 10% degraded (i.e., 5000-10,000 miles lost), and become less-'joyful'. You may even sue in un-joyful despair and anger.
Unless broken, a FIC like 'the foot' can not be improved-upon inherently, as well. Don't believe me. Trust the medical literature in this matter. The same holds true for all other medical system specialty/systems; they’re all FICs.
Read the Blind Watchmaker again. Dawkins seems to respectfully address how (F)ICs are generated; he seems to believe in them. I believe in them and tremble at their complexity. It is written, The Devil believes and trembles, too. All Evolutionists do (or did at some point) too: (Consider the following scripture that demonstrates ‘bias’ in evolutionary scientists
Rom 1.20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retainh God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, DEBATE, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. KJV
Well, thanks ALL for the negative feedback. Got to go to Haiti tomorrow for about a week.
God bless/Good Bye

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Jet, posted 03-12-2002 10:03 PM Jet has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by quicksink, posted 03-13-2002 3:27 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 46 by Floris O, posted 03-13-2002 5:55 AM Philip has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 224 (6725)
03-13-2002 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Philip
03-13-2002 2:15 AM


please tell me that everything you said has been a joke- please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Philip, posted 03-13-2002 2:15 AM Philip has 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