Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   Give your one best shot - against evolution
Floris O
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 224 (6731)
03-13-2002 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Philip
03-13-2002 2:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
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

I don't know where you get that idea from. Dawkins does address how FICs are generated. But he shows that they are actually NOT FICs. I take it you've read the blind watchmaker. How then do you even dare to bring up the example of the eye? Dawkins has clearly explained in much words with a lot of detail how the eye could ever have evolved instead of created instantaneously.
I have to go now and will return later to reply on your odd idea of joy and how I and other evolutionists look at joy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Philip, posted 03-13-2002 2:15 AM Philip has not replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 224 (6770)
03-13-2002 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Mister Pamboli
03-13-2002 2:09 AM


[[[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?]
Why does this seem to be the most typical response evolutionists use when faced with negative press! Try refuting their quotes or their credentials instead of just dismissing them or ignoring them. The site I referenced offers access to over 4,000 such quotes from leading scientists. I guess it is just easier for evolutionists to close their eyes and wish the negative comments away than to offer any substantial refutations to the quotes or to the scientists credentials. This has been the most typical response evolutionists offer to anything that even remotely challenges their beliefs. They would rather dismiss quotes a few decades old than dismiss a flawed and unscientific theory that is centuries old and was held in belief much longer than most are willing to admit. Neo-Darwinian thought is nothing more than a modern day rehash of centuries old philosophy and pagan religious beliefs. Any honest study of ancient pagan rituals and beliefs will confirm this. I realize how distasteful it is for evolutionists to hear that they are merely perpetuating an age-old religious belief, with a few new twists thrown in for good measure, but the fact remains that evolutionary thought started long before Darwin ever came along. There is nothing new under the sun. Sorry!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-13-2002 2:09 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-14-2002 12:46 AM Jet has not replied
 Message 51 by Floris O, posted 03-14-2002 5:15 AM Jet has replied
 Message 52 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 6:09 AM Jet has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 224 (6775)
03-13-2002 10:59 PM


I have, of course, encountered claims of quoting out of context directed towards Creationists more times than I can remember. Certainly, I will admit that occasionally I see a quote that is a bit out of context.
But I don't understand why evolutionists get so upset whenever a Creationist presents a quote from an evolutionist which does not support evolutionary theory. They act as though Creationists are trying to show that evolutionists agree with them. This is simply not the case, it's just that a certain scientist may know that a certain area of evolutionary theory does not have good evidence as of yet. Claims of Creationist mis-quotation are, in my opinion, often ill-founded.

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 49 of 224 (6781)
03-14-2002 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Jet
03-13-2002 10:40 PM


quote:
Why does this seem to be the most typical response evolutionists use when faced with negative press!
For three reasons, in this case. Quoting out of context can distort what someone was saying in such a way as to mislead those who do not know the context of the quotation or the background to the writer's work. Secondly, because several of the quotations are not from "leading" scientists at all: a reader without much background knowledge could be mislead into thinking that Michael Denton, for example, has much the same standing in the scientific community as say Stephen Jay Gould. Thirdly, because quotations which cast doubts on the neo-Darwinian synthesis of genetics and natural selection as the most important elements driving evolution, are set in a context where it may appear that they are casting doubt on evolution per se rather than on a single mechanism.
These seem to me to be quite legitimate reasons for such a response.
quote:
Try refuting their quotes or their credentials instead of just dismissing them or ignoring them.
Sadly I simply haven't the time. I could perhaps do "a refutation a day"? Remember that science does not proceed by refuting quotes but by continuing sustained detailed argument. I would really like to engage you in detailed argument rather than dealing with a blunderbuss of unrelated and uncontextualised quotes.[b] [QUOTE]Neo-Darwinian thought is nothing more than a modern day rehash of centuries old philosophy and pagan religious beliefs. Any honest study of ancient pagan rituals and beliefs will confirm this.[/b][/QUOTE]
This is more like it! This would be a great place to start afresh with something substantive. Would you like to give some examples of the ways in which Neo-Darwinism (I'm not a neo-Darwinist, btw) rehashes old philosophy and pagan beliefs. I can then respond to a a detailed argument and we can take it from there?
Possibly you should start a new topic for that. I look forward to engaging with your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Jet, posted 03-13-2002 10:40 PM Jet has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-16-2002 1:04 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
AARD
Inactive Junior Member


Message 50 of 224 (6782)
03-14-2002 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Mister Pamboli
03-13-2002 2:09 AM


Mp, just a minor correction. I don't think the creationists ever thought of Denton as one of their own, or that Denton considered himself one of them. His recent book appears, from the reviews I have seen, to refute most of what he published in his previous book, a book widely touted by the creationists. Denton now appears to be a theistic evolutionist. So you can toss those quotes from his previous book out the window. I will let you retally those numbers.
If you are going to engage with Jet, sharpen up that sarcastic side, you will need it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-13-2002 2:09 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Floris O
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 224 (6793)
03-14-2002 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Jet
03-13-2002 10:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Neo-Darwinian thought is nothing more than a modern day rehash of centuries old philosophy and pagan religious beliefs. Any honest study of ancient pagan rituals and beliefs will confirm this. I realize how distasteful it is for evolutionists to hear that they are merely perpetuating an age-old religious belief, with a few new twists thrown in for good measure, but the fact remains that evolutionary thought started long before Darwin ever came along. There is nothing new under the sun. Sorry!

You'd better not start with the evolution is religion statement. Follow this link and you'll see why:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/hovind_misuse_science_henke.htm
So, why don't you become a scientist if you view that to be superior to religion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Jet, posted 03-13-2002 10:40 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Jet, posted 03-15-2002 11:30 PM Floris O has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 224 (6795)
03-14-2002 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Jet
03-13-2002 10:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
[[[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?]
Why does this seem to be the most typical response evolutionists use when faced with negative press! Try refuting their quotes or their credentials instead of just dismissing them or ignoring them. The site I referenced offers access to over 4,000 such quotes from leading scientists. I guess it is just easier for evolutionists to close their eyes and wish the negative comments away than to offer any substantial refutations to the quotes or to the scientists credentials. This has been the most typical response evolutionists offer to anything that even remotely challenges their beliefs. They would rather dismiss quotes a few decades old than dismiss a flawed and unscientific theory that is centuries old and was held in belief much longer than most are willing to admit. Neo-Darwinian thought is nothing more than a modern day rehash of centuries old philosophy and pagan religious beliefs. Any honest study of ancient pagan rituals and beliefs will confirm this. I realize how distasteful it is for evolutionists to hear that they are merely perpetuating an age-old religious belief, with a few new twists thrown in for good measure, but the fact remains that evolutionary thought started long before Darwin ever came along. There is nothing new under the sun. Sorry!

Jet- I watch in amazement as verbal retoric flows from your mouth like diorhea.
Maybe you should change your tactics- or maybe I'm an evil scientific drone. Regardles, I think it would be wise to present evidence of your statements BEFORE you go on a storming rampage, tearing up evolution, and achieving nothing for the creationist camp- just a thought.
I notice a pattern in your debating that is so flawless, so precise, that one could compare it to the magnificence of the fossil strata.
your first argument was that evolution is accepted because some neo-nazis, using hitlerian tactics, are propagating false facts and scientific lies. when asked for evidence of this massive and seemingly pointless conspiracy, you made no response. Instead, you made a right turn down insult ave., where you threw verbal acid at what you call close-minded, neo-nazi skinheads, or evilutionists, whom you accused of neither listening to you or learning from you. But when other members asked you to instead focus on proving creationism and participating in deabtes, you predicatbly abandoned this dying tactic. So it was time to march, or rather, stampede, to the beat of a new tune, the old "evolution is wrong, don't ask me why, and creationism is right" nonsense, 5th quartet. Now I will ask for evidence of the so-called "evolutionist religion", and this too will be discarded into your pile of failed tactics.
Or perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps you are in honest pursuit of the truth, digging up those files, searching for that evidence of Darwin's third eye, or the photo of Carl Sagan participating in a Satanic ceremony. Perhaps you are digging hard to find those indisputable records of Schrafinator's past criminal record. And very possibly it is only a matter of time before you stun the world with new studies proving that evolution is completely flawed.
maybe.
So I make a proposal- get some evidence.
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Jet, posted 03-13-2002 10:40 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Jet, posted 03-15-2002 3:19 PM quicksink has not replied
 Message 56 by nator, posted 03-15-2002 7:07 PM quicksink has not replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 224 (6913)
03-15-2002 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by quicksink
03-14-2002 6:09 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by quicksink:
.................maybe I'm an evil scientific drone.
Though what you truly are remains an unknown, you are definitely not what, or who, you portray yourself to be. You offer nothing other than the most common and typical pre-teen drivel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 6:09 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by joz, posted 03-15-2002 3:39 PM Jet has replied
 Message 55 by nator, posted 03-15-2002 7:06 PM Jet has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 224 (6914)
03-15-2002 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Jet
03-15-2002 3:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Though what you truly are remains an unknown, you are definitely not what, or who, you portray yourself to be. You offer nothing other than the most common and typical pre-teen drivel.

Hmmm I thought QS was a 12 year old american living in Singapore, thats what his posts have said, any reason you don`t think that this is the case?
What is the relevance of "most common and typical pre-teen drivel" as a criticism of a 12 year old amyway?
And to be perfectly honest minus the various ad homs and scatalogical references most of what he said was fairly accurate....
You have forsaken relevant debate to mount a soapbox attack on "evilutionists" and post a cut and paste job of various out of context and date quotes.........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Jet, posted 03-15-2002 3:19 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Jet, posted 03-15-2002 11:33 PM joz has not replied

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


Message 55 of 224 (6934)
03-15-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Jet
03-15-2002 3:19 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by quicksink:
.................maybe I'm an evil scientific drone.
Though what you truly are remains an unknown, you are definitely not what, or who, you portray yourself to be. You offer nothing other than the most common and typical pre-teen drivel.
[/b][/QUOTE]
What kind of 12 year olds do you know who can write like that, Jet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Jet, posted 03-15-2002 3:19 PM Jet has not replied

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


Message 56 of 224 (6935)
03-15-2002 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by quicksink
03-14-2002 6:09 AM


quote:
Perhaps you are digging hard to find those indisputable records of Schrafinator's past criminal record.
Well, I did get a speeding ticket about 12 years ago...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 6:09 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-15-2002 7:15 PM nator has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 57 of 224 (6937)
03-15-2002 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by nator
03-15-2002 7:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Well, I did get a speeding ticket about 12 years ago...
Around the time quicksink was born, eh? Is there something we should know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 03-15-2002 7:07 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by nator, posted 03-24-2002 8:40 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 224 (6960)
03-15-2002 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Floris O
03-14-2002 5:15 AM


Are you seriously attempting to deny the existance of early evolutionary thought with its ties to pagan religious rites and rituals? Is so, I suggest you go back to college and take a few classes in ancient history and ancient religions. Seriously!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Floris O, posted 03-14-2002 5:15 AM Floris O has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by LudvanB, posted 03-15-2002 11:58 PM Jet has replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 224 (6963)
03-15-2002 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by joz
03-15-2002 3:39 PM


And then the pot said to the kettle, "Hey! You're black!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by joz, posted 03-15-2002 3:39 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 11:58 PM Jet has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 224 (6964)
03-15-2002 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Jet
03-15-2002 11:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Are you seriously attempting to deny the existance of early evolutionary thought with its ties to pagan religious rites and rituals? Is so, I suggest you go back to college and take a few classes in ancient history and ancient religions. Seriously!
apparantly,someone forgot to tell you that evolution science,like everything,christianity included,EVOLVES through time...so what early evolutionists may or may not have believed as far as religion,pagan or otherwise(which BTW depends largly on the POV...to a muslim,christians are pagans)is quite irrelevent today. I have yet to hear about evolutionary biologists offering sacrifices to pagan statues in US labs...when you hear of one such case,please lemme know

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Jet, posted 03-15-2002 11:30 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Jet, posted 03-16-2002 1:19 AM LudvanB 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