Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 258 (19330)
10-08-2002 12:45 PM


This is from an exchange in another thread. Peter Borger, creationist, has strongly implied that all gene trees shoulkd match each other and therefore should be identical to a species tree. This despite the fact that he claims to be a molecular biologist and should know that different loci mutate independantly of any other locus and therefore incongruities are not unexpected.
Despite the fact that it is Borger's claim that all gene trees must match, he demanded I supply him with citations demonstrating that gene trees are not always expected to match:
quote:
SLPx:
It seems to me that YOU should be the one to provide documentation, since YOU are the one that claims that evolutionary biologists DO believe this. I am an evolutionary biologist (unlike you) and I know this is incorrect. I am the source.
But, you seem to know Futuyma. Maybe you have his text? Well, I do, And it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this:
BORGER:
MY RESONSE:
IF IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT GENES ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH SPECIES TREES, WHY IS THERE A DISCIPLINE THAT RECONSILES THESE GENES IN AN UTTERLY SPECULATIVE MANNER BY INTRODUCING/DELETION OF DUPLICATIONS? I WAS PRETTY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT AND SINCE YOU ARE THE EVO-BIOLOGIST ( I THOUGHT YOU WERE ANATOMIST BY EDUCATIN IN ANOTHER MAIL? 'HOMO UNIVERSALIS', I GUESS, LIKE ME) MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT.
Well, musn't let a little falsification get in our way, must we Peter?
What is this 'discipline' whose sole function is to "reconcile" gene trees with species trees?
What if no reconciliation is necessary? Is that lineage hypothesis correct?
What we have is the tired old creationist wild extrapolation - Borger found what appears to be a unique case and extrapolates into a field-wide conundrum.
The old Woodmorappe "anomolies refute constancies" tactic...
quote:
"Coalescent theory tells us that under some circumstances, this gene tree, even if correct, may not be the same as the species tree, i.e., the phylogeny of the species form which the gene copies were taken."
MY RESPONSE:
WHO IS FUTUYMA? YOUR GOD? AND COALSESCENT HYPOTHESIS DOESN'T TELL ANYTHING, IT MERELY HOLDS SOMETHING. ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO BRING AN HYPOTHESIS AS FACT?
No, Futuyma is an evolutionary biologist, one whom I believe you have quoted yourself. You asked for a citation, I provide one, you go off on this bizarre rant. If you read the quote, you would see that it is coalescent theory, and as one holding a docotrate in the sciences, I thought that you would know what a theory is, but I guess I was wrong on that count. Let me help you with your creationese, Peter - you should have written :Its just a theory. It isn't proven beyond a doubt, therefore, it is wrong."
There now - isn't that better?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by peter borger, posted 10-08-2002 11:07 PM derwood has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 2 of 258 (19356)
10-08-2002 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
10-08-2002 12:45 PM


Dear Dr Page,
You write:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is from an exchange in another thread. Peter Borger, creationist, has strongly implied that all gene trees shoulkd match each other and therefore should be identical to a species tree. This despite the fact that he claims to be a molecular biologist and should know that different loci mutate independantly of any other locus....
I say:
That is an assumption. As posted today, even mutations induced by radioactivity seem to be non-random, i.e on hotspots. From NDT perspectives this has NO explanation.
....and therefore incongruities are not unexpected.
Despite the fact that it is Borger's claim that all gene trees must match, he demanded I supply him with citations demonstrating that gene trees are not always expected to match:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLPx:
It seems to me that YOU should be the one to provide documentation, since YOU are the one that claims that evolutionary biologists DO believe this. I am an evolutionary biologist (unlike you) and I know this is incorrect. I am the source.
But, you seem to know Futuyma. Maybe you have his text? Well, I do, And it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this:
BORGER:
MY RESONSE:
IF IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT GENES ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH SPECIES TREES, WHY IS THERE A DISCIPLINE THAT RECONSILES THESE GENES IN AN UTTERLY SPECULATIVE MANNER BY INTRODUCING/DELETION OF DUPLICATIONS? I WAS PRETTY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT AND SINCE YOU ARE THE EVO-BIOLOGIST ( I THOUGHT YOU WERE ANATOMIST BY EDUCATIN IN ANOTHER MAIL? 'HOMO UNIVERSALIS', I GUESS, LIKE ME) MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, musn't let a little falsification get in our way, must we Peter?
I say:
If you admit that it IS a little falsification, than evolution theory is not complete, or worse, wrong. Certainly, it is NOT a fact!!
You say:
What is this 'discipline' whose sole function is to "reconcile" gene trees with species trees?
I say:
It can be found in most recent evolutionary studiebooks, for instance in "Molecular Evolution, A Phylogenetic Approach" by Dr. Roderick Page. I already gave you the references. [And you still owe me an apology regarding a false accusation when I referred to this Dr Page, while you though I referred to you.]
You say:
What if no reconciliation is necessary? Is that lineage hypothesis correct?
I say:
That's good for the hype, although it doesn't proof anything.
You say:
What we have is the tired old creationist wild extrapolation - Borger found what appears to be a unique case and extrapolates into a field-wide conundrum.
I say:
I thought that there was nothing inherently wrong with speculations, as long as they are presented as speculations and not as fact. And thanks for calling me a 'tired old creationist'. I am not tired and not old. You don't learn it, isn't it Dr Page?
You say:
The old Woodmorappe "anomolies refute constancies" tactic...
I say:
Anomalies demonstrate the theory not to be correct. Ask any physicist about anomalies.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Coalescent theory tells us that under some circumstances, this gene tree, even if correct, may not be the same as the species tree, i.e., the phylogeny of the species form which the gene copies were taken."
MY RESPONSE:
WHO IS FUTUYMA? YOUR GOD? AND COALSESCENT HYPOTHESIS DOESN'T TELL ANYTHING, IT MERELY HOLDS SOMETHING. ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO BRING AN HYPOTHESIS AS FACT?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
No, Futuyma is an evolutionary biologist, one whom I believe you have quoted yourself.
I say:
No, Mark24 was the first to mention him. I know who he is what he holds, and I know why I am an opponent of his visions.
You say:
You asked for a citation, I provide one, you go off on this bizarre rant. If you read the quote, you would see that it is coalescent theory, and as one holding a docotrate in the sciences, I thought that you would know what a theory is, but I guess I was wrong on that count. Let me help you with your creationese, Peter - you should have written :Its just a theory. It isn't proven beyond a doubt, therefore, it is wrong."
There now - isn't that better?
I say:
Sounds a lot better than the usual statements that it is a fact. Evolution theory is all but a fact. Only by the complete ignorance of all implications of contemporary molecular biology it can be propagated as fact. That is what happens in the media.
And, I recommend you to get used to non-random mutations. Soon they will be introduced in evolution theory.
Finally, I assume you do not want to discuss the human ZFY region, since you edited it out? Another little falsification?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 10-08-2002 12:45 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 10-09-2002 5:46 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 6 by derwood, posted 10-09-2002 11:34 AM peter borger has replied

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 258 (19366)
10-09-2002 3:24 AM


you're incredibly arrogant for someone who cannot even begin to describe a mechanism for these directed mutations, and who does not understand the concept of hotspot mutations.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 10-09-2002 3:42 AM monkenstick has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 4 of 258 (19368)
10-09-2002 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by monkenstick
10-09-2002 3:24 AM


dear Monkenstick,
There will be a day that either I or you have to apologise. Let's wait for that day.
best wishes
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by monkenstick, posted 10-09-2002 3:24 AM monkenstick has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 258 (19372)
10-09-2002 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by peter borger
10-08-2002 11:07 PM


quote:
IF IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT GENES ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH SPECIES TREES, WHY IS THERE A DISCIPLINE THAT RECONSILES THESE GENES IN AN UTTERLY SPECULATIVE MANNER BY INTRODUCING/DELETION OF DUPLICATIONS? I WAS PRETTY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT AND SINCE YOU ARE THE EVO-BIOLOGIST ( I THOUGHT YOU WERE ANATOMIST BY EDUCATIN IN ANOTHER MAIL? 'HOMO UNIVERSALIS', I GUESS, LIKE ME) MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT.
Gene trees are broadly congruent with each other. You yourself have mentioned "species trees". Do you ACTUALLY know what a species tree is? It is a tree based on other congruent phylogenies!!!!!! The point of molecular phylogenetic analyses is that statistical tests can be applied to the results to see if they are meaningful, or pure chance (simplistically).
A tree that either fails to resolve a node, or resolves it in such a way that other other trees disagree, is suspect (that node). If the weight of evidence points to a particular resolution (via other trees), then that is what is accepted as the consensus for that species tree.
If phylogenetic analyses failed the statistical tests, & gene trees were not congruent AT ALL, then it would be a blow for the ToE, & a point scored for creationism. Why? Because the prediction failed to bear out.
The problem faced by phylogenetic analyses, is that sometimes, various nodes are resolved by very small character changes, & those changes need not always reflect actual phylogeny. The point is, if small character differences are all we have to work with, then occasionally we will see incongruent surprises. This sort of thing is best seen in slowly evolving molecules, when attempting to produce "young" phylogenies. A histone phylogeny of primates would be nigh on useless, the small differences would have no phylogenetic value whatsoever, as a single fixed mutation could completely change the clade an organism is placed in.
The point is, that this is expected to happen when resolving nodes on more informative phylogenies from time to time. BUT, the statistical tests that are applied tell us that something is indeed begging for an explanation.
If you cast your mind back, your first response to me was when I was attempting to show to Philip that molecular phylogenies were excellent evidence of evolution. I pointed out that a 10 taxa phylogeny had over 34,000,000 possible trees. That's 1,156,000,000,000,000 : 1 chance of getting two perfectly congruent trees. Because of the sheer number of possible trees, only getting a 50% congruent tree is staggering also.
The question is, why are phylogenies congruent at all if they were created separately? Take molecules like cyt c, for example. They have no morphological bearing whatsoever, yet they are congruent with morphologically based cladograms/phylogenies. Why? Why don't we ALL have identical cyt c? It does exactly the same job everywhere.
The same can be said for retrovrii, pseudogenes etc. There is no morphological or chemical reason that these phylogenies should be congruent with other phylogenies, UNLESS common descent is indicative of the truth.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 10-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by peter borger, posted 10-08-2002 11:07 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by peter borger, posted 10-09-2002 11:24 PM mark24 has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 6 of 258 (19418)
10-09-2002 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by peter borger
10-08-2002 11:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
You write:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is from an exchange in another thread. Peter Borger, creationist, has strongly implied that all gene trees shoulkd match each other and therefore should be identical to a species tree. This despite the fact that he claims to be a molecular biologist and should know that different loci mutate independantly of any other locus....
I say:
That is an assumption. As posted today, even mutations induced by radioactivity seem to be non-random, i.e on hotspots. From NDT perspectives this has NO explanation.
You can put your fingers in your ears and scream "I can't hear you!" all day long and it will not change the fact that science did find an answer to this - as has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You simply refuse to acknowledge it. Perhaps you cannot understand it. Most likely, both.
quote:
....and therefore incongruities are not unexpected.
Despite the fact that it is Borger's claim that all gene trees must match, he demanded I supply him with citations demonstrating that gene trees are not always expected to match:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLPx:
It seems to me that YOU should be the one to provide documentation, since YOU are the one that claims that evolutionary biologists DO believe this. I am an evolutionary biologist (unlike you) and I know this is incorrect. I am the source.
But, you seem to know Futuyma. Maybe you have his text? Well, I do, And it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this:
BORGER:
MY RESONSE:
IF IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT GENES ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH SPECIES TREES, WHY IS THERE A DISCIPLINE THAT RECONSILES THESE GENES IN AN UTTERLY SPECULATIVE MANNER BY INTRODUCING/DELETION OF DUPLICATIONS? I WAS PRETTY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT AND SINCE YOU ARE THE EVO-BIOLOGIST ( I THOUGHT YOU WERE ANATOMIST BY EDUCATIN IN ANOTHER MAIL? 'HOMO UNIVERSALIS', I GUESS, LIKE ME) MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, musn't let a little falsification get in our way, must we Peter?
I say:
If you admit that it IS a little falsification, than evolution theory is not complete, or worse, wrong. Certainly, it is NOT a fact!!
Silly creationist, I was referring to the falsification of your pitiful mantra about gene trees having to be congruent lest evolution be wrong. This little rhetorical gmae that you like to play is most unimpressive.
quote:
You say:
What is this 'discipline' whose sole function is to "reconcile" gene trees with species trees?
I say:
It can be found in most recent evolutionary studiebooks, for instance in "Molecular Evolution, A Phylogenetic Approach" by Dr. Roderick Page. I already gave you the references.
So, you are saying that molecular evolution is the field whose sole responsibility is 'reconciling' incongruent trees? Unreal.
quote:
You say:
What if no reconciliation is necessary? Is that lineage hypothesis correct?
I say:
That's good for the hype, although it doesn't proof anything.
TRANSLATION: Yes, but I don't want to deal with that and I have a religion to prop up, so I cannot concede a single point.
Thanks, Pete. What is does proof is that you, like all creationists, are being quite unreasonable and inconsistent.
quote:
You say:
What we have is the tired old creationist wild extrapolation - Borger found what appears to be a unique case and extrapolates into a field-wide conundrum.
I say:
I thought that there was nothing inherently wrong with speculations, as long as they are presented as speculations and not as fact. And thanks for calling me a 'tired old creationist'. I am not tired and not old. You don't learn it, isn't it Dr Page?
Incomprehensible.
I do not see anything in your posts indicating that it was speculation on your part that species trees must match all gene trees, lest evolution be disproofed. You presented it as what I call a matter-of-fact statement. As such, you were quite wrong for a numnber of reasons.
quote:
You say:
The old Woodmorappe "anomolies refute constancies" tactic...
I say:
Anomalies demonstrate the theory not to be correct. Ask any physicist about anomalies.
Why would I ask a physicist about a biological phenomenon? But your dogged dogmatism is most inspiring.
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Coalescent theory tells us that under some circumstances, this gene tree, even if correct, may not be the same as the species tree, i.e., the phylogeny of the species form which the gene copies were taken."
MY RESPONSE:
WHO IS FUTUYMA? YOUR GOD? AND COALSESCENT HYPOTHESIS DOESN'T TELL ANYTHING, IT MERELY HOLDS SOMETHING. ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO BRING AN HYPOTHESIS AS FACT?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
No, Futuyma is an evolutionary biologist, one whom I believe you have quoted yourself.
I say:
No, Mark24 was the first to mention him. I know who he is what he holds, and I know why I am an opponent of his visions.
So do I - you have a religion to protect.
quote:
You say:
You asked for a citation, I provide one, you go off on this bizarre rant. If you read the quote, you would see that it is coalescent theory, and as one holding a docotrate in the sciences, I thought that you would know what a theory is, but I guess I was wrong on that count. Let me help you with your creationese, Peter - you should have written :Its just a theory. It isn't proven beyond a doubt, therefore, it is wrong."
There now - isn't that better?
I say:
Sounds a lot better than the usual statements that it is a fact. Evolution theory is all but a fact. Only by the complete ignorance of all implications of contemporary molecular biology it can be propagated as fact. That is what happens in the media.
Then I suggest you straighten the media out then, rather than make a fool of yourself in front of those of us that know better.
quote:
And, I recommend you to get used to non-random mutations. Soon they will be introduced in evolution theory.
If you say so, what being an asthma researcher and all.
I take your lack of substantive response to be an admission that you simply went into ballistic creationsit mode when I disproofed your little notion about gene trees and species trees. Pity you didn't actually learn anything from that Rod Page book...
quote:
Finally, I assume you do not want to discuss the human ZFY region, since you edited it out? Another little falsification?
Please try to comrehend the words of others a little better next time.
What is to discuss? The twisted interpretation of a creationist asthma researhcer or that of anyone else?
You grow tiresome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by peter borger, posted 10-08-2002 11:07 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by peter borger, posted 10-09-2002 11:00 PM derwood has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 7 of 258 (19457)
10-09-2002 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by derwood
10-09-2002 11:34 AM


Dear Dr page,
All your responses are tacitly saying "Please, I don't wanna discuss this topic, but I wanna kick some creationist's butts".
I wonder, though, why did you register to this board? Maybe you didn't get it, but it is a discussion board!!
So, I once more invite you to discuss the ZFY region in a scientific way. Let's find out where the problems are and how I solve them and how you solve them.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by derwood, posted 10-09-2002 11:34 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 10-11-2002 11:24 AM peter borger has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 8 of 258 (19461)
10-09-2002 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mark24
10-09-2002 5:46 AM


Dear mark,
You also still don't get the point of non-random mutations, is it? How many times do I have to repeat myself before this new insight is going to be understood. Read all my recent mail in the "molecular genetic evidence against random mutation" thread. In particular #184. If true, we can not discriminate between molecular common descent and non-random accumulations of mutations. Is this concept so difficult to comprehend?
O yes, the point I made was that the putative duplication required to reconcile the IL-1beta gene tree did not give rise to Il-1beta, but to IL-1alpha. So, this demonstrates the method to be invalid.
best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 10-09-2002 5:46 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by derwood, posted 10-11-2002 11:26 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 10-11-2002 12:35 PM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 9 of 258 (19635)
10-11-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by peter borger
10-09-2002 11:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr page,
All your responses are tacitly saying "Please, I don't wanna discuss this topic, but I wanna kick some creationist's butts".
No, they are saying "The creationist has already had his butt kicked, so why keep going over this same stuff".
quote:
I wonder, though, why did you register to this board? Maybe you didn't get it, but it is a discussion board!!
Yes, I realize that. One of the reasons I registered was to counter the propagandistic nonsense spewed by creationists. Especially those that present themselves as having some sort of expertise to make their arguyments look more imnpressive than they are.
quote:
So, I once more invite you to discuss the ZFY region in a scientific way. Let's find out where the problems are and how I solve them and how you solve them.
Best wishes,
Peter
I posted some recent citations addressing your 'anomolies' that I don't think you have responded to yet.
So, yes - let's discuss the science behind your claims.
That would be a first. Repeated assertions do grow tirsome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by peter borger, posted 10-09-2002 11:00 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by derwood, posted 10-11-2002 1:17 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 13 by DanskerMan, posted 11-25-2002 4:58 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 10 of 258 (19636)
10-11-2002 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by peter borger
10-09-2002 11:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mark,
You also still don't get the point of non-random mutations, is it? How many times do I have to repeat myself before this new insight is going to be understood. Read all my recent mail in the "molecular genetic evidence against random mutation" thread. In particular #184. If true, we can not discriminate between molecular common descent and non-random accumulations of mutations. Is this concept so difficult to comprehend?
O yes, the point I made was that the putative duplication required to reconcile the IL-1beta gene tree did not give rise to Il-1beta, but to IL-1alpha. So, this demonstrates the method to be invalid.
best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-09-2002]

Funny - did you not just ask me to provide with references for the methods in another thread?
How can you say they are invalid (they are not, I assure you) when you do not even know what they are?!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by peter borger, posted 10-09-2002 11:24 PM peter borger has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 258 (19642)
10-11-2002 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by peter borger
10-09-2002 11:24 PM


quote:
You also still don't get the point of non-random mutations, is it?
You think non-random mutations/hotsposts are directed, & somehow placed by the creator in order to improve the genome, right? What's NOT to understand?
So, why do I have to wait generations for this to happen (well, that would be too late, i guess). I don't see where I've missed your point.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by peter borger, posted 10-09-2002 11:24 PM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 12 of 258 (19644)
10-11-2002 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by derwood
10-11-2002 11:24 AM


See:
http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/zfy1a.htm
and my post in the thread on molecular 'proof'...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 10-11-2002 11:24 AM derwood has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 258 (24278)
11-25-2002 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by derwood
10-11-2002 11:24 AM


--------------------------------------------------------------------
SLPx writes:
No, they are saying "The creationist has already had his butt kicked, so why keep going over this same stuff"...
Yes, I realize that. One of the reasons I registered was to counter the propagandistic nonsense spewed by creationists. Especially those that present themselves as having some sort of expertise to make their arguyments look more imnpressive than they are."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonnikke:
this is LOL stuff...WHO is spreading propagandistic nonsense? I tell you, the evolutionist has MUCH greater faith than the creationist.
To believe that everything we see and feel happened by chance without a designer...it goes contrary to all else that we know. No building ever builds itself; no organization runs smoothly without managament& planning (design)...there's design in virtually everything, why is it so hard for the evolutionist to attribute design to something so complex as life? It's all about faith in either THE God or the evo-god...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 10-11-2002 11:24 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by robinrohan, posted 11-25-2002 5:49 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 11-26-2002 4:27 AM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 24 by derwood, posted 11-26-2002 1:31 PM DanskerMan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 258 (24290)
11-25-2002 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by DanskerMan
11-25-2002 4:58 PM


"no organization runs smoothly without management and planning"
What gives you the idea that nature runs smoothly? It seems pretty chaotic to me. One example: birth defects. Babies born without arms or legs or whatever. Does that sound like a smoothly run organization? Whoever's running it should be fired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by DanskerMan, posted 11-25-2002 4:58 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by DanskerMan, posted 11-26-2002 9:12 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 15 of 258 (24366)
11-26-2002 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by DanskerMan
11-25-2002 4:58 PM


Sonnikke:
this is LOL stuff...WHO is spreading propagandistic nonsense?
M: You are
S: I tell you, the evolutionist has MUCH greater faith than the creationist.
M: Glad you told us since you are obviously such an expert
S:
To believe that everything we see and feel happened by chance without a designer...it goes contrary to all else that we know.
M: What "we" know? Let's see "you" even state what the principles of evolution are...most of the creationists on this board can't even state the most basic tenets.
S: No building ever builds itself;
M: No building is capable of self reproduction or undergoes heritable mutation...your analogy is inappropriate
S: no organization runs smoothly without managament& planning (design)...
M: smoothly? LOL!!!...nature is a mess.
S:there's design in virtually everything
M: Show us the designed parts and the natural parts and the way to distinguish the two.
S: why is it so hard for the evolutionist to attribute design to something so complex as life?
M: Because it is not necessary and is a non testable hypothesis i.e. pseudoscience
S:
It's all about faith in either THE God or the evo-god...
M: It is all about people who are blinded by a literal interpretation of some book about some mythological god and people who are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by DanskerMan, posted 11-25-2002 4:58 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by DanskerMan, posted 11-26-2002 9:24 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024