|
Author
|
Topic: Professionalism or Prejudice?
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6049 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
willowtree, willowtree...
willowtree writes: If want to read what I consider an interestng exchange about evolution then read the following posts... I think you are claiming some sort of victory here. You shouldn't. The exchange wasn't interesting. You were somehow trying to use technological advancement as the same as biological evolution - which is silly, an apple and oranges argument - I read it but didn't see it as worthy of a response. Do you really think that everytime someone comes up with a new idea or technology, that is the direct result of microevolution? Do you really think any biologists think that? If you want to start a new topic on this point, go ahead - your idea is inappropriate for the two threads you have now mentioned it in... I just hate to see you make a few illogical, off-topic comments in one thread, and then incorrectly claim victory in another thread. It's poor form.
|
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
Message 47 of 59 (122799)
07-07-2004 7:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by CK
07-07-2004 7:15 PM
|
|
Re: Chumming the Waters______________________chapter 4
From Post 444 - "Proof of God" Hey Knight, please take note of the last sentence - especially.
Please, please - show us some evidence. This opinion implies that no evidence has been posted. I will not go further with you until the evidence is acknowledged. Why should I keep posting if all you are going to do is act like it aint there ? Why is it that some people are allowed to evidence by link but not me ? All my previous evidence was argued and explained while citing the source.....sources that obtained their evidence IN EGYPT, which makes their evidence first hand. While the rules of this Forum are actually quite ambiguous, I have certainly satisfied these requirements and beyond. I have made claims, posted the evidence, and cited the source, a source in the case of Dr. Rutherford who produced ALL his evidence from being in Egypt. UNTIL THIS IS RECTIFIED AND ACKNOWLEDGED I HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN. I am personally satisfied that the responses all equate to saying "where is the evidence ?" In lieu of the evidence this is all you can say. Nobody has met my evidence with contrary evidence with source. I will not be held to a different standard in order to comply with a silent handicap which you are giving yourselves. Either acknowledge what I have posted or create a one line post of dismissal and acknowledge it in this thoroughly defeated way.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by CK, posted 07-07-2004 7:15 PM | | CK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by CK, posted 07-07-2004 9:39 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied |
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
Re: willowtree, willowtree...
Pink: You are hiding from the point, which is: Evolutionary scenario is locked in to ultra-slow step by tiny step improvement. Ancient wonders DEFY and smash this scenario to be dogma. No amount of avoiding the actual content of these points will make it go away. Whether the Egyptians built the Pyramid OR NOT, evolutionary scenario is left with a gaping hole. Remember this scenario has man slowly evolving with no accounting for ancient super-intelligence. Of course Egyptologists cover for you guys and just assert that egyptians built it anyway DESPITE the evidence outlined in post 428. The Great Pyramid is a gaping hole in the evolutionary scenario of which evos have no explanation but to hold on to their dogma as do fundies hold on to their dogma of a young Earth.
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6049 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
|
|
Message 49 of 59 (122806)
07-07-2004 7:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by CK
07-07-2004 7:15 PM
|
|
Re: Chumming the Waters______________________chapter 4
Hey Charles, Perhaps you've already realized that WILLOWTREE has trouble distinguishing "evidence" and "assertions". I'm posting this because WT just misquoted me, something like, "Please, please provide evidence," leaving out the rest of the line, "By evidence I mean methods and calculations for your measurements." If you check out the PROOF OF GOD thread, you'll see that we've spent the last twenty messages or so trying to explain the basic idea of "evidence" to WILLOWTREE. Sorry to bother you, just hate to have my words taken out of context, and see someone claiming moral victory where there is none.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by CK, posted 07-07-2004 7:15 PM | | CK has not replied |
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6049 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
Re: willowtree, willowtree...
Evolutionary scenario is locked in to ultra-slow step by tiny step improvement. IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS START A NEW THREAD - your hit-and-run off-topic comments are frustrating to those trying to actually follow forum rules.
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
Re: Chumming the Waters______________________chapter 4
Hey tree, I agree with what others have said - you post a link to a website where some claims are made. I can post a link to a site where a woman claims that Martians burned her with a laser after she giggled at their attempts to eat mince pies. It's a claim, it's not evidence.
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
WillowTree's Invitation
No, I did not miss your reply to me but with the restrictions that have been placed upon me I thought it best to wait for an actual invitation, which I now have and appreciate greatly. Many thanks!
The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
WillowTree's Post's
Thanks, I shall look them up. I am always in for a good read, something sorely lacking at EvC.
The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 54 of 59 (128835)
07-29-2004 11:48 PM
|
|
|
Chumming the Waters______________________chapter 5
Though I have been away for a short while, popping in and out as time allowed, most of my attention has been directed at the reading of posts in another thread so that I am better prepared when the time comes to respond there. That being said, today I shall devote my time to the continuance of this thread, stating a few observations, asking a few questions, and of course, providing a few more quotes for your enjoyment, or frustration, whichever the case may be. As most people who have read a fair number of my posts are aware, I am not your average evo. I totally discount the possibility of macroevolution, acknowledging it as the myth that it is. Now some would say that it makes no sense to consider oneself an evo while at the same time discounting macroevolution. I disagree. In fact, quite the contrary is true, as it seems to me that it is the only sensible way to approach the theory of evolution, when one considers the myth of macroevolution as being necessarily rejected in light of the overwhelming evidence in favor of design. Now I understand that some will look at the same evidence that I look at and will come to a different conclusion. However, that is only because they insist on clinging to that childhood fairytale, the myth of macroevolution, and in so doing, are in actuality ignoring the only logical and reasonable conclusion that can be reached when all of the evidence is weighed. Why do some insist on clinging to things unscientific while claiming they are scientific? The myth of macroevolution is not scientific in any way, shape, or form. It never has been and never will be. It simply never happened and true science is finally beginning to understand and acknowledge that fact. I think perhaps that is one of the main reasons I find little reason to respect the opinions of the vast majority of neo-evo's with whom I have come into contact. They continually insist on calling the myth of macroevolution science even in the face of the overwhelming evidence of pattern, design, and intelligent design.....perhaps even deliberate intelligent design which would necessarily suggest a designer, aka a creator, aka a god. Now I realize that to an atheist, which most neo-evo's are, the idea of a creator, a god if you will, being responsible for what we know as life, is an anathema to them. The question is why have they closed their mind to the possibility? Is it arrogance? Is it pride? Is it stubbornness? Is it single-mindedness? To acknowledge a creator, a god, is to also acknowledge the necessity of being accountable to a higher power than themselves. This would also suggest a required sense of duty to that god, and depending on which god an individual chose to acknowledge, an understanding of their responsibility to proclaim and present this god to others who are either unaware or uninformed. To the carnal minded individual, this gives birth to a paradox in thought versus deed, for how can one present that which he or she can neither touch nor see. This is where the concept of spiritual discernment must enter in, for without the ability to discern the spiritual, or metaphysical, from the physical, one is left perplexed as to how one can proceed with the responsibility with which they have been presented. I believe that this is the biggest obstacle that stands in the way of neo-evo's ever being able to understand, accept, and acknowledge the viability of a metaphysical, or supernatural explanation for things that science can never approach. I have asked the neo-evo's before, but I shall ask them again to provide any evidence they may be aware of that would prove the quote's offered here are not genuine and should thereby be ignored. So far I have not had anyone supply me with that evidence so the quote's stand as further proof that the myth of macroevolution is as far from being truly scientific as an athiest is from ever believing in a creator, a god, a higher power than themselves. The overwhelming evidence of patterns, designs, and intelligent designs that can clearly been seen throughout the universe are nothing more than a product of blind chance to the atheistic, closed-minded neo-evo's of the world. For them, secularism is their god, their higher power. To the truly open-minded individual, the existance of a metaphysical world, unseen by the human eye, must always remain a possibility, regardless of how remote that possibility may seem to the carnal mind.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anythingor at least they are not science."
George G. Simpson "The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."
Michael Denton "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
Charles Darwin
The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
|
|
Message 55 of 59 (130556)
08-05-2004 2:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by DarkStar
06-29-2004 1:29 AM
|
|
DarkStar's posting priviledges (mostly) restored
See http:// EvC Forum: Concerns for Percy for more information on this. Adminnemooseus
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?or
Thread Reopen Requests
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by DarkStar, posted 06-29-2004 1:29 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5934 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
|
|
Message 56 of 59 (130611)
08-05-2004 8:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by DarkStar
07-29-2004 11:48 PM
|
|
Re: Chumming the Waters______________________chapter 5
DarkStar
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anythingor at least they are not science."
George G. Simpson Just so we are clear what do you understand is meant by the phrase "checked by observation"? Does this mean that it must be directly seen to be considered "observed"? I will make further commentary on this later today but I must run off to work.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by DarkStar, posted 07-29-2004 11:48 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 57 of 59 (130718)
08-05-2004 2:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by DarkStar
07-29-2004 11:48 PM
|
|
Re: Chumming the Waters______________________chapter 5
quote:
They continually insist on calling the myth of macroevolution science even in the face of the overwhelming evidence of pattern, design, and intelligent design
Could you first explain why macroevolution is not based on evidence and is not testable? Could you then explain why there are christian scientists who fully accept macroevolution and at the same time credit God with the creation? Also, could you please show us one observed instance of an organism being intelligently designed by a supernatural entity? Something like an organism suddenly acquiring a new organ system in one generation through the manipulation of it's DNA by God. The point I am trying to make is that you are relying on some very shaky premises. Namely: 1. Macroevolution is not supported by evidence. 2. Intelligent design is testable and scientific. 3. The only reason people accept evolution is to deny that there is a God. The above are simply not true. The problem that you have, and many IDers and creationists have, is that you have a problem separating what you want reality to be and what reality is. Science lets reality tell us how it is constructed while the pseudo-science of creationism and ID assumes that reality has certain properties and only accepts evidence that supports that view. The only support for ID is to first accept ID, that is it. However, science looks for mechanisms, and has found a very powerful one that is able to create design and irreducible complexity. That mechanism is random mutation and selection, otherwise known as evolution. Also, can you define what macroevolution is? Can you then apply this to the steps in the horse lineage, starting with the leaf eating, five toed organism up to the much larger, one-toed grass eating horse? I would like your opinion on specifics on what makes micro and macro evolution different, and how it is not possible for the accumulation of microevolutionary steps to equal macroevolution.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by DarkStar, posted 07-29-2004 11:48 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: 10-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 58 of 59 (130720)
08-05-2004 2:14 PM
|
|
|
Do people realize that this isn't a real debate forum? This is the Suggestions forum and the thread OP concerned DarkStar and his suspension. Please take any other discussion elsewhere.
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.comhttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
Re: DarkStar's posting priviledges (mostly) restored {Repeat/Topic closed)
quote:
See http://EvC Forum: Concerns for Percy for more information on this.
Not a creationism/evolution debate topic. Topic closed. Adminnemooseus
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?or
Thread Reopen Requests
|
™ Version 4.2