Human Intelligence

Congratulations on a spectacular acheivement in doublespeak.Like most speakers of english with at least a second-grade education I interpret "we" to mean "a group of persons including the speaker."Clearly, somehow, I erred in assuming that you meant what you said. Actually I've made a number of on-topic arguments that you have chosen not to rebut. We've gone off-topic again because you've chosen to argue off-topic points rather than defend your claims. Dishonest people all seem to come to the same conclusions about me; namely that I'm one of them. I'm usually turning their own tactics back onto them, so they may have a point.Had you shown up here to have a civil conversation, that's exactly what you would have recieved from me. But since you showed up to ridicule the claims of science, ridicule is exactly what I had for you.If you're so interested in talking about the topic, why don't you do so? Why don't you tell me what fundamentals of human consciousness we don't share with another animal species?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-16-2004]

It's ludicrous to suggest that the author of The Mismeasure of Man somehow supports biological arguments from racism. Moreover, not only is your quote not in context, it doesn't even say what you're implying it says out of context.You're really committed to showing us the worst behavior that Creationism has to offer, aren't you?For the ninth time (it seems), can you explain the relevance of Darwin's thoughts on race? Because I simply don't see the connection to anything we've talked about, or to modern evolutionary theory.

You wrote: LOL. You and Sylas need to get together and discuss stuff before you post. Unless you want to distance yourself from him and his arguments.You wrote: Oh, yes... I DO understand, yes I do. My difficulty was with developing a line a questioning that finally led to you saying what you did in the two quotes above. Sylas, on the other hand, played a gambit (hoping I was uninformed) and lost. For you, I now respect you a little for at least finally answering a question honestly. Unless you just failed to realize what you said.Oh, yes. I DO understand. You see, evolutionary ideas existed long before Darwin, as you know. Darwin was just in the right place at the right time, and possessed the proper skills and training to document it. The OoS was an instant best seller (I already told you the reason why, but you scoffed as usual). But you just admitted that "...we don't teach evolution out of the Origin of Species anymore" as it was in 1859-18XX. Of course not, for obvious reasons. And it goes beyond that: You don't even teach evolution as it was taught in the 1920s. Much of the "scientific" evidence that the evolutionist lawyers presented at the Scopes trial in 1925 is no longer valid today either. The textbooks in the 1950s that taught about Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Ernst Haekel's hoax (yes, Ernst Haekel, even though it had been long debunked), etc, etc, are no longer valid either. Do you want me to continue through the last few decades (as I have in earlier posts)?

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

Already explained my views much earlier. You missed it completely. Just like you don't believe in God. Do you think we'll ever connect on that? I rebutted, you rebutted. "Did so, did not, did so, did not." That's how you argue. I stated my views, you stated yours, we move on. But you think if you've said the last word on a topic, that you "won" somehow because the other person didn't "rebut" (translation: "Didn't get in the last word"). I don't need the last word; you do, so I give it to you as long as I made my views known. Just because you scoff doesn't make my viewpoint less valid.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

My goodness, I've heard that exact same argument before somewhere. But let's say those "dishonest people" were truly dihonest; how come they all tend to see the same thing even though they're not connected to each other? Mental telepathy, perhaps? Or just similar observations?

It would be more accurate to say that he was the first to propose an observable, testable, natural mechanism to drive the change in species over time. That is, after all, what he is famous for. Yes and no. Is the theory exactly the same as it was in 1920? No. Do we still have a model that explains the change in species over time by a process called natural selection? That hasn't changed since Darwin. You don't need to show me the continual advancement of science. And I'm hardly impressed that the best you can do is refute the theories and evidence that science no longer supports. I imagine it must be easy to attack something your opponent has already discarded. It was, after all, evolutionists who brought the Piltdown and Nebraska frauds to light, using evolutionary theory.Instead, why don't you aquaint yourself with the current theory and argue against that? Or is that too great a challenge?

You'll have to show me where you enumerated a list of the fundamental qualities we don't share with animals that you believe constitute human intelligence, because when I look back on the thread, it's not there.Maybe it would help if I told you what I was looking for. Something like "humans are creative; animals are not. Humans are social; animals are not." Etc. Ah, but unlike God, humans and animals exist. So it's possible for you to make statements about human and animal behavior that I can verify. It's very telling that you have chosen not to, so far. Arguments against your position that you can't rebut are evidence that your position is in error. I don't care about the last word. I care about which side has the weight of evidence in its favor, because evidence is what we're here to talk about. So far, evolution is winning hands-down. I don't give a damn about your "views." You're perfectly free to have whatever views you choose to.I care about evidence - about what is true in the universe, and what is not. That's why we talk about evidence, because evidence exists regardless of our "views" on the subject.There's no conceivable evidence that will support the statement "Godfather III is a good movie." That's a view. But the statement "species diversity on Earth is the result of the mechanisms of evolution" isn't a view. It's a verifiable statement about the universe that is either true or false.What I'm interested in arguing about is whether or not that statement is supported by evidence. My position is that it is. Yours is that it is not, I assume. Neither of those positions are opinion - one position is right, and the other is wrong. The purpose of the argument is to find out which is which.Your side isn't looking too good.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-16-2004]

Probably that. People who argue dishonestly or disrespectfully tend to see the same side of me.

Where do you see me saying that in post #150? You ARE replying to post #150, right? You didn't substantiate your claim with quote from that post.But since you say I quoted SJG out of context, please explain to me what SJG meant, in the proper context, of course. I'm very interested in hearing this.In case you forgot, here is his quote:

Crashfrog, my level of respect for you has just increased exponentially (even though you changed horses in mid-stream by slipping in that part about "disrespectfully") for admitting that.
I think you may be on the way to recovery.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

That evolutionary theory has provided more opportunities for racists to misuse scientific terminology in their arguments.I was under the impression that you were saying that Gould thought that evolutionary theory supported biological racism. Perhaps I was mistaken? What did you think Gould was saying? Why did you quote him here?

It's hardly an admission. Anybody reading the boards can see that I get snippy when folks are disrespectful.I hope anybody reading the boards, however, can see that I meet respect with respect, as well. If not then I do indeed have much to work on.

Except that you said, "...we don't teach out of OoS anymore."
Isn't that your foundation? If the foundation crumbles, what happens to the building? Bravo, the evolutionists brought down a fraud that was created by evolutionists! No, wait. A couple of frauds. No, the records here show NUMEROUS frauds. Forgeries and hoaxes too. Evolutionists taking down the evolutionists. Very entertaining.A house divided against itself will eventually fall.

Whoa! Honey! Add a couple more zeros to crashfrog's "measurement of respect" column!

I realize this might be a stretch for somebody used to thinking like a Biblical literalist, but it's possible for some parts of a book to be right and some other parts to be wrong.But it doesn't matter in this case. OoS isn't the "foundation". The foundation of the theory of evolution, like all scientific theories, is observation of the world around us. More interesting is that the creationists can't seem to take down anybody. What does your bible say about iron sharpening iron?Also consider the wide disparity of creationist positions before you talk about a "house divided." Is Answers in Genesis right, or is Kent Hovind? Is Carl Baugh right, or is Phillip Johnson? Or are they all wrong, and Michael Behe is right?Creationists can't even agree on how old the Earth is, or if new species can evolve. The ranks of evolutionists are marching in lockstep by comparison to the vast doctrinial disparities among creationists.