Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why DID we evolve into humans?
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 231 (54719)
09-10-2003 7:47 AM


done
Mark,
Again you've avoided my point. I'll break this into baby terms one last time. But I am done here because I can't spend all this time rehashing this same thing.
You gave an example (the E. Coli thing)... You basically said, it benefited by a natural mutation because it was able to survive in the presence of Penicillin. I acknowledge that this was a benefit. But I submitted that while it benefitted, it doesn't mean it gained any type of information or DNA or whatever you want to use. I stated that well say it was that when a species smells something it is normally killed, but there could be a natural mutation that caused it to lose a nose, then it would be able to survive. So I said, while obviously "the nose" wasn't the case with the E. Coli, you get my point. And I think you do, I get the impression you acknowledge something can be lost from a mutation and possibly cause a benefit. My point is that new "information" if you will, can't come from nowhere. You can have duplications and stuff, and while that changes things... It doesn't introduce NEW things. It modifies (duplicates) something already there. My whole point has been that you insist that something was added to the E. Coli, but haven't shown that. Again, you show that it benefited, and I don't dis-agree. I know it benefited, but it could have been from a loss of some kind. I'm not sure where you get this something can be added when something is lost, because again, that has nothing to do with anything I've said. I don't think things are added period... Also, that defies mutation. Mutations are changes of things already there, not brand new things appearing from no where. I think you recognize this in your last stuff about DNA, but I'm not versed in that, so I'm not sure what you're saying, so I'll pull my dumb card and say I won't even argue it. Again, this is my final post... But let me just say again how I feel nothing can just come from no where. It isn't possible for my computer monitor to just be here. Someone had to put it together. It pieces can fall off, but new pieces don't just appear at random. The bottom line of like all of our last posts I will point to one more time... I said maybe the E. Coli's benefit could have come from a loss... You state as fact that it came from a gain/something new added. But you haven't shown proof of it. You've just continously stated it, but not said how you know it and why it is a fact. I still haven't seen where something BRAND NEW has been added... Duplications and loses happen, but I've never known of a person randomly growing a stinger like a bee, or tusks like a walrus... I know those are extreme, but you get what I'm saying... Again, this is my last post. Respond however you want... But I have no plan on replying, at least not in this category, so to post anything probing for a response won't be time well spent. But feel free to do what you like... Interesting debate when on topic.... Later

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mark24, posted 09-10-2003 8:27 AM rabair has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 47 of 231 (54722)
09-10-2003 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by rabair
09-10-2003 7:47 AM


Re: done
rabair,
Again you've avoided my point. I'll break this into baby terms one last time. But I am done here because I can't spend all this time rehashing this same thing.
No, I haven't avoided your point. Your original point was:
rabair writes:
Information (such as DNA, etc.) can't be added through a natural mutation. Information can be shuffled around, and more often information is lost at the hands of a mutation... But never is information added.
You've changed terms from information to other things, but I have provided a plausible scenario where there is a net addition, a net gain, in direct contradiction of your unsupported claim such a thing is impossible.
You are moving the goalposts, & I'm not playing your silly diversionary games.
"So,
Condition A/ A particular DNA sequence had one function, Y.
Event 1/ The DNA sequence is duplicated, into sequences A & B.
Event 2/ Sequence B mutated giving it a beneficial mutation & new function, Z, sequence A is unaffected.
Condition B/ A particular DNA sequence labelled A & B has 2 functions, Y & Z.
Even though sequence B lost function Y & gained function Z, the genome as a whole GAINED function between conditions A & B.
Please tell me how nothing was added between condition A & B, please tell me how nothing was gained."
This example goes straight to the heart of the matter, so spare me the smug "baby step" comments & defend your assertion that gain/addition is impossible.
I don't think things are added period...
But things can be added, see above, what is so hard to understand about a new functional gene appearing without losing the original gene & it's function?
Also, that defies mutation.
So why can I give a plausible (& after all, not a difficult to understand) scenario that shows you to be wrong?
Mutations are changes of things already there, not brand new things appearing from no where.
Answered in my last post, that's how evolution works. So please deal with the example above that shows by TWO simple changes net gain can be accomplished.
Interesting debate when on topic.... Later
I have reliably remained on topic, see a quote from your opening post, above. I have no idea what "on topic" means to you, meandering aimlessly, changing terms when it suits you, whilst refusing to address examples that blow your argument out of the water, perhaps?
For your information, you originally claimed that beneficial mutation was impossible, I showed it wasn't, you then threw both arms around your assertion that addition/gain was impossible, so my line of argument CHANGED when you CHANGED the emphasis of your argument, geddit? I then needed to show that net gain can occur via mutation, which is what I did. Your claim that addition/gain cannot occur via mutation has been refuted. Please try to stay on topic, rabair.
I think you recognize this in your last stuff about DNA, but I'm not versed in that, so I'm not sure what you're saying, so I'll pull my dumb card and say I won't even argue it.
Someone who plays the dumb card should probably retire from the debate. How can you be so confident that gain cannot occur via mutations when you know jack shit?
I have provide a plausible example (& you don't need to understand DNA or genetics, just understand that a gene is a DNA sequence that ultimately expresses a function) that contradicts, & renders possible something that you clam is impossible. What is so hard to understand about the bolded example, above?
You lose.
It is unbelievable that you have the bare faced arrogance to "baby step" me, yet "play the dumb card" when you are shown to be wrong. Priceless. Absolutely priceless!
I still haven't seen where something BRAND NEW has been added...
Function Z. It did not exist in the original condition A. It is therefore "new", or are you equivocating over the use of that word, too?
But I have no plan on replying
Of course you don't, that would mean dealing with the awful truth that a net gain can occur via mutation. You will of course claim it came from sequence A in the first place, but that's how evolution works, new things apppear out of old ones, & when duplications occur, there are net gains, despite your claims otherwise..
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by rabair, posted 09-10-2003 7:47 AM rabair has not replied

rabair
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 231 (54812)
09-10-2003 6:36 PM


I feel compelled
You know what, I feel compelled to reply because of your ridiculous condescending tone. You know Mark, you basically agree with me then. You have just been avoiding answering what I say directly. You are the one who uses these net gain terms, etc... not me, and you always talk about how when something is lost something is gained, causing net gain... blah blah blah... That is irrelevent to anything. You say I keep changing terms... I've had to do so to try to make you answer me with what I'm asking and I haven't felt that you have. I made it clear when I say "added" and "gained" I mean the same thing, I separate benefit from that completely... Why do you spend most of your argument going over that? The point is, what you call a net gain, as I understand it now, isn't impossible... Maybe you're the only one here who understands that things can change from their current state, but BRAND NEW things can't come from no where. I think that's what you're not getting. Most of your people, must just not know what you do, insist that things just appear from thin air in mutation... They say that totally new, unrelated traits/info/characteristics, just come from absolutely no where. You seem to have finally pointed out that you don't say that... But you say that with mutations, your "net gain" is a change... And while it may be more of something, implying a gain to you. What I mean when I say there is no gain, is something BRAND NEW. It's very obvious, but maybe now you get it. And the point is that originally life started from non-life... Which isn't possible. You can't have something BRAND NEW that wasn't there before. To believe that is extremely wishful thinking. And for something microscopic to have changes to eventually add things like feet, legs, all the extremeties, etc.... Is just ridiculous. The point is at least you made your point clear in your last paragraph. But let me say one thing... You've said things about "That's how evolution works" and similar... The point is I obviously don't believe evolution, so to make that statement to assist your assertions is pointless. Anyway, let me react to your last paragraph, then I'm done... here's your paragraph:
"Of course you don't, that would mean dealing with the awful truth that a net gain can occur via mutation. You will of course claim it came from sequence A in the first place, but that's how evolution works, new things apppear out of old ones, & when duplications occur, there are net gains, despite your claims otherwise.. "
Wrong wrong wrong, I have never said "net gains" didn't occur. I explained this above, but I'm gonna say it again. This "net gain" stuff is your business. I just say BRAND NEW things don't come from thin air... Science and common sense no that. Things can be changed via duplications and losses, but BRAND NEW things aren't added by magic chance. It is obvious this is what I've been saying all along... You can go back and read the posts... Avoid the one where I said "things can't benefit" because I've said I made that mistake like a million times now, but you feel the need to waste your post addressing things like that. Knock yourself out.

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2003 6:44 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 50 by mark24, posted 09-10-2003 7:34 PM rabair has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 231 (54814)
09-10-2003 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by rabair
09-10-2003 6:36 PM


Things can be changed via duplications and losses, but BRAND NEW things aren't added by magic chance.
Evolution doesn't demand new things to come from nowhere. Evolution is a process by which new organs and structures are made from pre-existing ones. That's why dolphins have pelvises, and bat wings are really elongated wrist bones. There's really very little novelty in evolution. It's all minor changes adding up over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by rabair, posted 09-10-2003 6:36 PM rabair has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 50 of 231 (54825)
09-10-2003 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by rabair
09-10-2003 6:36 PM


Re: I feel compelled
rabair,
rabair writes:
You know what, I feel compelled to reply because of your ridiculous condescending tone. You know Mark, you basically agree with me then. You have just been avoiding answering what I say directly. You are the one who uses these net gain terms, etc... not me, and you always talk about how when something is lost something is gained, causing net gain... blah blah blah... That is irrelevent to anything. You say I keep changing terms... I've had to do so to try to make you answer me with what I'm asking and I haven't felt that you have. I made it clear when I say "added" and "gained" I mean the same thing, I separate benefit from that completely... Why do you spend most of your argument going over that?
Because, Mr Equivocation, a benefitial mutatation that introduces a new function is by definition ADDING something. When that was pointed out to you, you retreated faster than an Italian Infantry Division in WW2. THEN it became "ah, yes, but it is losing something too". Hence you implicitly are using a net gain usage. THAT IS WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION, IF YOU WERE NOT USING "NET GAIN", AS OPPOSED TO "ANY GAIN" THEN YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT YOU ORIGINALLY MADE SEVERAL POSTS AGO.
rabair writes:
The point is, what you call a net gain, as I understand it now, isn't impossible... Maybe you're the only one here who understands that things can change from their current state, but BRAND NEW things can't come from no where.
AS I have pointed out three times now, I agree, as far as evolution goes, but so what? Do you realise how far you have retreated from your original assertions?
rabair writes:
I mean, if we can't gain info, we can only lose, then our ancestors were probably much healthier and smarter and physically/mentally stronger. This would explain, to me anyway, why disease, obesity, and everything else is so much larger today than ever. Not to mention that life expectency was really bad a few generations back, but only modern science has caused it to rise to it's current levels. I mean, all of that stuff about health, etc. is just my thought that just came to me now, so try not to judge that too harshly, just popped into my head.... But I believe the mutation information to be true, and I'm sure you'll have something to say about it, but note that many evolution experts have even voiced those same points, but somehow still holding to the ToE.
The point is, rabair, that you clearly thought from the bolded comments above, that nothing could be added at all, & in fact, there would be a net loss over time, consistent with Hovind's views. It is this argument that I have been seeking to destroy all along, everytime I annihilate one part, you retreat to another, slightly different position, using different terms.
I, nor evolutionary theory, could care less about the something from nothing argument. Newer, bigger & better structures are possible via gene duplication & co-option, it doesn't have to be from nothing, nor is it. You don't even have to have abiogenesis from nothing, since the molecules already existed. You mentioned the bee/wasp sting, it is a co-opted female reproductive system, it used pre-existing structures & found something different to do with it.
rabair writes:
I think that's what you're not getting. Most of your people, must just not know what you do, insist that things just appear from thin air in mutation... They say that totally new, unrelated traits/info/characteristics, just come from absolutely no where. You seem to have finally pointed out that you don't say that... But you say that with mutations, your "net gain" is a change... And while it may be more of something, implying a gain to you. What I mean when I say there is no gain, is something BRAND NEW.
And now maybe you get it, & I'll try to couch it in your terms, evolution doesn't do anything that is brand new. Since everything is reducible to the genetic level, the sequences that are expressed can be copied, added to, changed, there is absolutely no reason why a 3 billion base pair genome cannot increase to 6 bbp, & some of that DNA gain new complex functions. If that's not "brand new" to you, fine & dandy by me, rabair.
It's very obvious, but maybe now you get it. And the point is that originally life started from non-life... Which isn't possible. You can't have something BRAND NEW that wasn't there before.
But you didn't start from nothing, you started with atoms & molecules that weren't self replicators. Even life isn't "brand new" according to you. Or are you saying the ability to self replicate is brand new, but function Z in my last post isn't, after all, function Z is something that wasn't there before, right? You are being hypocritical.
rabair writes:
Wrong wrong wrong, I have never said "net gains" didn't occur. I explained this above, but I'm gonna say it again. This "net gain" stuff is your business. I just say BRAND NEW things don't come from thin air...
Au contraire.....
rabair writes:
Information (such as DNA, etc.) can't be added through a natural mutation. Information can be shuffled around, and more often information is lost at the hands of a mutation... But never is information added.
What's that if it's not a "net gains" don't occur argument? Do you consult with yourself when you write?
Furthermore, you did say net gains didn't occur, not those words, but you claimed that when things are added things are lost at the same time, that's the point of your nose argument, isn't it? You retreated to the "brand new argument" after the other things you said never occurred are shown to.
Science and common sense no that. Things can be changed via duplications and losses, but BRAND NEW things aren't added by magic chance.
Evolution doesn't occur from nothing, it uses, duplicates, & co-opts pre-existing sequences to make new function & structure. I've made this point, what, three times now, why do you think your "brand new" argument falsifies evolution?
If you are claiming that evolution & abiogenesis requires BRAND NEW things, then I'll have function Z as a brand new thing. The function zapped into existence from nowhere between condition A & B. Just like the function "self-replicate" zapped into existence. You can't have it both ways.
Like crashfrog says,
"Evolution doesn't demand new things to come from nowhere. Evolution is a process by which new organs and structures are made from pre-existing ones. That's why dolphins have pelvises, and bat wings are really elongated wrist bones. There's really very little novelty in evolution. It's all minor changes adding up over time. "
All in all, your requirement for "brand new things" is a bit of a non-sequitur. But since you now accept that net gains of information/structure/function can actually occur, & therefore evolution can occur, my job is done.
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."
[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-10-2003]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by rabair, posted 09-10-2003 6:36 PM rabair has not replied

rabair
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 231 (54829)
09-10-2003 8:08 PM


...
Okay Mark, you can think my point has changed all along... I've explained that while I was wrong in using "beneficial" my point has remained the same... And it is so obvious I was talking about brand new before just now... Infact I even used the words... So stop the spin... I'm not even going to go back to double check because I know for a fact that I had used "brand new" and "out of no where" points multiple times. And you obviously agree with that. And I'm sick of you lying and saying that "but you claimed that when things are added things are lost at the same time"..... Do I have to keep telling you I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I never implied anything remotely close to that. I said A BENEFIT, can come from a LOSS. I never said because a species loses a nose, it gains something. IT BENEFITS BUT DOESN'T GAIN. I never said because it loses that it also gains. I don't even know where you keep getting and... just it's so frustrating... You know what... Go ahead... Feel like you won. I've pointed out that brand new things can't be added, you have confirmed it... But you believe that we could have come from a microscopic being to every living thing today, mutations that changed, including "net gains" by duplication... But I don't. That angers you for some reason. I believe it is because you feel that evolution is fact, when we all know it is not. That is why it is called "The Theory of." Whatever, I'm out.... Stop trying to be such a jack-ass and condescending so that I will come back and argue with you. You can go think you're right and I can think I'm right... The theory of evolution is after all, "a theory." So there's no reason to get pissed that I don't believe that we can come from non-life.

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by mark24, posted 09-10-2003 8:36 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2003 10:07 PM rabair has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 52 of 231 (54831)
09-10-2003 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by rabair
09-10-2003 8:08 PM


Non sequiturs & lies.
rabair,
rabair writes:
Okay Mark, you can think my point has changed all along... I've explained that while I was wrong in using "beneficial" my point has remained the same... And it is so obvious I was talking about brand new before just now... Infact I even used the words... So stop the spin...
And I have pointed out, & this will be for the third time time, that evolution doesn't require "brand new", making your argument a non-sequitur.
One is left wondering why you made the point. Well, why you made it once all your other points were destroyed, perhaps you had nowhere else to go & just didn't feel like conceding?
rabair writes:
And I'm sick of you lying and saying that "but you claimed that when things are added things are lost at the same time"..... Do I have to keep telling you I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT
You are a liar.
rabair writes:
See I put forth a possibility, because mutations can only cause things to change or usually lose stuff, so I put forth that maybe the bacterium survived because of a loss of something, that allowed them to not be affected by the Penicillin.
Penicillin resistance was added by losing something, according to you.
rabair writes:
Maybe it lost some stomach acid neutralizers, therefore the stomach acid was able to easily tear through the nylon.
Function was added by losing something, according to you.
rabair writes:
Maybe he lost stomach acid neutralizers that allowed the acid digest the nylon, or any number of little losses could cause this.
Function was added by losing lots of little things, again, according to you.
Ooh, YOU DID SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT!
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."
[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-10-2003]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by rabair, posted 09-10-2003 8:08 PM rabair has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 231 (54836)
09-10-2003 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by rabair
09-10-2003 8:08 PM


You can go think you're right and I can think I'm right... The theory of evolution is after all, "a theory."
Yeah, but so is the Theory of Gravity. But I don't see you jumping off any bridges...
I'll be absoluetly clear: "Theory" doesn't mean what you think it means when scientists say it. I'd wager that most scientific theories - including evolution - are considerably more true than those things you think are "facts".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by rabair, posted 09-10-2003 8:08 PM rabair has not replied

rabair
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 231 (54885)
09-11-2003 6:47 AM


just to be clear
juset to be clear crash... there isn't such thing as "more true" or "less true", but I also never claimed anything as fact.......

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Wounded King, posted 09-11-2003 8:47 AM rabair has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 55 of 231 (54902)
09-11-2003 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by rabair
09-11-2003 6:47 AM


Sure there is Rabair, things which are untrue and just plain false are not as true as true things, saying 'Canad is in the Northern hemisphere' is truer than saying 'Canada is an island just south of Hawaii'. Or are you adopting a Syamsu like postmodernist relativist approach where suggesting that everything is equally valid and nothing is comparable to anything else and that if you try and compare them you are a Nazi?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by rabair, posted 09-11-2003 6:47 AM rabair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by mark24, posted 09-11-2003 8:36 PM Wounded King has not replied

rabair
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 231 (55013)
09-11-2003 8:22 PM


are you insane?
Wounded King, Let's start off by saying again... There aren't things that are more true and less true.... Nor does your ridiculous example show that. It's not more true that Canada is in the northern hemisphere, than that it is south of Hawaii... It is simply true that it's in the northern hemisphere, and false that it is an island south of Hawaii... Do you get it? Not "more true" and "less true"..... "True" and "False"..... Then your last sentence is clearly displays that you're insane, and you should probably just end it all for yourself because I don't think it's possible to get beyond your issues.... What caused this insanity: "Or are you adopting a Syamsu like postmodernist relativist approach where suggesting that everything is equally valid and nothing is comparable to anything else and that if you try and compare them you are a Nazi? " Stupidest thing I've ever heard
[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-11-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2003 9:29 PM rabair has replied
 Message 64 by Wounded King, posted 09-12-2003 8:38 AM rabair has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 57 of 231 (55016)
09-11-2003 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Wounded King
09-11-2003 8:47 AM


Wounded,
Over to you, mate. Read rabairs posts carefully & forget nothing. He will say things that mean things other things implicitly, & deny them because he never used that exact wording. He will repeat himself multiple times, & then claim he never said those things. See my last post to him
Enjoy, I did.
Anyway, perhaps it would be a more accurate statement to say when we don't know the truth, but are attempting to discover it, there are hypotheses that are less tentative than others, rather than more true.
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Wounded King, posted 09-11-2003 8:47 AM Wounded King has not replied

rabair
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 231 (55024)
09-11-2003 9:26 PM


nice mark
Isn't that nice Mark... Glad you don't feel confident enough in yourself that you need strength in numbers, so you jump on board with some idiot (wounded) who isn't even talking about the topic. Crash said something... about "more true" and "less true"... And I simply made the point that there isn't such thing as "more true" and "less true" there is simply "true" or "false".... or I guess "unknown" too... But something isn't more true than something else if they are both true. Seems like you realize that, and I just pointed it out to Crash... then this retard wounded king comes on going off about "syamsu" "postmodernist relativist" and "nazi"? What is he even talking about... This guy is seriously in need of some help because he's frickin' insane. He comes out of nowhere, having nothing to do with the topic, just a little side thing where I point something out to Crash, and this wounded king guy comes in and goes off about it.... But I guess if it makes you feel good to endorse this guy just because he's talking trash to me.

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2003 9:31 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 63 by mark24, posted 09-12-2003 7:31 AM rabair has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 59 of 231 (55026)
09-11-2003 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by rabair
09-11-2003 8:22 PM


There aren't things that are more true and less true....
Ok, so tell me which of these statements is more true for you:
"I've stopped beating my wife."
"I haven't stopped beating my wife."
Given that these statements are opposites, and given your perception that things are either true or false, one of these statements must be true, and the other false. So, which is it? Have you stopped beating your wife, or not?
Anyway, to get back to the point, I was pointing out that "theory" doesn't mean "guess" when scientists use the word. And if you object to the construction "more true", then I'll rephrase: More scientific theories are true than things you think are fact.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by rabair, posted 09-11-2003 8:22 PM rabair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by rabair, posted 09-11-2003 9:48 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 231 (55027)
09-11-2003 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by rabair
09-11-2003 9:26 PM


then this retard wounded king comes on going off about "syamsu" "postmodernist relativist" and "nazi"? What is he even talking about... This guy is seriously in need of some help because he's frickin' insane.
Actually he's just talking about another poster on this board, in another topic. Maybe if you'd chill out a little bit you'd have caught on, instead of looking like a crank and calling people "retards". Honestly is name-calling how God wants you to witness to people? I doubt it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by rabair, posted 09-11-2003 9:26 PM rabair 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