Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 12:38 PM
122 online now:
caffeine, CosmicChimp, edge, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tangle (7 members, 115 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,457 Year: 3,494/19,786 Month: 489/1,087 Week: 79/212 Day: 9/31 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Author Topic:   Terry at the Talk Origins board
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 970 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 136 of 157 (39811)
05-12-2003 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Minnemooseus
05-12-2003 1:18 AM


Re: Too ignorant to recognize his ignorance?
Hmmmmmm..... clamps (in an oven) = lithostatic pressure??

Sorry about the trolling, but I was a bit surprised by the comparison. Not to mention his last statement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-12-2003 1:18 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 137 of 157 (45778)
07-11-2003 7:09 PM


Post of the Month (there)
From this topic.

The Great Society (message 60):

quote:
Conundrum continues: It would seem that the teaching of evolution exclusively violates the provisions of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution since the Government is not supposed to legislate either for or against any particular religion.

TGS replies: If your faith opposes the findings of science, too bad for you. The Catholic Church found itself in that boat 400 years ago. Today creationist religions oppose biology, as it is most widely and commonly accepted. This is a scientific discipline, and the students ought to have some familiarity with it, if for no other reason than that they might more effectively deride it.

If your faith happens to contradict physics, is it a violation of the first amendment that your children are taught physics? You probably don't consider this a serious question, because the only science you may think you disagree with is biology, whereas in fact you also have trouble with geology, physics, astronomy, and a few others. It is primarily biology, and most specifically the evolutionary aspect of biology, that collides with your faith. Tough.

There is a hindu sect that believes in levitation. A few of these members are reputable scientists. I've seen posters for symposiums and other scientific conclaves held under their auspices. You, as a creationist, represent a significant minority in the biological sciences. The hindu levitationists represent an even smaller minority of the physical sciences. Yet were they to oppose modern physics on the basis that levitation is not offered as a competing or complementary part of science, should physics be swept under the rug to assuage them? Why does your religious minority viewpoint deserve more respect than theirs?

For that matter, even if young earth christian creationists managed to capture a majority of the science positions in education and research, I'd still want evolution taught in the public schools. The reason is that I am interested in science. I used to be interested in faith, but my interest in that has matured into new areas. Belief in dogma for the sake of belief no longer interests me at all.


Terry replys (message 61);

quote:
TGS, Evolution is in no way a "finding of science". It is a hypothesis based upon ONE interpretation of the evidence.
Unfortunately, most public schools teach it exactly as you said; a FINDING of science. That is unfortunate, and a disservice to our children.

To be correct and true to facts, the schools should either not get into origins hypothesis' at all, or at the very least make it clear that there are several differing ones, NONE of which is a proven fact.

Terry


And then Salty says (message 62):

quote:
TGS 400 years ago Galileo criticized the geocentric view of the solar system. He refused to consider it as an alternative to the Copernican view. That was all the Church wanted from him. There are parallels today with those of us who have dismissed Darwinism as a myth instead of being nice and offering only an alternative hypothesis. The Darwinian Inquisition is very similar to the Italian Inquisition, although for tolerance I would prefer the Italian version. salty

Those are the three messages in their entirety.

Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2003 9:40 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 157 (45783)
07-11-2003 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Minnemooseus
07-11-2003 7:09 PM


Re: Post of the Month (there)
It would seem that the teaching of evolution exclusively violates the provisions of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution since the Government is not supposed to legislate either for or against any particular religion.

Clearly that's an erroneous interpretation of First Amendment law. For instance, the various Defense of Marriage Acts or the prohibition against bigamy represent official government sanction of "religious" ideas. So religious thought can't be specifically prohibited from being considered as law, I guess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-11-2003 7:09 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 139 of 157 (45798)
07-11-2003 11:32 PM


"Morton's Demon" has come up in another topic. I believe I also touched upon it upstring (but I haven't checked).

Anyhow, I made "Morton's Demon" a topic at Terry's Talk Origins. Terry took great offense.

The end of that topic is here.

Navigate back, to see the earlier pages.

(That site is structured clumsy - It always gives you a full last page - All the page structures changes as messages are added - You can't seem to be able to link to a full page 1 and then work your way down string.)

Moose


    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 140 of 157 (135162)
08-19-2004 2:38 AM


Darwin's negative effect on mankind.
What might be an interesting topic to observe.

Here at Terry's Talk Origins. I believe this link will take you to the most recent page of the topic. Currently there is only one page.

A strong rebutal (message 2) came from someone who does not seem to be on the evolution side.

I also like his comments on communism, Reagan, and G.W. Bush in message 4 (which was a response to a Salty interjection at message 3)

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 141 of 157 (142091)
09-13-2004 4:07 PM


A nice posting from elsewhere
Source

quote:
Hi guys. Some of you know me from other communities I'm sure, and of course the rest of you don't. I was a brief member of Terry's group a while ago and was quickly banned for expressing one of my opinions on young-earth creationists. Essentially, I told Terry I couldn't understand how YEC's can bring themselves to use a computer and the internet to express their views given that their position requires them to believe that all the major fields of science are not only wrong, but are so far off base as to be useless. IOW, their stance requires a sort of general disdain for mainstream science.

When I first joined Terry's group, I was fairly naive about what I was walking into. Terry has created a sort of oasis for internet creationists. There they can express the oddest of ideas and most ridiculous of arguments, but anyone who dares state the obvious is given a swift boot out the door. It's a nice, safe, protected environment for oddballs.

One thing I've come to realize is that when you try and debate a creationist, you have to remember that you're not only questioning their ideas--you're questioning their beliefs. And for many of these folks, their beliefs are likely the most important aspect of their very being. So when you point out holes or errors in their arguments or claims, of course they take it personally. From their perspective, you're exposing flaws in their personal beliefs, an act which is indistinguishable from a "personal attack".

So MJ, when you call LE on his bluster and bluff, to him and others who support him, you are indeed engaging in personal attacks. You're questioning his ideas, which stem directly from and are all entangled with his deeply held beliefs. When discussing creationism, there is no seperating the two.

It's the rare "evolutionist" (translated: empirical thinker) who can stick around in such an environment. Those that do are comfortable with letting the creationists off the hook on a regular basis. Most of us are used to "going in for the kill" when we have an opponent pinned in a debate. Do that in Terry's group, and you'll find yourself on the outside. Only those who can pin an opponent and not only let him up, but take care not to mention it again will last.

I can't do that, and I'm not sure I would ever want to.



    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 142 of 157 (165830)
12-07-2004 2:35 AM


At the "Fringe Science" fourm
Not a "Terry's Talk Origins" related message, but something concerning the spin-off forum "Fringe Science".

At the Age of the Earth topic (which has drift all over the place) I am attempting to discuss very basic geology with someone going by the name of SaltbeGood. SbG seems to be locked into near total ignorance of geology, but that isn't stopping him/her.

Anyhow, SbG's posting style is starting to remind me of someone who once posted here at . SbG also seems to be fairly good with HTML.

Any guesses on what other name SbG might have gone under?

Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-11-2004 6:40 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 143 of 157 (167242)
12-11-2004 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Minnemooseus
12-07-2004 2:35 AM


Re: At the "Fringe Science" forum
I have come to think that SaltbeGood=Whatever.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-07-2004 2:35 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 12-11-2004 7:41 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 144 of 157 (167252)
12-11-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Minnemooseus
12-11-2004 6:40 PM


Re: At the "Fringe Science" forum
I think not. whatever never even learned how to do paragraphs or punctuation. LOL


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-11-2004 6:40 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 145 of 157 (197114)
04-05-2005 10:43 PM


John A. Davison and Terry agree only that "Darwinism" is wrong
Submitted for your potential amusement:

I've recently started the John A. Davison and Terry agree only that "Darwinism" is wrong topic at Terry's Talk Origins.

Essentially, this is a parallal thread to the Who to believe , Ham or Ross? topic.

In that context, John A. Davison is (more or less) a "Rossite" while Terry is a "Hamite". Despite the gulf between, they refuse to debate their relative positions.

It's currently at message 5. I have hopes that "The Great Society" will chip in soon.

I'm keeping copies of the topic messages, to guard against deletions.

So far, JAD has trotted out the "Darwinian mystics" phrase, and Terry has vaguely likened "Darwinism" to "vodooism". I have vaguely turned the "voodoism" phrase back against him. We shall see if this topic gets me banned there.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by crashfrog, posted 04-05-2005 10:49 PM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 149 by Brad McFall, posted 04-06-2005 9:01 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 157 (197118)
04-05-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Minnemooseus
04-05-2005 10:43 PM


Re: John A. Davison and Terry agree only that "Darwinism" is wrong
If I might cheerlead, I suggest turning Terry's phrase about drowning men clutching at straws back on him, as that's pretty much the perfect phrase to describe his support for JAD's cockamamie nonsense.

Man what a confederacy of dunces you have over there. How do you put up with it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-05-2005 10:43 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-05-2005 11:06 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 147 of 157 (197121)
04-05-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by crashfrog
04-05-2005 10:49 PM


Re: John A. Davison and Terry agree only that "Darwinism" is wrong
It is not so much that Terry supports JAD's position, but that Terry finds supporting JAD's position to somehow be a support to his own position. After all, I believe JAD still considers himself to be a (non-Darwinian) old Earth evolutionist.

JAD neither supports or contests Terry's position. Like I said there, they operate purely on the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" line of reasoning.

I pay attention to the topics I started. I lightly follow a few others. I ignore most of the topics.

If it weren't for "The Great Society", I would pobably find that site be worthless. I wonder if "TGS" lurks somewhere here at .

Moose

{Edited to change ID}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-05-2005 10:07 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by crashfrog, posted 04-05-2005 10:49 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by wj, posted 04-06-2005 6:31 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
wj
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 157 (197198)
04-06-2005 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Minnemooseus
04-05-2005 11:06 PM


Re: John A. Davison and Terry agree only that "Darwinism" is wrong
Necessity makes strange bedfellows.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-05-2005 11:06 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3106 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 149 of 157 (197350)
04-06-2005 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Minnemooseus
04-05-2005 10:43 PM


Re: John A. Davison and Terry agree only that "Darwinism" is wrong
Terry ended that Moose's Url with,

quote:
John's paradigm could handle a young created earth teeming with created life -
My paradigm could handle an old created earth teeming with created life -

It was nice to see some truth revealed caused perhaps in part by your interdigitation between the two because JAD said,

quote:
Berg postulated in the conclusions section of Nomogenesis:

"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e. polyphyletically."

I am in position to say he was wrong and neither is anyone else because no one has yet observed the appearance of even a single primary form. All we have observed are trivial modifications of preexistent forms.

What I do find very revealing is this attempt, as Terry observed, "to divide and conquer." I must agree. I find this very encouraging because it discloses just how fragile the aimless, random and of course Godless view of the great mystery of evolution really is.


and so I could easily ADD Georgi Gladyshev to make a trio about of that dynamic duo as he GG has discussed especially on the social level of macrothermodyanics "divide and conquer". I had dismissed it as politics at first but now I am getting a second thought/read thanks to your attempt at comparision to Ham and Ross. I know Ross is wrong. Ham I actually spoke with.

What is CRITICALLY important was where John Davison said,

quote:
Darwinism is quintessential mysticism, a whole world of illusion and deception proposed and perpetuated by a bunch of homozygous atheist muddleheads who are quite incapable of recognizing that everything in the universe was planned . Fuirthermore there is every tangible reason to believe that the plan has been

This is what Popper said in 72 and Dr. Gladyshev is not remiss to recall this Sir.(from Objective Knowledge/Of Clouds and Clocks p225)

"For if we accept a theory of evolution (such as Darwin's) then even if we remain skeptical about the theory that life emerged from inorganic matter we can hardly deny that there must have been a time when abstract and non-physical entites, such as reasons and arguments and scientific knowledge, and abstract rules, such as rules for building railwayss or bulldozers or sputniks or , say, rules of grammer or of counterpoint, did not exist, or at any rate had no effect upon the physical universe. It is difficult to understand how the physical universe could produce abstract entites such as rules, and then could come under the influence of these rules, so that these rules in their turn could exert very palpable effects upon the physical universe. There is, however, at least one perhaps somewhat evasive but at any rate easy way out of this difficulty...that the existence of anything non-physical is just 'an illusion', perhaps, at any rate unimportant, since everything would go on as it does even if there were no such illusions."

I dont think that this is the case anymore today. This IS somewhat mystical it seems to me as THE WAY out. Heirarchical thermodyanmics can remove possibly for sure Popper's intial "skepticism" but we still have to deal with the DELUSION as Georgi has associated with Boltzmann FROM the illusion and there probably is some "plan" involvable, regardless I think I KNOW what it was that is preventing the body science from recognizing the "Created Species referred to polyphyletically" here. It might be noted that some continental biologists accused Croizat of operating with polyphyletic groups.

I think the error came from Nelson and Platnick's assesment of Lyell for as JAD said, we have much to learn about time. Perhaps now would be the time to also analyze Gould's concept of diversity.

N&P had in Systematics and Biogeography/Space/Biogeographic History -

Lyell accepted the reality of Candolle's regions, but believed that, to some extent at least, they were capable of causal explanation with the facts then on hand. He theorized that the number of living species is in equilibrium. He believed that some species had suffered extinction in the past and that, therefore, there should be a creative principle responsible for the emergence of new species, such that the equilibrium could be maintained. New species, he imagined, were created one at a time, in one region or another.

Lyell's concept o f"creation" is not micraculous creation, but creation according to natural law and process. he was not specific about the nature of creative laws and processm but he did argue against the idea, as expounded by Buffon and Lamark in particular, that the process involved evolution - or transmutation, as it was then called - of species."

It is probably not coincidence that in the continued discussion of teleology Mayr changed his wording from "system" to "process".

continuing with N&Ppage394-5

One of the more remarkable items in the pre-Darwinian period is a paper by Alfred Wallace (1855), entitled On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New Species. Wallace believed that his "law" -newly discovered by himself - ...Wallace's argument, in effect, was a commentary on Lyell's vague and unspecific remarks about "creation" of new species.

So now with Terry and JAD and Georgi we no longer have something AS vague and unspecific. Sure JAD seems a bit jaded calling em "muddleheaded" but what can science do if it is in the throws of a paradigm shift. How big & if religous comparision continue to spark the result is anyone's guess.

Thanks again for the dialog with those two.

{Added some blank lines between paragraphs and otherwise tweeked the formatting a bit. - Adminnemooseus}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-07-2005 02:47 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-05-2005 10:43 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 150 of 157 (283944)
02-04-2006 3:36 PM


Mining a new topic from Terry's Talk Origins
Please see message 1 at the topic Lack of transitionals.

The above in turn cites this.

I thought this has the makings for a good new topic, but I don't feel up to starting it myself. Any volunteers?

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


    
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019