Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
29 online now:
Aussie, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,300 Year: 4,412/6,534 Month: 626/900 Week: 150/182 Day: 30/27 Hour: 4/8

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 151 of 214 (378329)
01-20-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by randman
12-06-2006 3:23 PM


Re: uh huh?
So it's a lie, eh? You forget you wrote this.

I have proved that in the long term, if total population and mutation rate are constant, this increases genetic diversity.

Yes, it is a lie, and I have not forgotten that I wrote that. You will note that the passage you quote does nothing to substantiate your lie, since it has nothing to dso with a claim that "diversity always increases".

It's hard to see how in the long run, say, if a species goes extinct, that the species has increased genetic diversity,

If a species goes extinct that is a decrease in genetic diversity.

but somehow you think everyone else is ignorant.

No I do not.

You also fail to appreciate that there is loss of genetic diversity with species as a result of microevolutionary pressures...

This is not, in general, true. Mutatuions increase diversity, genetic drift decreases it, and the result is precisely the equilibrium I modelled.

Edit to add that you did show that "if total population" remains constant, but that once again, avoids the fact that we envision a process where populations do not remain constant.

Obviously, an increase in population increases diversity and a decrease decreases it.

I bet you could have worked that out for yourself given long enough.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by randman, posted 12-06-2006 3:23 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 3:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 152 of 214 (378330)
01-20-2007 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by randman
01-17-2007 5:45 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
Reiteration for any lurkers: Evos insist that reality cannot, by definition, include a God or spiritual forces that act upon, within, or uphold, or even originate reality.

I don't quite see who you and Herepton hope to fool with this garbage about atheism. You of course know perfectly well that there are theist "evos", and so, I suspect, do all the lurkers. So what's the point? It's just like having the word LIAR tattooed on your forehead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by randman, posted 01-17-2007 5:45 PM randman has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Admin, posted 01-20-2007 11:16 AM Dr Adequate has taken no action

Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 153 of 214 (378338)
01-20-2007 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2007 10:36 AM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
Hi Dr Adequate!

There's no moderation in the Showcase forum except by the residents, so you won't be removed from this thread except by request of Randman, however when I see this:

It's just like having the word LIAR tattooed on your forehead.

I just have to ask, are you trying to get evicted again?

To Randman,

While I can't condone the way in which Dr Adequate is making his point, he does have a good point. Presumably, given all you said recently in the moderation thread, you believe your rigor and analysis and objectivity are superior to evolutionists, and that this highlights the obvious bias inherent in your restriction to Showcase.

But you strongly contradict this with your propensity for misstatements of simple facts, in this case accusing evolutionists in general of believing things that they obviously don't as a group believe (individual beliefs will, of course, be all over the map, so the belief you cite is undoubtedly true of some individuals). As Dr Adequate points out, many evolutionists are theists, including myself.

As I've said many times now, I don't think you're going to be able to engage evolutionists in rational dialogue until you come to understand that they accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth not out of an atheistic rejection of God, but because of their interpretation of the supporting evidence. Once you've accepted this then you'll be much better able to discuss evolution objectively and focus solely on the issues, and your continual denigrations, aspersions and accusations of lying and dishonesty, and indeed the very veil which prevents you from understanding what evolution and evolutionists actually say, will fall away.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2007 10:36 AM Dr Adequate has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 3:00 PM Admin has taken no action
 Message 165 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 3:18 PM Admin has taken no action

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 154 of 214 (378342)
01-20-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by randman
12-08-2006 2:35 AM


Re: for the record
The problem with your thinking, Dr Adequate, is you assume that you do not have to demonstrate total population and mutation rate are constant. Whereas perhaps, and this is tenable, the constant mutation rate is workable, it's patently obvious that the population doesn't remain constant....that's something you refused to accept and allow into your dense head.

This is clearly untrue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by randman, posted 12-08-2006 2:35 AM randman has taken no action

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 155 of 214 (378344)
01-20-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Cold Foreign Object
01-17-2007 5:38 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
The average Darwinist (believe it or not) does not know that the terms "Darwinist" and "Darwinism" originate from Wallace and Huxley; and that every evolutionary authority uses these words to describe themselves. This means the ordinary Darwinist is uneducated not knowing what their own authorities have written during the last 150 years.

Why the heck should I know the etymology of the word? Do you know who invented the word "creationist"?

These same persons are also totally ignorant to the fact that ALL evolutionary authorities, starting with Darwin in 1859, concede the fact that the world looks designed. Evolution simply says the appearance is produced by natural selection and not God, yet ordinary Darwinists do not know this basic fact.

Again, I don't see whom you hope to deceive. Of course evolution poroduces the superficial appearance of design, this is what we've been trying to explain to you guys for the last 150 years.

Again, these same persons are also totally ignorant to the fact that ToE presupposes Methodological Naturalism as factually true:

It doesn't.

evidence is interpreted to support the suppositions (= anti-Bible) whether it makes sense or not.

No it isn't.

In other words, ToE is true by definition as required by the presuppositions of its philosophy.

No it isn't.

Don't you know anything about the theory of evolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-17-2007 5:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-20-2007 2:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 156 of 214 (378345)
01-20-2007 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by randman
01-03-2007 3:25 PM


Re: good comment but...
Good point on Darwinists deifying nature.

Which, of course, none of us do. Whom do you hope to fool?

Incidentally, they also fail to offer a definition for "nature" as well; nor "material" or "physical"...

This is not true, as I will now demonstrate.

na·ture
n.
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
5. Theology Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: "She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble" Gertrude Stein.
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: "Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill" Percy Bysshe Shelley.
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.
10. The processes and functions of the body.

ma·te·ri·al
n.
1. The substance or substances out of which a thing is or can be made.
2. Something, such as an idea or information, that is to be refined and made or incorporated into a finished effort: material for a comedy.
3. materials Tools or apparatus for the performance of a given task: writing materials.
4. Yard goods or cloth.
5. A person who is qualified or suited for a position or activity: The members of the board felt that she was vice-presidential material.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or composed of matter.
2. Of, relating to, or affecting physical well-being; bodily: "the moral and material welfare of all good citizens" Theodore Roosevelt.
3. Of or concerned with the physical as distinct from the intellectual or spiritual: "Great men are they who see that spiritual is stronger than any material force, that thoughts rule the world" Ralph Waldo Emerson.
4. Being both relevant and consequential; crucial: testimony material to the inquiry. See Synonyms at relevant.
5. Philosophy Of or relating to the matter of reasoning, rather than the form.

phys·i·cal
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See Synonyms at bodily.
b. Involving or characterized by vigorous bodily activity: a physical dance performance.
c. Slang Involving or characterized by violence: "A real cop would get physical" TV Guide.
2. Of or relating to material things: our physical environment.
3. Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.

There you go.

... and ignore the field of study that involves defining and exploring what constitutes the material world.

... the name of which you seem to have forgotten.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by randman, posted 01-03-2007 3:25 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 5:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 168 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 5:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 157 of 214 (378347)
01-20-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by randman
01-17-2007 2:09 AM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
Good points Herepton.....the funny thing is most evos actually understand ToE less than their critics,

This is not true, which is why you cannot substantiate it.

and fail to provide any real evidence......

This is not true, which is why you cannot substantiate it.

the theory shapes the evidence for them and not the other way around,

This is not true, which is why you cannot substantiate it.

and yet somehow it's their critics that are unreasonable.

This is true, and you yourself are the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by randman, posted 01-17-2007 2:09 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 3:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 158 of 214 (378348)
01-20-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by randman
01-18-2007 1:30 AM


Re: fear among evos to discuss issues
BTw, it's interesting that the Darwinists here are afraid to debate/discuss the issue without the cover of evo biased moderation.

This is not true, which is why you cannot substantiate it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by randman, posted 01-18-2007 1:30 AM randman has taken no action

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 159 of 214 (378349)
01-20-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by randman
12-15-2006 12:10 AM


Re: long time.....nice to talk with you as well
You are right, of course, so much so that what's there to debate....there is basically imagining something very unlikely as possible, and then you get into evos insisting that just-so stories are factual...

This is, of course, untrue, which is why you are totally unable to quote one single "evo" "insisting that just-so stories are factual".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by randman, posted 12-15-2006 12:10 AM randman has taken no action

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 160 of 214 (378351)
01-20-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by randman
01-17-2007 2:10 AM


Re: good comment but...
where does a law come from?

They don't. You are reifying the laws of nature. This is an error.

How is material take discrete and definite form?

In accordance with the laws of nature.

Evos live in an outdated Newtonian paradigm of unreality.

If that meant something, it would probably be untrue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by randman, posted 01-17-2007 2:10 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 3:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2286 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 161 of 214 (378397)
01-20-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2007 11:46 AM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
Why the heck should I know the etymology of the word? Do you know who invented the word "creationist"?

Yes, etymology is very important, educated persons know this.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, the first known use of the word ("creationist") was by Charles Darwin.

Adequate then goes on to assert that ToE does not use Methodological Naturalism for its presuppositions.

Adequate: Why don't you ask Percy? Darwinists define science as MN.

As for me, now that I know you are uneducated I have nothing more to say to you.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2007 11:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2007 8:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 162 of 214 (378398)
01-20-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Admin
01-20-2007 11:16 AM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
I just have to ask, are you trying to get evicted again?

That's my conclusion and so he is not welcome. I told him in advance I was giving him one last shot, and I also only invited him first on the TalkOrigins thread to see how he would behave.

Thanks in advancing for booting him off the Showcase forum, per the rules.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Admin, posted 01-20-2007 11:16 AM Admin has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 163 of 214 (378402)
01-20-2007 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2007 12:01 PM


Re: good comment but...
where does a law come from?

They don't. You are reifying the laws of nature. This is an error.

This is sheer idiocy. You can claim a law arises via natural means, but to claim laws do not come from anywhere is frankly denying reality. You could claim what we call a law is a mere behavioural description and no law at all and try to argue that. But your stance is simply screaming nooooo without putting forward a real argument at all.

Not sure if I should answer your posts anyway, maybe a little unfair, as I am booting you off the forum for not respecting the conditions in which you were allowed, namely that you were first only invited to the TO thread to see how you would behave, and warned ahead of time I wouldn't accept a bunch of crap, and you come on this thread, posting a lot of garbage accusing me of lying.

So bye...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2007 12:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Admin, posted 01-20-2007 8:00 PM randman has replied
 Message 179 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2007 8:39 PM randman has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 164 of 214 (378403)
01-20-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2007 11:55 AM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
I substantiated these points with the TO site thread, which you were invited to, and which you obviously were afraid to debate on.

sorry, but you are wasting our time here....see ya


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2007 11:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2007 9:00 PM randman has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 165 of 214 (378408)
01-20-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Admin
01-20-2007 11:16 AM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
While I can't condone the way in which Dr Adequate is making his point, he does have a good point. Presumably, given all you said recently in the moderation thread, you believe your rigor and analysis and objectivity are superior to evolutionists, and that this highlights the obvious bias inherent in your restriction to Showcase.

But you strongly contradict this with your propensity for misstatements of simple facts, in this case accusing evolutionists in general of believing things that they obviously don't as a group believe (individual beliefs will, of course, be all over the map, so the belief you cite is undoubtedly true of some individuals). As Dr Adequate points out, many evolutionists are theists, including myself.

Being a theist doesn't change the essential atheist perspective towards science of evos. You yourself, despite being a theist, consider the idea of Intelligent Design to be unscientific because it entails the concept of a Designer or God. So contrary to what you claim and regardless of whether an evolutionist is a believer, the simple fact is the field itself, mainstream evolutionism, is itself based on an atheist philosophy in terms of what it considers acceptable in the area of research. There is no room in mainstream evolutionism for the concept of a Designer.

Do you really somehow disagree with that and genuinely think I have misjudged evos here on this point? Pointing out you are a theist makes no difference. Arguably and you know I also point this out, theistic evolutionists should rightly be in the ID camp because once you say God designed the universe, you have to admit that by extension God designed life as we know it.

As I've said many times now, I don't think you're going to be able to engage evolutionists in rational dialogue until you come to understand that they accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth not out of an atheistic rejection of God, but because of their interpretation of the supporting evidence.

With all due respect, your post is complete evidence of what I have been talking about. After all these years, you do not understand your critics and continually misrepresent them. I don't think all evos accept ToE because they reject God. For you to suggest that shows an abject ignorance of what I and others have been telling you for, what, years?

No, I think your interpretation of data is skewed by a philosophy which is at it's core atheistic (EVEN WHEN BELIEVERS ASCRIBE TO IT). I don't know how often I have to say the same thing over and over and over again, but do you think you have finally understood?

Evos use the theory to define the data and not the other way around.

Also, I am not the one that fails to understand what you and other evos believe. It's quite clear as I once believed the same as you, and did so as a believer. My beef with evos is they do not accept the facts, imo. My theory as to why is that they have undergone a process of being taught to believe something they do not understand, at least initially, and it is ingrained within them that evolutionism is correct and only unreasonable and religious people disagree with them. In short, evos are generally subjected to a brainwashing process in how the material is presented and believed.

That's why it is so incredibly difficult to get the evo community to accept facts that disagree with the basic evidences they have been taught....a good example being how it took over 100 years for evos to finally reject (and not all have) Haeckel's fraudulent ideas and data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Admin, posted 01-20-2007 11:16 AM Admin has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 7:56 PM randman has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022