|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Where is the evidence for evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
quote: I think this (and the preceding comments) is the essence of what I was trying to get at, in my references to SLPx's "work load". It seemed to me that Sonnike was asking a lot of questions specificly to SLPx, which struck me as placing an excessive demand on SLPx. I was not thinking that others from the evolution side would step in (a good thing) to share in answering. I was also concerned about the desire for "laymans terms" type answers, when such may not be a practical possibility. Admin has also responded to this situation. He has actually gotten into it in far greater depth than anything I was attempting. Finially, I am not trying to pick on Sonnike. I had long forgotten that I had made comments to him before. Actually, getting some special attention from me (admin mode) may be a compliment. I think, to some degree, I give extra attention to people I like, and ignore the ones I don't like. Well, another rather wishy-washy response from me. I don't claim to be any sort of great tower of wisdom. I just occasionly take a stab at trying to do something useful, as a moderator. Adminnemooseus ------------------{mnmoose@lakenet.com}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I don't have time to address this all today - and much I will not need to, as others have done well - but I do have just one short comment.
After linking to and cut-and-pasting a section of creationist horticulturist Don Batten's bombastic tripe from AiG, Son writes:
quote:I have to go into 'arrogant elitist' mode: How is it that you find Batten's article convincing? Why is what he says about the issue 'correct' and what he was responding to - or the explanations given thus far - incorrect? But there is more to your question than I would suppose you intended. Indeed, you sort of answer your own question. "How do you seriously respond to something like that?" I think my new emphasis tells you what I think of Batten's diatribe. You see, I have read batten's stuff before. I know that he, being a professional creationist propagandist, is far more interested in planting 'seeds of doubt' in the minds of lay creationists than he is about being caught in lies and deceptions. I will dissect Batten's claptrap later, but I see errors from the very first quoted sentence on. "The extra gene has to be inactivated; otherwise it could upset the functionality of the organism while it supposedly evolved..." This is false. Batten should know this. But I do not expect anything more from the likes of those at AiG.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: This is clearly and blatantly false. Those conclusions are reached via the simple, straightforward 'tenets' I listed above and by the results of genetic analysis. Borger should know how sciene is performed, but when he is discussing his worldview protection scam, he seems to ignore this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
[message deleted - there was no intent to participate in this thread. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 03-06-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Peter Borger writes: The scenario that duplication is followed by divergence and adoptation of new functions is nothing but hypothetical. Evidence that this process takes place has been presented to you, so in order to state that the scenario is hypothetical you first have to address how the evidence is invalid or misinterpreted. --------------------EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
Let me explain again. utter assumption You ask many questions and seem completely uninterested in the answers.You seem engaged more in a search for the rotten core of evolution than in understanding it. It's like you're going through a barrel picking up one after another ripened apple and saying, "No, that one's not rotten," then tossing it aside without savoring it or even giving it any consideration. In other words, evolution is a barrel of ripe apples, unacceptable analogy. There are so many rotten apples, you just don't like that I'm pointing them out. Are moderators supposed to be this biased? Is this a forum for both sides of the ev-cr debate, or is it simply a cheer on evolution forum? I'm starting to wonder. In other words, you seem uninterested in good information, you're only looking for the bad stuff. negatory. For instance, you jumped on Scott's not knowing something like it was the fatal weakness of evolution when science couldn't make any progress if there weren't tons that we didn't know, both as individuals and as a community. I asked a question, talk about over-dramatic.You seem hyper-skeptical about everything without any reason or justification, for instance, gene duplication. Scott, an evolutionist, gave you loads of information and you didn't accept any of it. Peter Borger, a creationist, also told you it happens. Why don't you ask Peter Borger the same questions you were asking Scott? how do you know what and what not I ask? I never said gene duplication didn't happen, I asked for it to be explained.
If you're really interested in the details that you keep asking about then try to make it appear that you're interested in and understand the answers. And if you're not interested then stop wasting people's time. There are many evolutionists here who are glad to explain evolution to those seeking to understand it, but that doesn't seem your goal. This is a *debate* forum, and if I wasn't interested I wouldn't *waste* MY time *trying* to discuss with people without being dumped on by the admin. I feel like George Bush, I'm in a no-win situation!
If that's not actually the case then perhaps you could try to make it seem less like you're on a witch hunt. There's nothing wrong with not accepting evolution, or with being very skeptical about evolution, but at least be honest when you ask the question about why you're asking it. when have I been dis-honest?
It always seems that way because of the nature of the Creationist position. Creationism is divided into a multiplicity of viewpoints, while there is only one theory of evolution. ONE theory?? Is PE still part of that one theory? Do you mean the "theory" of evolution is so grand that it covers *everything*? I find it an utter lie to say what you just did! Since all evolutionists share essentially the same view, they can all argue the same point. Creationists, on the other hand, can rarely provide support for each other because they all have different views.
Nonsense, creationists also share essentially the same view. I'm glad you added the edited part, but I find this infuriating.For instance, Dr. Page and many others basically dismiss *any* reference to any "creationist" literature, and essentially call it crap, yet I'm supposed to bow at your feet and soak up the information from the evo's *without* questioning or insinuating that it might be wrong. Talk about a biased view. Sonnikke
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
Finially, I am not trying to pick on Sonnike. I had long forgotten that I had made comments to him before. Actually, getting some special attention from me (admin mode) may be a compliment. I think, to some degree, I give extra attention to people I like, and ignore the ones I don't like.
Thank you.(at least somebody around here likes me? ) S
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Sonnikke,
My post wasn't intended as criticism, but to help you understand why you're attracting the attention of administrators, which is what you asked. I'm sorry you didn't find the clarification helpful. It isn't your point of view that is being challenged but your style of discussion. Though I think you managed to misconstrue most of my post, I'm not sure further attempts at clarification would prove any more successful than previous attempts. My goal as Admin is to keep discussion moving forward, not to engage in debates with members. To the extent that you prove an obstacle to that goal you will continue to attract the attention of administrators. --------------------EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3217 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
"I'm glad you added the edited part, but I find this infuriating.
For instance, Dr. Page and many others basically dismiss *any* reference to any "creationist" literature, and essentially call it crap, yet I'm supposed to bow at your feet and soak up the information from the evo's *without* questioning or insinuating that it might be wrong. Talk about a biased view." Sonnikke, please take a look at post 251, it gives intial answers to a part of your question in an earlier post concerning control of genetic pathways by gene duplication. I said initial because you can not put the entire answer into one paper. Hell, you can not even put the entire answer into a series of very large books. The reason for this is that there is no "one" mechanistic answer but rather a wide range or variety of mechanism that all essentially revolve around a theme, that theme being genetic alteration and its phenotypic effects. As to the creationist cites and sites (sorry for the pun) that you are placing on these boards, part of the problem is that many of them have already been refuted. I do not trash all of them but I DO trash anything from the ICR as I have repeatedly exposed two of the principles (Gish and Morris) for their dishonesty and blatent lies. The same holds true from people such as Hovind and his group, anyone who has to lie about their academic credentials deserves only scorn. Their constant willful misquotes of reputable scientists completely disgusts me. I actually do not mind Dr. Behe so much, although I do disagree with him (as I pointed out in my earlier post) and do feel that his view on evolution is seriously flawed. These flaws have been repeatedly demonstrated in the ID section of this board. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
The long list of Creationist scientists is completely irrelevant because they are all dead.
They have had no opportunity to examine current evidence, which may have influenced their continued belief in Creationism, so we have no way of knowing if they might have stopped being Creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
Admin,
Obviously I'm missing *why* I'm an "obstacle", so maybe you could outline for me what I'm supposed to do, so as to not hinder the discussion. Thanks,S
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
I do not trash all of them but I DO trash anything from the ICR as I have repeatedly exposed two of the principles (Gish and Morris) for their dishonesty and blatent lies. The same holds true from people such as Hovind and his group, anyone who has to lie about their academic credentials deserves only scorn.
Most creationist are bible believing christians, as such they hold to a higher calling, upholding truth at all cost. Evolutionists on the other hand are not accountable to a Higher Being, and thus whether lies or truths come out of their mouths, is irrelevant to them because there is no specified benchmark. Also, morals are a product of mindless evolution according to them. Now how is it that I'm supposed to believe an evolved microbe, over a designed human who serves his God? S
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, the sad thig is that most of it IS crap.
Certainly, if one is discussing science, one should discuss that which is scientific, and most Creationist writing is not anything close to scholarly nor scientific. If evidence isn't from a legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific journal, why should anyone take it seriously?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
If this is the case, why do the lies so often come from sites like IRC?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Then why is it that there are dozens of different versions of "the Truth", and Creationists can't agree on anything? It is because Creation 'science' is based upon revelation rather than physical evidence. If your interpretation of the Bible is different than mine, how can we ever decide which one of us is correct? In science, by contrast, we can test our ideas and determine which one s are closest to the reality of nature.
quote: There are many religious scientists who do consider themselves accountable to a Higher Being. They just do not think that the Bible is a science book.
quote: How arrogant and insulting! To state that people who do not believe exactly as you do are automatically likely to be liars and uninterested in the truth is a terrible thing to say, and completely untrue to boot. Morality is a human social construct.
quote: So what if they are? They still exist regardless of one's belief in the supernatural, correct?
quote: Because there is no evidence for design and there is evidence for evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024