Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 6:47 PM
28 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Coragyps, DrJones*, edge, jar, Percy (Admin), PsychMJC, Taq (8 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
25Next
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 288 of 367 (34095)
03-11-2003 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by DanskerMan
03-10-2003 11:42 PM


don't go away...
The whole thing is a nice smoke screen so you can avoid dealing with the flaws of evolutionism.

Why don't you tell us all about these flaws that you know of. Please explain them to us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by DanskerMan, posted 03-10-2003 11:42 PM DanskerMan has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 289 of 367 (34096)
03-11-2003 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by peter borger
03-11-2003 12:21 AM


Re: Wow... was: Re: Some comments
I'm sorry Borger - I am going to confine my exchanges with you to one topic at a time. Your evasion/antagonism game succeeded in getting the book nook thread closed, but the information you requested repeatedly - indicating that you had not, in fact, read any of 'my stuff' - was provided.

Ad hoc unsupported gibberish works on creationists. It doesn't seem to have the desired effect on anyone else.

Back up your claims re: Cap and Tob or take a hike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by peter borger, posted 03-11-2003 12:21 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Mammuthus, posted 03-12-2003 10:06 AM derwood has responded
 Message 293 by peter borger, posted 03-12-2003 8:20 PM derwood has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 290 of 367 (34110)
03-11-2003 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by DanskerMan
03-10-2003 11:42 PM


Perhaps you could take just one of Schraf's references and point out how it is untrue.

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by DanskerMan, posted 03-10-2003 11:42 PM DanskerMan has not yet responded

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 291 of 367 (34132)
03-11-2003 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by DanskerMan
03-10-2003 11:42 PM


Flaws
Sonnikke,
First, none of the articles were ad hominum attacks but were from documented cases of falsehoods largely told by Duane Gish. The same is true of the lies concerning credentials by people like Baugh and Hovind.

Second, many of the so called flaws that you and people at the ICR have discussed been pointed out (and again largely documented) as not being flaws at all. For instance, you asked about evolution of genetic control mechanisms, I answered. You asked for clarification and explaination which I provided. Now, please point out the flaws in their support for the basic Neo-Darwinian/Natural Selection mechanism for evolution, assuming that you can find any.

------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by DanskerMan, posted 03-10-2003 11:42 PM DanskerMan has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 292 of 367 (34197)
03-12-2003 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by derwood
03-11-2003 12:33 AM


Re: Wow... was: Re: Some comments
S: Ad hoc unsupported gibberish works on creationists

Hi SLPx...don't forget not reading about, researching, or making any effort at all to understand the topic they are supposedly so passionately opposed to as a modus operandi...that stategy has served PB and other creationists very well.

Back to the grind..

M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by derwood, posted 03-11-2003 12:33 AM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-13-2003 3:49 AM Mammuthus has responded
 Message 314 by derwood, posted 03-14-2003 10:15 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 293 of 367 (34236)
03-12-2003 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by derwood
03-11-2003 12:33 AM


Re: Wow... was: Re: Some comments
Hi Page,

PB: I asked you for a definition and a reference and all I get is:

Page: I'm sorry Borger - I am going to confine my exchanges with you to one topic at a time. Your evasion/antagonism game succeeded in getting the book nook thread closed, but the information you requested repeatedly - indicating that you had not, in fact, read any of 'my stuff' - was provided.

PB: The booknook topic has been closed since you evo-guys were not able to defy the unwarranted 'microbe-to-man' extrapolation made by Darwin. Maybe I am going to open a new thread on it.

Page: Ad hoc unsupported gibberish works on creationists. It doesn't seem to have the desired effect on anyone else.

PB: Ad hoc unsupported evo gibberish is what you like to hear, I presume. It does not have any effect on how it all came into being.

Page: Back up your claims re: Cap and Tob or take a hike.

PB: I will soon address the gap between 'Cap and Top'. I will demonstrate that it is not a real gap for the GUToB. Next, I will take a hike (in the Blue Mountains National Park).

have a good one,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by derwood, posted 03-11-2003 12:33 AM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by derwood, posted 03-13-2003 8:53 AM peter borger has responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 367 (34252)
03-13-2003 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Mammuthus
03-12-2003 10:06 AM


Mammuthus!
You're back from temporal extinction!

Welcome back, furry proboscidean mate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Mammuthus, posted 03-12-2003 10:06 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Mammuthus, posted 03-13-2003 4:47 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 295 of 367 (34255)
03-13-2003 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Andya Primanda
03-13-2003 3:49 AM


Re: Mammuthus!
Hi Andya!
I will only be able to participate occassionally since I am up to my trunk in experiments, training students, writing papers etc. at the moment...but I hope to stomp in once in a while

cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-13-2003 3:49 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

Zephan
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 367 (34258)
03-13-2003 7:54 AM


Dr. Borger,

A new book just came out you may be interested in, it's called "Acquiring Genomes" (Margulis and Sagan, 2002). The book is written by evolutionists, includes a forward by Ernst Mayr, and makes the tacit admission that the NeoDarwinist Mechanism (NRM + NS) is bunk. More "dissent" within the ToE I guess, but don't look for these guys posting here to jump ship just yet. They must wait until the majority of scientists start believing in another theory before announcing their defectorship. Too difficult to think about it yourself you know.

Anyway, I thought you'd be interested. Here's some text lifted from the book everyone can flame over:

quote:
Random mutation is wildly overemphasized as a source of hereditary variation. Mutations are inducible...none lead to new organisms. Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues ... 99.9 percent of mutations are deleterious. Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally introduced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change.

The major source of evolutionary change is not random mutation. Random mutation, a small part of the evolutionary saga, has been dogmatically overemphasized...

The terminology of most modern evolutionists is not only fallacious but dangerously so, because it leads people to think they know about the evolution of life when in fact they are confused and baffled


I guess it could be said that the Theory of Evolution is itself defined as "Dissent, with Modification"...

The heresy!

[This message has been edited by Zephan, 03-13-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by derwood, posted 03-13-2003 8:52 AM Zephan has not yet responded
 Message 308 by nator, posted 03-14-2003 7:34 AM Zephan has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 297 of 367 (34262)
03-13-2003 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by DanskerMan
03-10-2003 11:42 PM


quote:
Schraf, the problem I see is that you either reference a massively evo-biased/anti-creationist website ie. talkorigins,

I would say that Talkorigins is biased in favor of science and the evidence, not biased in favor of evolutionism, per se.

Do you have anything to say about the actual content of the information I submitted? Do you have any actual evidence that any or all of it is wrong, or do you just dismiss it out of hand because it is from Talkorigins? Did you even read or go to any of the evidence I posted to decide for yourself the quality of the evidence, or did you reject all of it simply because it is put forth by the "other camp", and must be rejected, regardless of it's quality?

I have read a great deal from Creationist sites and I own and have read many Creationist books by Gish, Morris and others.

Why don't you pick one or two items from any of the links I listed which you feel are factually wrong or misleading and show me your evidence which backs up your opinion that they are wrong?

See, it is ineffectual in the debate for you to simply say "It's all biased and wrong" without showing a single bit of evidence that the sources actually are biased and wrong. If arguments were won by opinion alone, I could say, "You are wrong and I am right" and that would be that.

quote:
or you reference an ad hominem smear campaign.

For the articles to be ad hominem, the arguments would have to be personal or about character rather than attacking the ideas or facts stated by one's opponent.

Please show me where any of the links I provided engaged in attacking any Creationist personally rather than attacking the ideas and facts the Creationist was putting forth.

quote:
The whole thing is a nice smoke screen so you can avoid dealing with the flaws of evolutionism.

I think that this post of yours is a nice smokescreen so you can avoid addressing the copious evidence I put forth.

Remember, you claimed that it was all "propaganda" that Creationists lie and distort the truth "for the cause".

I provided lots of evidence that countered your claim.

You job now is to examine the evidence to see if it is valid and come back with specifics.

So, I am ready for your specific examples of where any of my links are untrue or engage in ad hominem attacks in lieu of real argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by DanskerMan, posted 03-10-2003 11:42 PM DanskerMan has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 298 of 367 (34266)
03-13-2003 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Zephan
03-13-2003 7:54 AM


What was their evidence?
Did the evidence they provided meet your standards? And if so, how was it different from any other scientific evidence?

You never did explain what criteria you feel are valid for considering something as 'evidence' - you abandoned the thread when 1. your old identity was reveraled and 2. nobody was buying your piffle.

Care to try again?

or will you just flame and run away as is your usual game?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Zephan, posted 03-13-2003 7:54 AM Zephan has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 299 of 367 (34267)
03-13-2003 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by peter borger
03-12-2003 8:20 PM


Re: Wow... was: Re: Some comments
PB: The booknook topic has been closed since you evo-guys were not able to defy the unwarranted 'microbe-to-man' extrapolation made by Darwin. Maybe I am going to open a new thread on it.

This is incredible beyond words...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by peter borger, posted 03-12-2003 8:20 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by peter borger, posted 03-16-2003 5:13 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
Zephan
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 367 (34281)
03-13-2003 10:37 AM


quote:
Did the evidence they provided meet your standards? And if so, how was it different from any other scientific evidence?

Read again. Those were conclusions, not evidence. I just happen to agree with those conclusions based on the evidence and lack thereof.

You people never did provide a peer-reviewed definition of evidence, "scientific" or otherwise. We were looking for an objective definition of evidence, which you failed to provide at any time. Thus, you are incorrect again to imply that evidence must meet my personal subjective standards. Recall that real evidence is objective. We went over that before.

quote:
You never did explain what criteria you feel are valid for considering something as 'evidence' - you abandoned the thread when 1. your old identity was reveraled and 2. nobody was buying your piffle.

My intent was to expose your utter lack of understanding of the concept of real evidence. I did so quite effectively. In fact, it caused at least one of you to have an imaginary conversation with himself. That was funny!

"What is evidence?" was of course my question FIRST, and turning it around (shifting the burden of proof - a tactic impermissible to the dictates of the establishment of real evidence, but how would you know?) and asking me something I already know the answer to does little to establish you have a working knowledge of the concept.

Therefore, I and the other enlightened beings who are keenly aware of what real evidence is (i.e. the experts in evidence), continue to laugh whenever people like Schraffy, SLPx, et al rely on a concept they are simply unable to satisfactorily define or demonstrate their understanding of the concept.

Accordingly, I was merely suggesting that you shouldn't use a word like "evidence" if you are unable to satisfactorily articulate its meaning.

And, btw, my "real" identity has never been revealed, just like you never defined "real" evidence. Keep using the word "evidence" though. It's been entertaining to observe you people struggle with the concept.

In short, you have no argument unless and until you can provide a working definition of evidence OR until you can put forth an argument without relying on the word "evidence".

quote:
Care to try again?

That's up to you. You are the one ignorant of what evidence is, not me tough guy.

quote:
or will you just flame and run away as is your usual game?

I'll continue to be around to demolish any self-serving subjective definition of evidence you care to put forth for the express purpose of exposing just how ignorant you are of the concept. You have just been too embarassed yourself to even attempt to define the word. Silence is tantamount to acquiescing to my point.

Props to Percy though. He at least tried to define the word, although he did become a bit hysterical when it was clearly demonstrated his definition fell far short of anything remotely usable as an objective framework for analyzing facts not in dispute.

Run along now.


Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2003 10:48 AM Zephan has not yet responded
 Message 302 by derwood, posted 03-13-2003 11:11 AM Zephan has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15085
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 301 of 367 (34283)
03-13-2003 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Zephan
03-13-2003 10:37 AM


On rereading your post 296 it contains no suggestion that Margulis and Sagan failed to offer any evidence to support their conclusions (and your last post implies that they did). So the questions concerning whatever evidence they did offer are clearly appropriate.

If they did indeed offer no evidence, instead of directing people back to a post which does not address the issue it would have been best to say so and explain which evidence you were referring to in your post 300.

[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-13-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Zephan, posted 03-13-2003 10:37 AM Zephan has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 302 of 367 (34288)
03-13-2003 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Zephan
03-13-2003 10:37 AM


snore...
quote:
quote:

Did the evidence they provided meet your standards? And if so, how was it different from any other scientific evidence?

Read again. Those were conclusions, not evidence. I just happen to agree with those conclusions based on the evidence and lack thereof.



Are not conclusions based on evidence? Why yes they are - you imply as much yourself. So back to the question - what was the evidence they presented and explain how it was that IT met your personal standards. Thanks.
quote:

You people never did provide a peer-reviewed definition of evidence, "scientific" or otherwise. We were looking for an objective definition of evidence, which you failed to provide at any time. Thus, you are incorrect again to imply that evidence must meet my personal subjective standards. Recall that real evidence is objective. We went over that before.



No, you kept making demands, then denigraded any attempt to provide one, then you blew off my reference to the Daubert decision which quite clearly lays out the legal standards - and quite clearly indicates that the standards for evidence in a legal setting are different than those within science.
You refised or were unable to provide your definition. I think for obvious reasons.
quote:
quote:

You never did explain what criteria you feel are valid for considering something as 'evidence' - you abandoned the thread when 1. your old identity was reveraled and 2. nobody was buying your piffle.

My intent was to expose your utter lack of understanding of the concept of real evidence. I did so quite effectively. In fact, it caused at least one of you to have an imaginary conversation with himself. That was funny!



You, of course, did no such thing. Creationists revel in mental masturbation followed by repeated rounds of claiming to be Sex Machines... What
quote:

"What is evidence?" was of course my question FIRST, and turning it around (shifting the burden of proof - a tactic impermissible to the dictates of the establishment of real evidence, but how would you know?) and asking me something I already know the answer to does little to establish you have a working knowledge of the concept.



The evidence indicates that you in fact do NOT know the definition and how it differs from legal to scientific. This conclusion is reached by the fact that you were never able to provide a defintion. Legal clerks have little influence on the workings of science. You are no exception.
quote:

Therefore, I and the other enlightened beings who are keenly aware of what real evidence is (i.e. the experts in evidence), continue to laugh whenever people like Schraffy, SLPx, et al rely on a concept they are simply unable to satisfactorily define or demonstrate their understanding of the concept.


Yes, you amazing expertise on evidence was demonstrated for all to see. It was most impressive. I'll bet you think OJ was innocent, too...

quote:

Accordingly, I was merely suggesting that you shouldn't use a word like "evidence" if you are unable to satisfactorily articulate its meaning.



That the definitions provided were ignored, handwaved away, etc. by you is not an indication that those defintions were incorrect. Indeed, quite to the contrary - your antics indicated that you yourself do not understand the concept and like many creationists, have convinced yourself that somehow you know much about something you actually do not. It is a commonplace psychological condition, so do not be ashamed:

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

quote:

And, btw, my "real" identity has never been revealed, just like you never defined "real" evidence. Keep using the word "evidence" though. It's been entertaining to observe you people struggle with the concept.

I did not say that your 'real' identity had been revealed. I don't think anyone really cares, frankly, Ten-sai.
There is much evidence for evolution. That you are too undereducated to realize that is a given.
quote:

In short, you have no argument unless and until you can provide a working definition of evidence OR until you can put forth an argument without relying on the word "evidence".


You were given several such definitions. Your refusal to accept them is your problem. Science - including the science of evolutionary biology - trudges on regardless of what anonymous internet creationists, clearly with no proper education or understanding of the subject, have to say on the issue.

quote:
quote:

Care to try again?


That's up to you. You are the one ignorant of what evidence is, not me tough guy.

Actually, I see evidence all the time. I have analyzed - even generated some. Reprints of my scientific publications have been requested by the Museum of Human Evolution in France and the Japanese Institute of Genetics. I would say that, therefore, my abilities and knowledge of what counts as evidence in science is quite appropriate, whether or not some anonymous wannabe accepts that or not.
And yes, I am a tough guy. I'm a bit out of shape at the time, but I am confident that I would qualify as such.
quote:
quote:

or will you just flame and run away as is your usual game?

I'll continue to be around to demolish any self-serving subjective definition of evidence you care to put forth for the express purpose of exposing just how ignorant you are of the concept.



One has ot actually do something once in order to claim to be able to continue to do so.
The fact that you will not provide what you believe to be the true definiton of evidence indicates that youi, in fact, do not know what the defintion is and are simply playing juvenile games.
The trick to asking a question is often knowing what the answer is. Then, to demonstrate your knowledge, you answer the question you ask when unsatisfactory answers are provided.
As is the case with many internet lay creationists, you are only doing the asking. You cannot answer. That is indicative not of superior knowledge, but an inability.
quote:

You have just been too embarassed yourself to even attempt to define the word. Silence is tantamount to acquiescing to my point.



Many wannabes adopt such a stance. It is idiotic on the face of it, and what you say is false. While I did not bother to engage your games direcly, I did refer to the Daubert case. It impeached your rantings. You blew it off, Ten-sai.
Run along now.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Zephan, posted 03-13-2003 10:37 AM Zephan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by derwood, posted 03-13-2003 11:17 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019