by entropyfails » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 15:59:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', 'W')ell, I am rebuilding a mass spec and just got back to my desk for a moment. Sorry to have so disturbed you, eotyrant. By the way, what are you doing today? It's obvious that this debate will go on forever and nothing is being gained. It was pleasant entertainment though.
I really wish you would stop with the whole “what important things I do” shtick. Haven’t I discredited it enough? Would you like more ridicule? I know that’s the point. You want the ridicule so you can “cast doubt” upon the theory of evolution while getting the satisfaction of “wasting the heathen’s time.”
Of course the debate will continue forever. You are not amenable to argument. Nothing can change your mind. You simply have abandoned your scientific principles and wish to dance around it. Go ahead, you obviously need the self reinforcing that you mentioned earlier. Should I quote you saying that again?
That was a Big mistake, by the way. If you want to run this game, at least do the whole “logical and moral superiority” thing right. You failed on this thread. Make sure to remember to edit out any possibility of self doubt when you spam other boards.
I wish you only meant this as entertainment. You obviously want to develop rhetorical techniques that won’t make you look like a fool to believers and allow you to side skirt any of the actual science, which says things you don’t like.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '
')The evolution faithful cheer your "blistering" attacks on me. The undecided can see the vitriol of which you are so proud, and you'll probably lose some converts to your religion, as it were, because of it. You come across as belligerent and close-minded. I know, I know.. you're just trying to prevent others from being misled by my inflammatory beliefs, and you have the "truth".
I never claimed to have the truth. I stated the fact that biologists don’t debate evolution in the way you want to. That makes you a fraud by pretending science (namely statistics) back up your little Pascal’s wager.
As for what others think of my obvious attacks on your ideas, it matters little. If real scientists debated these things and I took that tone, then I could loose “converts” as you like to paint “believers in science.” (I love the whole allusion to science as religion. Much subtler tactic. We’ll make a con man out of you yet.) Most people well versed in the actual science would say, “Well, Entropfails does state the facts. But he does it in a fairly uncivil tone. I’d do it differently.” So I don’t have to do any “conversion” for them. As for the believers, some may cheer on your little lie dance. But others reading this may internally question why this gets me so angry and why you cannot directly respond or challenge any of the data presented. Belief structures will shift. In time, more will move closer to reality.
But keep trying! It would be cute if it didn’t hurt children’s minds.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', ' ')That's fine. If people decide to question evolution and look into it a bit, then all the better. The fact that anyone who questions evolution is instantly attacked is evidence enough of the fanaticism of evolutionists and the antithesis of true scientific inquiry.
The antithesis of scientific inquiry is to take the entire body of evidence for a theory, dismiss it out of hand a being “too complex” or “too improbable” or some other catchphrase ESPECIALLY without replacing it with a better theory. I think people should look into evolution as well. But they should listen to the scientists instead of the preacher.
I have to say, that last tactic does reinforce the faithful. I like the whole using the “faith under attack” meme to further push believers into the rigid modes of thinking. Keep playing with those subtler memes please. I’ll keep ripping them apart, of course. But I like pointing out how you guys go about doing things.
by entropyfails » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 16:04:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eotyrant', 'A')ctually I did see that he meant you; but considering that we have employed different tactics to debate, I found his blanket term 'evolutionists' to be wholly absurd.
Yeah, I kinda figured you were taking that route and understood what he wrote. I just made it explicit for those who didn’t understand the trick. Some people have problems with context switching so pointing out exactly how he used YOUR name and then MY argument may help them understand how much of a liar and a con man this "anthem" is. *grin*
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
-
entropyfails
- Expert
-
- Posts: 565
- Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
-
by Jake_old » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 17:50:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'I')f someone wants to dispute contemporary evolution theory as the mechanistic explanation of change, I've got no objection to make and I'll read it with interest. If the objection is upon evolution in principle as a historic process to be explained then I don't expect anything good to come from a discussion.
I have to point out, and I don't mean to just PMS that this discussion is incredibly useful and interesting. I'm sorry that some find it very frustrating but it does add to the enjoyment of reading.
I am not particularly interested in learning about evolutionary theory on my own. I don't know why, it just didn't spark any intetrest. The thing is I believe in it, but for me it is a belief because I don't have any scientific background or knowledge of it.
I'm the opposite of anthem here
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hough I have not previously discussed how I came to my current position on evolutionary theory, now would be a good time to discuss it. Formerly I had the opinion, as one who believes in a Creator God, that evolution was the scientifc process that God used to populate our planet (and others in the universe, though as yet undiscovered).
As I didn't believe in a creator in the first place. Evolution just made more sense to me, so I didn't look into it.
What I'm trying to say is that this is a useful passing of your time. I was blissfully unaware that it was such an interesting subject, and I am glad I have learned about critical thinking (a bit) before reading. Please keep going as long as there is disagreement. Doesn't matter how futile it seems to be. But I suppose its your arsedness than could be worn out.
by PenultimateManStanding » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 18:25:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RedJake', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'O')K, RedJake. The salamanders of California in the central valley morph from one species to another gradually around the edge of the valley, not going out on the dry plain. At the south end of the valley, there are two species. Around the valley they gradually change from one into the other. That's a pretty good demonstration in space of what happens in time generally, don't you think so? I sure do, and I hope that you find this edifying and enjoyable reading.
I sure do find it interesting.
Is it true?
Of course it's true. I read it in a book by Richard Dawkins.
by anthem » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 21:47:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eotyrant', 'O')h come now, I've done nothing but quote research evidence. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but not read it.
Quite correct eotyrant. I mistakenly put your handle in my post in my haste to type something out. I was indeed referring to entropyfails when I typed that message. Please forgive me for being careless. There was not any "trick" involved, even though entropyfails wants to frame me as a "liar and con man". More power to you entropyfails, if you think it advances your position.
And you are also correct that, eotyrant, I have not had the opportunity to read every reference you have posted, though I did look at some of them and was familiar with others and the arguments they advanced. Have you had a chance to look at the ones I posted? I believe they were all from mainstream sources.
And, to entropyfails: I'm sorry you don't care for my "excuse" that I'm a busy person, but I was trying to avoid that common internet assumption that when someone does not reply he's either been scared away or doesn't know how to respond. I was trying to offer an explanation. Hopefully you also have better things to do during your day than spend the entirety of it on peakoil.com, though there are any number of things even less productive.
I would also say, entropyfails, that smallpoxgirl, especially being a PhD or MD or whatever she might be, probably doesn't need you to defend her, but I'll let her decide that. I did not say anything disparaging about her personally; everyone may go back, read, and make up his own mind. I respect you and your position, even if I think you're misled, though it's obvious you a bigot at least with regard to this topic. On the other hand, there are those such as penultimatemanstanding, chicknlittle, and eotyrant who have showed some maturity and true interest in discussion.
Whoso would be a man must be a non-conformist.
-
anthem
- Peat
-
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: midwest US
-
by anthem » Fri 10 Feb 2006, 00:27:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ')Life has changed over the billions of years. Do you deny that or not?
Of course I do not deny that. There is ample fossil evidence that many species existed in the past many millions of years and are now extinct. I hate to say "billions" because that implies more years than I'd agree with. I guess 3 or 4 billion is "billions" but when I say billions, I mean 10 billion or 100 billion. Organisms in existence today include some that have existed from the beginning and many others that appeared much more recently. Also, many species went extinct in the millions of years of Earth's history and extinctions continue today.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'I')t seems that you are disputing natural selection in one post, and then evolution itself in the next.
Yes, I am disputing both of these propositions. While we really haven't discussed natural selection too much specifically, my thoughts are as follows. No matter how long natural selection operates, it does not produce new species. Weak or unsuitable specimens in a population, let's say antelopes, are eliminated by natural selection. However, the population continues to be antelopes. No new genetic information is added to the population; more favorable
existing variations in the genetic code become more prominent in the population, but the genetic code remains the same. There really isn't any evidence that the unfavorable variations are actually eliminated. Variations in populations of particular species tend to ebb and flow around a central point.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ChicknLittle', ' ')May I also say you accept that the earth is very old (hundreds of millions of years at least?).
Would a fair summary of your belief then be that the variety of species suggested by the fossil record existed over a course of hundreds of millions of years, but that some species died out at various times thru extinction. To replace them, at times, unchanging (non-evolving, fully formed ) new species were added to the planet surface de novo (explaining a non-overlap between dinosaurs and humans)... ?
As far as I know, the geological and isotopic dating evidence suggests the earth is between four and five billion years old. The exact age probably isn't that important in this discussion, and seems to be in flux depending on who's talking, but I think the last I heard, the age was pegged at 4.5 or 4.6 billion years.
As I stated above, many species, most prominently in many people's minds, the dinosaurs, existed for millions of years, and have gone extinct millions of years ago. Though not necessarily as "replacements", other species appeared on the Earth after the extinction of the dinosaurs. As far as I can tell from the majority of geological evidence, humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist on the planet, although there are some unexplainable human-looking footprints in strata older than would be otherwise predicted.
I suppose the big question here is this: How did these new species (or any form of life) arise? I can't give you an answer to that. All I know from what I have read and seen, in the forms of evidence for and against evolution, is that evolution does not explain the origin of species well at all. You may argue that it is the best thing we have, but I'd rather be an agnostic on the issue than to continue to promote what, to me, is a seriously flawed theory.
I am not a "young-earth" creationist, or any sort of creationist for that matter. I still fail to understand why most evolution supporters continue to lump all evolution doubters together as fundamentalist Bible literalists and creationism fanatics. I do not have a religious or political agenda in questioning evolution. As I stated in the very beginning of this thread, spirituality and supernatural topics do not have a place in a scientific discussion, yet several posters here have continually tried to frame the debate as science versus "crazy" religious fundamentalists and the ideas of those who question evolution as "mental fumblings" and even as something that "harms children"! Had to chuckle really at that; it sounded more like what a televangelist would say! Guess that's about all I have to say for the evening; gotta check on my children (I know they're safe though).
Whoso would be a man must be a non-conformist.
by entropyfails » Fri 10 Feb 2006, 00:52:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eotyrant', 'O')h come now, I've done nothing but quote research evidence. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but not read it.
Quite correct eotyrant. I mistakenly put your handle in my post in my haste to type something out. I was indeed referring to entropyfails when I typed that message. Please forgive me for being careless. There was not any "trick" involved, even though entropyfails wants to frame me as a "liar and con man". More power to you entropyfails, if you think it advances your position.
Dance!
My position needs no more advancing than the “Theory of Gravity” as applied to large masses needs advancing. If you came on here and said, “god pisses invisible piss on everyone’s head and that causes us to stick to the Earth,” I would have just as much right to tear your argument apart as when you do the same thing for the “Theory of Evolution.”
As for your tactic of apologizing to seem more reasonable, I guess I feel under whelmed. You obviously want to trick people, so trying to take the moral high road now to clear your argument from your lies won’t be as effective as simply repeating everything you said over and over. Perhaps you can use more fully upper case words to seem like you are shouting. That tends to work best for lying foolishness on the net.
This whole, I’m a nice guy who converts the heathens thing may work on whatever streetcorner you get up on and shout your madness, but it fails here. I’m trying help you become a better liar and con man, so just listen and don’t try to attack my good advice to you.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '
')And, to entropyfails: I'm sorry you don't care for my "excuse" that I'm a busy person, but I was trying to avoid that common internet assumption that when someone does not reply he's either been scared away or doesn't know how to respond. I was trying to offer an explanation. Hopefully you also have better things to do during your day than spend the entirety of it on peakoil.com, though there are any number of things even less productive.
That AND you wanted to give your argument legitimacy by virtue of your job and university degree. Any biology professor you had would feel sad upon reading your words. They may even feel mad that they wasted their time trying to teach you just to have you throw everything they taught you in the trash because of a religious conviction.
I don’t tell you what I do because it has no bearing on this so called debate. And this obvious “deviling” or passive aggressive behavior of yours won’t help either. You obviously want to tie my having a day off to the idea that I do “unproductive things” and hence think “unproductive ideas.” Again, that doesn’t make for a very good con tactic. You have to do the whole “unlimited confidence” thing if you want to con people. That’s where the “con” comes from. Never restate your credentials man. It just looks like pleading.
You used the same tactic with Smallpox girl when you disparaged her “engineering skills.” As Jesus Quintana said from The Big Lebowski, “This is some bush league psyche-out stuff. Laughable, man.” Maybe you have tried the whole “O’Rilley” style debate before and want to switch tactics. I don’t know. But you did a sloppy job of it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', 'I')I respect you and your position, even if I think you're misled, though it's obvious you a bigot at least with regard to this topic.
by entropyfails » Fri 10 Feb 2006, 01:44:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'I')t seems that you are disputing natural selection in one post, and then evolution itself in the next.
Yes, I am disputing both of these propositions. While we really haven't discussed natural selection too much specifically, my thoughts are as follows. No matter how long natural selection operates, it does not produce new species. Weak or unsuitable specimens in a population, let's
Almost 150 years ago, this idea had been proven wrong. It has not been overturned by minds FAR, FAR, FAR greater and more numerous than yours.
Everyone, read this statement very clearly. This guy disputes the ENTIRETY OF ORGIN OF THE SPECIES! This is the logical equivalent of disputing Newton’s theory of gravity. He’s gone folks. Gone to the crazy farm. Maybe he’ll return but it won’t be through reasoned debate. It will come from an emotional epiphany because that is what caused the conversion in the first place.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', 's')ay antelopes, are eliminated by natural selection. However, the population continues to be antelopes. No new genetic information is added to the population; more favorable
existing variations in the genetic code become more prominent in the population, but the genetic code remains the same. There really isn't any evidence that the unfavorable variations are actually eliminated. Variations in populations of particular species tend to ebb and flow around a central point.
All that, everything you just wrote, is nothing but a lie. A big, fat, proven lie. You know it is a lie. How can you argue with someone who promotes known falsehoods for the purposes of converting people?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '
')I suppose the big question here is this: How did these new species (or any form of life) arise? I can't give you an answer to that.
by ChicknLittle » Fri 10 Feb 2006, 01:57:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '.')..let's say antelopes, are eliminated by natural selection. However, the population continues to be antelopes. No new genetic information is added to the population; more favorable existing variations in the genetic code become more prominent in the population, but the genetic code remains the same. There really isn't any evidence that the unfavorable variations are actually eliminated. Variations in populations of particular species tend to ebb and flow around a central point.
[web]http://gpc.edu/~pgore/myphotos/fossils/horse-evolution.jpg[/web]
It sounds like you accept the existance of fossils showing different animal types at different times in earth's history. Paleontologists are quite comfortable putting these bones in order based on age, and believe that they see sequential changes (gradual anatomic change). You look at the sequence and divide the sequence, saying that the extremes are merely different species with no relation (genetically/family tree wise) as no change in the genetic code is possible and species remain distinct with "ebe" and flow about a central point. What do you base this belief on?
-Genetics/our understanding of DNA makes changes in Base Pair/ Code not only possible but inevitable (due to replication error) and easily demonstrated in individuals.
-Animal breeding shows the mutability of form (genetic makeup) over the medium term
-The fossil record shows more extreme transition of form (genetic makeup) over the long term.
On what basis do you then claim species are "fixed around a central point" in the long term? What force or charachteristic of DNA suggests that this is true?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', ' ')I suppose the big question here is this: How did these new species (or any form of life) arise? I can't give you an answer to that. ...You may argue that it is the best thing we have, but I'd rather be an agnostic on the issue than to continue to promote what, to me, is a seriously flawed theory..
Ok, and we are all free to have our own opinions... The fact that you can muster doubt in good faith does not affect the fact that PhD's best trained to look at the evidence have no significant doubts as an institution about evolution. Evolution is a functioning, productive, and established (no longer controversial) theory. "Doubt" is not enough to displace the theory, and "doubt" is not itself an alternative explaination. A valid response to doubt of evolution is to propose an alternative hypothesis which, with confirmatory testing might prove to be a better theory. Which hypothesis would you advance and test, or which alternative hypothesis would you like to see tested so that evolution is displaced as a theory?
[web]http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/733_ohio_scientists39_intellige_10_15_2002.asp[/web]
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', ' ')I do not have a religious or political agenda in questioning evolution. As I stated in the very beginning of this thread, spirituality and supernatural topics do not have a place in a scientific discussion...
With "intelligent design" being promoted as an alternative to evolution over the heads of the scientific community and academic consensus and (I believe) the weight of the evidence, it just seems most likely that you are taking the tact of claiming doubt and the unworkability of evolution with an eye on an end goal of claiming "god must have intervened," as a reasonable and necessary interpretation of the data. That is why I would like to hear your answer to the above question "what alternative hypothesis would you like to advance AND TEST." Doubt is only a starting point is scientific inquiery, and doubts can only be answered with formation of an alternative hypothesis and testing of that hypothesis. Answers and allusions outside these restraints are not scientific (are not confirmable or refutable), will not be productive, and are best left to the area of religion/faith/dogma... and therefore best kept out of schools. But you're not suggesting intelligent design as the best hypothesis are you (or are you?) so what mechanism other than evolution do you propose to explain the appearance of new species of mammals after the dinosaurs?
