Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kevin Dorner · 03-07-2002, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
In fact, I would ask that a moderator lock the "Why creationists deny..." and "Some of you have complained..." discussions to free up randman to devote some time to this one.

Excellent idea.

(Edit: But one that might get misinterpreted if this thread isn't read... here's hoping that if this doesn't come to pass that everyone else in Evo/Cre refuses to have anything to say to him and refers him to this thread until he has provided proper answers.)

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]

Dr Rick · 03-07-2002, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
I hereby absolve randman of the discussions regarding "transitional forms" so that he may devote more time to Patrick's questions. In fact, I would ask that a moderator lock the "Why creationists deny..." and "Some of you have complained..." discussions to free up randman to devote some time to this one.

No can do, though it is tempting to do so. Randman is free to post here as long as he abides by the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/forumrules.html" target="_blank">II rules</a>.

Kevin Dorner · 03-08-2002, 02:47 AM

>bump< Nothing yet and this thread is drifting downwards.

randman · 03-08-2002, 04:26 AM

This will have to wait till the weekend, and will have to go back to other thread if we are going to analyze where you guys have taken a straw-man argument, but take Gould's written complaint. Rather than take on another scientists' views of his statement, he attacks a tract published on campus. He squishes by trying to avoid the substance of the fact that he did an does in fact state that species exhibit stasis. When they go through their suppossed transformation/evolution, there are not fossils recording that punctuated change, are they?
No.
Didn't think so.
What we find is a fully formed species that if you assme must have evolved, you can neatly place it between different groups and call it "transitional", but there is no hard data other than similarities t o prove it is transitional. You don't actually see the species gradally evolving. No, species exhibit stasis.
Rather than lie and say I am taking him out of context, or place a bunch of pictures, why not deal with what he did say. Is stasis a reality, or is just we haven't found anough fossils.
Moreover, I consider many of you to be taking a weak stance when calling for what level iof education people have. If you were content to teach evolution only to grad students, then I would agree, maybe I am out of my league, but since evolutionists want this stuff taught to 4th graders, and in soem forms even to kindergarterners, I think it is incumbent upon evolutionists to porve their points within a context of anyone with a 4th grade education, and if it can't be done, then we shouldn't be teaching stuff to people that they are incapable of determining on their own if it is right or not.
In fact, I think the call for education levels is in fact a sign that evolution is more of an argument from authority and propoganda program more than anything else.

hezekiah jones · 03-08-2002, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
... but there is no hard data other than similarities to prove it is transitional. You don't actually see the species gradually evolving.

So - this pretty much sums up your objections then?

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]

notto · 03-08-2002, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
[QB]but there is no hard data other than similarities t o prove it is transitional. QB]

Not True, in addition to similarities,

1) they appear in the correct chronological order in the fossil record.

2) they appear in the correct geographic location in the fossil record.

3) they appear more like modern species than samples that are older and less like modern species than ones that are younger.

So we have four characteristics that place transitional ("intermediate") fossils. If they are the result of special creation, then the creator surely wanted them to look intermediate.

The creator made them look similar (yet different) and placed them in the right place at the right time.

These would be the characteristics of a transitional ("intermediate") fossil that I would look for if someone asked me. Are you ever going to get around to telling us what characteristics you would look for in a transitional fossil?

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: notto ]

Kevin Dorner · 03-08-2002, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
This will have to wait till the weekend...

Then we'll see your response this weekend, and if you post anything before you have addressed this from now on, I'll be posting a reminder... just so no one forgets, of course.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]

Automaton · 03-08-2002, 07:19 AM

Enough feeding of the troll already! He'll never ever learn, he'll just keep repeating the same baseless, regurgitated rhetoric over and over. So fuck him.

Kevin Dorner · 03-08-2002, 07:26 AM

The point is to not respond anywhere else, so that he feeds in this thread and no other, which might eventually drive him away because he knows that he has no chance here.

pseudobug has been dealing with radnman's manure for three months. There is an endless amount of it. If we avoid giving him chances to spread it in other threads and keep referring it back to this one... the first time that he admitted that he was on the ropes (by needing time to respond instead of just pulling rhetoric out of his arse.) So this is the best chance to get rid of him or force him to admit he was wrong.

hezekiah jones · 03-08-2002, 07:36 AM

randman's objections, like those of all creationists, are politically motivated, that much is painfully obvious. They have nothing to do with science, since he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. He'd be better off "debating" in the Church/State forum.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2002, 02:47 AM	#13
Kevin Dorner Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 762	>bump< Nothing yet and this thread is drifting downwards.

03-08-2002, 04:26 AM	#14
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	This will have to wait till the weekend, and will have to go back to other thread if we are going to analyze where you guys have taken a straw-man argument, but take Gould's written complaint. Rather than take on another scientists' views of his statement, he attacks a tract published on campus. He squishes by trying to avoid the substance of the fact that he did an does in fact state that species exhibit stasis. When they go through their suppossed transformation/evolution, there are not fossils recording that punctuated change, are they? No. Didn't think so. What we find is a fully formed species that if you assme must have evolved, you can neatly place it between different groups and call it "transitional", but there is no hard data other than similarities t o prove it is transitional. You don't actually see the species gradally evolving. No, species exhibit stasis. Rather than lie and say I am taking him out of context, or place a bunch of pictures, why not deal with what he did say. Is stasis a reality, or is just we haven't found anough fossils. Moreover, I consider many of you to be taking a weak stance when calling for what level iof education people have. If you were content to teach evolution only to grad students, then I would agree, maybe I am out of my league, but since evolutionists want this stuff taught to 4th graders, and in soem forms even to kindergarterners, I think it is incumbent upon evolutionists to porve their points within a context of anyone with a 4th grade education, and if it can't be done, then we shouldn't be teaching stuff to people that they are incapable of determining on their own if it is right or not. In fact, I think the call for education levels is in fact a sign that evolution is more of an argument from authority and propoganda program more than anything else.

03-08-2002, 07:19 AM	#18
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	Enough feeding of the troll already! He'll never ever learn, he'll just keep repeating the same baseless, regurgitated rhetoric over and over. So fuck him.

03-08-2002, 07:26 AM	#19
Kevin Dorner Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 762	The point is to not respond anywhere else, so that he feeds in this thread and no other, which might eventually drive him away because he knows that he has no chance here. pseudobug has been dealing with radnman's manure for three months. There is an endless amount of it. If we avoid giving him chances to spread it in other threads and keep referring it back to this one... the first time that he admitted that he was on the ropes (by needing time to respond instead of just pulling rhetoric out of his arse.) So this is the best chance to get rid of him or force him to admit he was wrong.

03-08-2002, 07:36 AM	#20
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	randman's objections, like those of all creationists, are politically motivated, that much is painfully obvious. They have nothing to do with science, since he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. He'd be better off "debating" in the Church/State forum.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.