Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 03-10-2002, 01:04 PM

Hey, if you are too dumb to consider the idea of "kind", then that;s your problem, not mine. I am not going to waste my time with idiocy, and that is what some of ya'll's comments appear to me.
I will say this. If science artifically limits certain ideas from it's models without any way to disprove them, then science needs adjusting.
I also think the basic premise of what some of you appear to be trying to say is hypocritical. i assume you oppose ID and the idea of "kind" because you see it as untestable.
But the same argument can be made concerning evolution. You can test to see if it is possible, but we are dealing with history here, not science, per se as you guys define it.
Unless you can invent a time machine, you are basically spending a lot of time on an hypothesis which is equally untestable as special creation.

RufusAtticus · 03-10-2002, 01:07 PM

Also posted in another thread:

Quote:

The fossil record is actually fully consistent with special creation models where micro-evolutionary changes, but not macro occur after a species is created by God.

Please provide such a model so that we might review it. The "Challenge to those who beleive in kinds" thread is a perfect place for it. I have yet to encounter a creation model that does a better job of explaining ALL the available data than evolution. Since you claim that micro-evolutionary changes can happen and not macroevolutionary changes, when you present this model define microevolution and macroevolution. Also, to support your statement, your theory needs to contain a mechanism that prevents the gradual accumulation of microevolutionary changes from leading to macroevolutionary changes. In other words, your theory needs to explain "why" and be consistent with the available data. Evolution does both of these things. What about your model? If you are not capable of producing a model or answering our questions about it, stop refering to it. The "Challenge..." thread already has some questions for your model to deal with. Please see that you do that.

-RvFvS

RufusAtticus · 03-10-2002, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Hey, if you are too dumb to consider the idea of "kind", then that;s your problem, not mine. I am not going to waste my time with idiocy, and that is what some of ya'll's comments appear to me.

Um, randman, if you would like to read my posts again, I am considering "kinds." That's why I have asked you questions about it. You seem to be attempting to avoid my questions. Why is that? Can your model answer them or not? It's not my fault your model appears incapable of being applicaple to actual populations of organisms, instead of the mythical ones found in your bible.

(snip rest of the dodge)

Randman, please attempt to answer my questions or admit that your model is baseless. Are my questions too difficult for you? Feel free to consult as many experts as you need to to answer them.

-RvFvS

hologos · 03-10-2002, 02:55 PM

Have not been to Jena U. Have not seen the trial transcripts. I do know that there are courts of a sort, albeit kangaroo in nature,at many universities. Doctor and lawyer frats also have a self-cleansing procedure which could be likened to a court although some would say such is more a means of "covering up." Semper Fi forever. Some have reported that a fellow named Martin Luther posted some 95 theses to the door of a certain university property. He was deemed to be an heretic and officially defrocked and anathemized. Whether this is true or not I cannot say. I was not invited to that conclave. And I must rely on the preponderance of written evidence from those who may or may not have been there. The subsequent historical events which may or may not have been faithfully recorded would seem to validate the inference that he was a defrocked Roman priest. Look out Pandora--here we come again. Guess it could all be a hoax. I have difficulty with inferences. Some are necessary, most are not. We seem to have difficulty with making conclusions based on unnecessary inferences. It seems to be human nature to believe exactly what we want--regardless of the facts or lack thereof.
Ernst H. where are you?
Are we going in circles? Possible mechanisms of origins--how does one design an experiment to prove/disprove the hypotheses? The Miller/Ulrey experiment showed that people could put chemicals together, stir, add high voltage and get amino acids. How this experiment could possibly be an indication of how the living came from the dead boggles the mind. Whence cometh the meeting in the same place at the same time and what was the stirring mechanism? Also,whence cometh the information necessary for the DNA of a single celled living organism? Such experiments require metaphysical factors which are not allowed in scientific equations. Hence, my position that evolution and creation belong in the religion class seems valid. Both positions require metaphysical notions for validity.

hyzer · 03-10-2002, 04:08 PM

quote "Such experiments require metaphysical factors which are not allowed in scientific equations."

You lost me. What metaphysical factors are indicated in the scientific experiment?

Scientists can't create a real life volcano. But they can create models in the lab and in the computer to test volcanic theories. Does this involve your "metaphsical factors"?

Automaton · 03-10-2002, 07:10 PM

Alright you fucking shithead, no more mister nice guy.

And no, these aren't ad hominems (arguments to the man), because I'm fairly certain trolls aren't classified as Homo*.

Quote:

Hey, if you are too dumb to consider the idea of "kind", then that;s your problem, not mine.

You can't even give your pathetic "kind" crap that you stole from a two year old that has absolutely NO basis in reality a DEFINITION, and then you say we're too dumb to accept your worthless tripe?! Go back to kindergarten, or perhaps the children there would outsmart you and make you cry because you want to be a real boy.

Quote:

I am not going to waste my time with idiocy

So you're removing yourself from the gene pool? Excellent.

Quote:

and that is what some of ya'll's comments appear to me.

Heeeyuck! Ya'll be not arn-suh-in' muh questions, yer dumb evuh-loo-shun-ists! Now me un' Jethro ar' gunna go gets ourselves some road kill fer suppah!

Quote:

I will say this. If science artifically limits certain ideas from it's models without any way to disprove them, then science needs adjusting.

No, science WILL NEVER, EVER become your childish little fantasies, no matter how much you butcher it.

Quote:

I also think the basic premise of what some of you appear to be trying to say is hypocritical. i assume you oppose ID and the idea of "kind" because you see it as untestable.

"KIND" MEANS NOTHING.

Quote:

But the same argument can be made concerning evolution. You can test to see if it is possible, but we are dealing with history here, not science, per se as you guys define it.
Unless you can invent a time machine, you are basically spending a lot of time on an hypothesis which is equally untestable as special creation.

I have already explained this to you, sawdust brain, the very moment after something happens it becomes HISTORY. Everything, technically, is "origins science". Evolution is very testable. Just find ONE genuinely out of place fossil, or just ONE totally messed up protein phylogeny, or just ONE structure that could not have evolved ("Irreducibly Complex" structures can, and do, evolve) and it will be falsified.

RufusAtticus · 03-11-2002, 07:01 AM

PMUB

pangloss · 03-11-2002, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
The simple and accurate rebuttal is that we have only observed, and only have records of speciation within a kind of creature.

Did you find an error with my math? Probelm with my assumptions?

I used very creation-friendly assumptions, including suggestions made by creationist Williams.

Problem with Haldane's model? He is a favorite of creationists - especially thoise that do not understand developmental genetics like Walter ReMine.

If you cannot address the substance of my post, why post vacuous, irrelevant hand-waving?

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: pangloss ]

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-11-2002, 11:59 AM

It is precisely because he can find no error with your math or problem with your assumptions that he does not post.

nogods4me · 03-11-2002, 12:04 PM

My Prediction:
until we can make randman, or someone else, give a succint,lucid, and specific definition of "kinds" he will continue to wiggle, obfuscate, and distort. After giving us the definition he will resort to wiggling, obfuscation, and distortion.

c'mon rand, define the term "kinds" specifically as it relates to the difference between a "kind" and a "species"

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: nogods4me ]

03-11-2002, 12:04 PM	#50
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	My Prediction: until we can make randman, or someone else, give a succint,lucid, and specific definition of "kinds" he will continue to wiggle, obfuscate, and distort. After giving us the definition he will resort to wiggling, obfuscation, and distortion. c'mon rand, define the term "kinds" specifically as it relates to the difference between a "kind" and a "species" [ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: nogods4me ]</p>

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

03-10-2002, 01:04 PM	#41
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Hey, if you are too dumb to consider the idea of "kind", then that;s your problem, not mine. I am not going to waste my time with idiocy, and that is what some of ya'll's comments appear to me. I will say this. If science artifically limits certain ideas from it's models without any way to disprove them, then science needs adjusting. I also think the basic premise of what some of you appear to be trying to say is hypocritical. i assume you oppose ID and the idea of "kind" because you see it as untestable. But the same argument can be made concerning evolution. You can test to see if it is possible, but we are dealing with history here, not science, per se as you guys define it. Unless you can invent a time machine, you are basically spending a lot of time on an hypothesis which is equally untestable as special creation.

03-10-2002, 02:55 PM	#44
hologos Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: louisiana Posts: 7	Have not been to Jena U. Have not seen the trial transcripts. I do know that there are courts of a sort, albeit kangaroo in nature,at many universities. Doctor and lawyer frats also have a self-cleansing procedure which could be likened to a court although some would say such is more a means of "covering up." Semper Fi forever. Some have reported that a fellow named Martin Luther posted some 95 theses to the door of a certain university property. He was deemed to be an heretic and officially defrocked and anathemized. Whether this is true or not I cannot say. I was not invited to that conclave. And I must rely on the preponderance of written evidence from those who may or may not have been there. The subsequent historical events which may or may not have been faithfully recorded would seem to validate the inference that he was a defrocked Roman priest. Look out Pandora--here we come again. Guess it could all be a hoax. I have difficulty with inferences. Some are necessary, most are not. We seem to have difficulty with making conclusions based on unnecessary inferences. It seems to be human nature to believe exactly what we want--regardless of the facts or lack thereof. Ernst H. where are you? Are we going in circles? Possible mechanisms of origins--how does one design an experiment to prove/disprove the hypotheses? The Miller/Ulrey experiment showed that people could put chemicals together, stir, add high voltage and get amino acids. How this experiment could possibly be an indication of how the living came from the dead boggles the mind. Whence cometh the meeting in the same place at the same time and what was the stirring mechanism? Also,whence cometh the information necessary for the DNA of a single celled living organism? Such experiments require metaphysical factors which are not allowed in scientific equations. Hence, my position that evolution and creation belong in the religion class seems valid. Both positions require metaphysical notions for validity.

03-10-2002, 04:08 PM	#45
hyzer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: philadelphia Posts: 1,844	quote "Such experiments require metaphysical factors which are not allowed in scientific equations." You lost me. What metaphysical factors are indicated in the scientific experiment? Scientists can't create a real life volcano. But they can create models in the lab and in the computer to test volcanic theories. Does this involve your "metaphsical factors"?

03-11-2002, 07:01 AM	#47
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	PMUB

03-11-2002, 11:59 AM	#49
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	It is precisely because he can find no error with your math or problem with your assumptions that he does not post.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.