Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daggah · 03-20-2002, 10:36 AM

Quote:

The fact tigers and lions, for instance, can breed is evidence of a parent kind that originated both species.

And yet they're different species...I don't know much about ligers but I do know that lions and tigers are indeed different species. Are you claiming that both species share a common ancestor? Dump the kind bullshit randman, we all know it's a creationist trick-word. If these two species share a common ancestor then that is yet one more example of common descent.

(What's next, are you going to try to claim that humans and their ape-like ancestor are the same "kind?"

)

randman · 03-20-2002, 10:36 AM

"I smell hypocrisy...
Eww, I smell an evasion too. Those two smells don't go well together! "

Well, Daggah, may I suggest you take a bath?

Daggah · 03-20-2002, 10:40 AM

Quote:

So calling someone a liar suffices for an argument, eh? What typical BS! Both charges cannot be true. That is a fact, but why am I not surprised an evolutionist would claim 2 contradictatory ideas at the same time, and rather than answer, call anyone daring to question them a liar.
What a joke!

You are a liar. The charge is true. You are demonstratably so. Are you saying that intellectual dishonesty and lying are mutually exclusive? Intellectual dishonesty IS lying.

Quote:

This is a good one. Facts are ideas that can only be used by evolutionists. If someone else uses the same facts to counter the speaker's arguments, then somehow that is not genuine.
Your hypocrisy is staggering.

Good lord man, do you have ANY concept at all of what misquoting and taking out of context means?

Fine. The Bible says there is no god. It's a fact that it says it. It's in one of the Psalms. "There is no god." It's right there. Do you think I'd be right to start claiming that facts are ideas that can only be used by Christians, when I'm so clearly taking the statement out of context? (If you're wondering, I'm referring to that wonderful objective gem in Psalms: "the fool says in his heart, 'there is no god.'"

Daggah · 03-20-2002, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
<strong>"I smell hypocrisy...
Eww, I smell an evasion too. Those two smells don't go well together! "

Well, Daggah, may I suggest you take a bath?</strong>

I give you a 9.0 out of 10 for your evasive techniques, but I'm going to have to rate you poorly for originality, as my cat could have done better. 2.0 out of 10. Average score, 5.5/10, mediocre.

As usual.

randman · 03-20-2002, 10:46 AM

"Are you claiming that both species share a common ancestor? "

Duh? How is it you sit here and argue for days on end, and yet never even bother to learn your opponent's arguments?
This is evidence that you simply dismiss them out of hand.
As far as common descent, nope. It is mere conjecture to assume since some speciation of this type exists, that common descent must be true. That is a theoritical extrapolation.
This is actually only evidence of descent from the same parent species, the same "kind" if you would. That parent species is the "kind" creationists use, and I tend to see their argument as backed up by the data.

It is mere conjecture to assume since some speciation of this type exists, that common descent must be true.

Daggah · 03-20-2002, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
[QB]Duh? How is it you sit here and argue for days on end, and yet never even bother to learn your opponent's arguments?

I'm wondering the same of you? (I wasn't actually aware you had arguments but that's a whole other topic.

)

Quote:

This is evidence that you simply dismiss them out of hand.

Excuse me? Why would I dismiss yet more evidence for the truth of common descent out of hand?

Quote:

As far as common descent, nope. It is mere conjecture to assume since some speciation of this type exists, that common descent must be true. That is a theoritical extrapolation.

I agree, which is why I'm not taking this specific example and assuming that common descent must be true. I'm talking about this because it blatantly contradicts your claim that the fossil record doesn't show speciation (untrue) because speciation doesn't occur. Here you're admitting that it does. That is a contradiction.

Quote:

This is actually only evidence of descent from the same parent species, the same "kind" if you would. That parent species is the "kind" creationists use, and I tend to see their argument as backed up by the data.

"Kind" is, again, a creationist weasel-word. If "kind" is equivalent to "species" then we clearly do see kinds evolving from other kinds, which is exactly what you claim is not true. But then, you make "kind" not equivalent to "species" and start all over again. Moving goalpost syndrome, anyone?

randman · 03-20-2002, 10:54 AM

Daggah, it is interesting that you think someone of your low caliber of intellect is capable of rating another humen being.
As far as taking quotes out of context, has it occurred to you to actually explain what the quotes then mean?
Take the quote you mentioned of "there is no god." I would have to look it up but for an example, if I was to counter your argument, I would need to explain what the author meant by that statement, not merely assert it is wrong.
In this instance, I suspect it is a quote of what heathens say, and thus this is a poor example in trying to refute me.
I think it is plain and clear why certain evolutionists have admitted to the lack of any examples of species to species transitions leading to major morhpological change. The fact they are using this in the context of arguing for PE does not negate the statements themselves.
None of you that claim these are taken out of context have actually explained what the sentences themselves mean.
Why don't you try?

Daggah · 03-20-2002, 10:56 AM

Anyone else keeping score?

So far we have randman evading:

1) Explanations of how some of his quotes are out of context.
2) Explanations of how they're practically all out of date.
3) Explanations of why they're wrong.
4) Examples of transitionals - those things he claims don't exist.
5) Examples of other forms of evidence for evolution.
6) Points raised against the use of "kinds" and why it is not a valid scientific term.
7) Points raised about how his claims against the moderators of this forum are blatantly untrue.

You have to be bloody good to be able to evade this much in such a short time!

Daggah · 03-20-2002, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
]Daggah, it is interesting that you think someone of your low caliber of intellect is capable of rating another humen [sic] being.

And you think you have the right to complain about others insulting you HOW?

Quote:

As far as taking quotes out of context, has it occurred to you to actually explain what the quotes then mean?

Sure has, and others have done so with your quotes. You've ignored them.

Quote:

Take the quote you mentioned of "there is no god." I would have to look it up but for an example, if I was to counter your argument, I would need to explain what the author meant by that statement, not merely assert it is wrong.

Exactly! And it's been done to your quotes. You've ignored them.

Quote:

In this instance, I suspect it is a quote of what heathens say, and thus this is a poor example in trying to refute me.

Nope.

Quote:

I think it is plain and clear why certain evolutionists have admitted to the lack of any examples of species to species transitions leading to major morhpological change.

But there isn't a lack. This is a lie.

Quote:

The fact they are using this in the context of arguing for PE does not negate the statements themselves.

PE isn't mutually exclusive with evolution. This is another dishonest statement from you.

Quote:

None of you that claim these are taken out of context have actually explained what the sentences themselves mean.
Why don't you try?

This is a lie as well. It's been done several times. I'm not going to let myself be dragged into this debate with you randman. I've seen others beat you soundly and you just keep on ticking, and I have no desire whatsoever to put myself in that position. You've already lost the debate several times over; it is only your pig-headedness that keeps you going.

randman · 03-20-2002, 11:02 AM

"I'm talking about this because it blatantly contradicts your claim that the fossil record doesn't show speciation (untrue) because speciation doesn't occur. Here you're admitting that it does."

Obviously, you are pretty dense, and haven't bothered to read. I do not claim speciation does not occur, nor do creationists. That is your perception, falsely built up by straw man propoganda techniques evolutionists use.
Moreover, noone has identified "kind" as the same thing as "species."
Once again, instead of trying to understand another's argument, you resort to falsely and mindlessly claiming they beleive things that they do not, and to basically resorting to semantic games.
That is indicative of someone who doesn't grasp the basic arguments on either side of an issue, and of someone who beleives something due to indoctrination rather than honest appraisal of the facts.

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

03-20-2002, 10:36 AM	#62
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"I smell hypocrisy... Eww, I smell an evasion too. Those two smells don't go well together! " Well, Daggah, may I suggest you take a bath?

03-20-2002, 10:46 AM	#65
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"Are you claiming that both species share a common ancestor? " Duh? How is it you sit here and argue for days on end, and yet never even bother to learn your opponent's arguments? This is evidence that you simply dismiss them out of hand. As far as common descent, nope. It is mere conjecture to assume since some speciation of this type exists, that common descent must be true. That is a theoritical extrapolation. This is actually only evidence of descent from the same parent species, the same "kind" if you would. That parent species is the "kind" creationists use, and I tend to see their argument as backed up by the data. It is mere conjecture to assume since some speciation of this type exists, that common descent must be true.

03-20-2002, 10:54 AM	#67
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Daggah, it is interesting that you think someone of your low caliber of intellect is capable of rating another humen being. As far as taking quotes out of context, has it occurred to you to actually explain what the quotes then mean? Take the quote you mentioned of "there is no god." I would have to look it up but for an example, if I was to counter your argument, I would need to explain what the author meant by that statement, not merely assert it is wrong. In this instance, I suspect it is a quote of what heathens say, and thus this is a poor example in trying to refute me. I think it is plain and clear why certain evolutionists have admitted to the lack of any examples of species to species transitions leading to major morhpological change. The fact they are using this in the context of arguing for PE does not negate the statements themselves. None of you that claim these are taken out of context have actually explained what the sentences themselves mean. Why don't you try?

03-20-2002, 10:56 AM	#68
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Anyone else keeping score? So far we have randman evading: 1) Explanations of how some of his quotes are out of context. 2) Explanations of how they're practically all out of date. 3) Explanations of why they're wrong. 4) Examples of transitionals - those things he claims don't exist. 5) Examples of other forms of evidence for evolution. 6) Points raised against the use of "kinds" and why it is not a valid scientific term. 7) Points raised about how his claims against the moderators of this forum are blatantly untrue. You have to be bloody good to be able to evade this much in such a short time!

03-20-2002, 11:02 AM	#70
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"I'm talking about this because it blatantly contradicts your claim that the fossil record doesn't show speciation (untrue) because speciation doesn't occur. Here you're admitting that it does." Obviously, you are pretty dense, and haven't bothered to read. I do not claim speciation does not occur, nor do creationists. That is your perception, falsely built up by straw man propoganda techniques evolutionists use. Moreover, noone has identified "kind" as the same thing as "species." Once again, instead of trying to understand another's argument, you resort to falsely and mindlessly claiming they beleive things that they do not, and to basically resorting to semantic games. That is indicative of someone who doesn't grasp the basic arguments on either side of an issue, and of someone who beleives something due to indoctrination rather than honest appraisal of the facts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.