dk

<ol type="1">[*] ps418: For instance, if you took the established distribution of fossil taxa by time (e.g. Fossil Record 2 Database) and randomized it, virtually all of the randomized outcomes would be inconsistent with evolution. A human or whale or dinosaur skeleton in Archean strata, for instance, would be flatly inconsistent with evolution. The article 29+ evidences for evolution gives many additional examples of possible observations which would strongly falsify common descent. So its not that "whatever evidence is found ultimately supports evolution," as you erroneously assert. Its just that all the evidence discovered to date either supports, is consistent with, or does not falsify, evolution.
dk: So now the proof of evolution is contained in evidence inconsistent with evolution ps I’m not trying to be an asshole, but whatever life forms existed in the Cambrian Period don’t exist today, because they evolved.
ps418: Huh? What does this have to do with the subject we are discussing, which is that evolution can not accomodate any conceivable evidence?
.
dk: QM predicts a rubber ball can be thrown through a brick wall, does this mean a rubber ball can be thrown through a brick wall? What means more, a) Earth & Venus dissimilar plate tectonics or, b) Earth & Mars similar plate tectonics? Answer: Neither means more. Science manufactures an underlying reality to explain whatever particulars science finds, and the exceptions get tabled for future consideration. If vertebras were found in Precambrian strata, the meaning would be determined by an explanation fashioned from the particular evidence. Maybe a time warp sent the remains back, maybe a whale swam through solid rock, or some alien space travelers left organic waste.
.[*]dk: Were I to try and disprove evolution I’d look at living fossils. How did living fossils escape evolution?
ps418:Well, your 'disproof' would be no disproof at all, since its assumption is absurd to begin with. Living fossils are not a 'problem' for evolution. Now, why dont you reveal your non-evolutionary explanation for the distribution of fossil groups in the geologic record.
.
dk: My proposition employs simple logic. Evolution can only be [dis]proved on evidence that exists i.e. to disprove evolution on nonexistent evidence violates the best traditions of science, hence is dogmatically anti-science and anti-intellectual. But I don’t want to disprove science, intellect or evolution, and would label anyone that harbors such intentions as an absurdity.
.[*]dk: Nonetheless whatever existed 6 million years ago wasn’t human, therefore doesn’t comment on what it is to be human, anymore than a container of two moles of hydrogen and a container of one mole of oxygen comment about the properties exhibited by a mole of H20. That’s the truth you guys won’t admit.
ps418: I have no idea what point you think you're trying to make, but you're not making it very well. In fact, you have simply evaded the point that evolution, contrary to your claim, can not accomodate any conceivable evidence, and that as an example the temporal distribution of fossil taxa could have definitely falsified evolution, but did not. Now, do you have any explanation for the temporal distribution of fossil taxa that works better than evolution? Created that way? Sorted that way by a flood? Progressive creation?
.
dk: Unless you’re suggesting the fossil record is complete, then nobody knows what discoveries the future holds. I assume new discovers will offer a better explanation, You assume new discovers will affirm the old. I’m saying whether you’re a creationist or an evolutionist its a human defect to close down science with dogma, that’s all I’m saying. When kids k0-k8 are taught dogma as science, whether the dogma be creationist or evolutionist, the dogma shuts science down. It’s a human defect we all suffer. QM predicts a rubber ball can be thrown (tunnel) through a brick wall, its nothing against Newton’s Laws, nor is the proposition an affront to God.
.[*]ps418: On the other hand, creationists themselves have admitted outright that the converse is not true. That is, many creationists have asserted that no possible observation could falsify creationism. So your criticism does apply to creationism.
.
dk: I agree, faith can overwhelm reason to close down science, and that to is a human defect. A quick look at Calvinist dogma makes the point in spades.
.[*]dk: I think you’re wrong. If evolution proved people sprang to life from several independent sources that would shred creationism.
ps418: You are in disagreement with some prominent creationists. Which is good, because the prominent creationists I have in mind have their heads infinitely far up their metaphysical arses. For instance, Kurt Wise wrote:
.
dk: I don’t worship at the alter of Kurt Wise or Dawkins. I subscribe to the metaphor, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth” (John Paul II). I think Einstein presented a similar metaphor, I paraphrase, “science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind”. [*]ps418: Sadly, an Honest Creationist
I'm glad you are not as openly dogmatic as Wise, or the countless other creationists who sign laughable 'statements of faith' in human creation a priori. That said, we don't need any additional evidence to conclude that humans have evolved, since the evidence is compelling as is.
.
dk: That said, whatever human beings were 2 million years ago, they are something else today, and evolution comments only upon the past, blind to the present and the future. Hey do you think people have changed much since Cain, Noah, Buddha, Abraham, Moses, Aristotle, David, Jesus or Mohammed?[/list=a]

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

Daggah: Wrong. Your criticism was NOT "substantial," "valid," OR "substantiated." You are the one motivated by dogmatism and emotionalism - it is you who have more invested in your erroneous belief in creationism.
dk: A substantive response requires a criticism of the provided source. Otherwise you are a troll.

lpetrich: The ethical issue is a totally separate question. I wonder why dk is so obsessed with moralism.
dk: I dowonder why so many evolutionists believe they are above morals and ethics.

Nat: Umm, mass, length, and time are "abstract concepts?" I'd love to see some reasoning on this one.
dk: Start a post.

Nat: I apologize to morons everywhere for associating your truly sad developmental difficulties with this trolls ridiculuously poor reasoning skills!
dk: That’s nice, but I’m made out of rubber, you’re made out of glue, anything you say bounces back to you. hehehehe

Coragyps: Look at the title of this thread. Where'd he go?
dk: Somewhere between Neanderthal and Mendel scitech lost interest.

Neruda: I gotta admit dk...whether you mean to or not, you occassionally come up with some pretty good stuff. Honestly exchange ideas! Thwarted by dogmatism! oh, man...
dk: I do tend to lay it on a bit thick at times, a personal defect.

rbochnermd: *snort*...*guffaw*...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... &lt;sniff&gt;...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...*sig h*; "whew, stop it, stop it,...you're just killing me"...*chortle*
dk: But relative to others I’m a veritable model of understatement.

ps418

Unlike yourself, I am assuming nothing here. I'm asking for an explanation for the data that does exist, not the data that doesnt exist but might exist in the future So, not only do you fail to offer an explanation for the data that exists, you also believe on pure, unadulterated faith that future discoveries will somehow substantiate your creationist beliefs.

That's a nice demonstration of the power of faith, but it doesnt answer my question. So, I ask again, do you have any explanation for the data that does exist, or not? Was the fossil record created that way? Was it sorted that way by a flood? Or is the fossil record a record of progressive creation?

Patrick

Dr Rick

Good, you're finally admitting that there is no evidence to support intelligent design, just as it's true that Mark Twain no longer needs this evidence. It is only human nature to look for meaning, which is the ultimate purpose of most silicon-based lubricating sprays.

<strong> Evolution is science and creation is religion; just like up is not a color in any period. Up could have evolved, but that doesn't mean it was designed.

<strong> Madeline Albright is proof of evolution, but Martha Stewart is not. That's because neither means more. You cannot have the yin and the yang of existence and evolution if there is creation, just as plate tectonics explains certain science dogmas. Otherwise, there could be neither quantum mechanics nor "slinkies." Your example of alien organic waste swimming through solid rocks illustrates this point.

<strong> But now you are contradicting yourself; You've clearly shown us evidence that Madeline Albright and Martha Stewart are proof of evolution, so you can't claim that evidence is anti-science. Mars evolving into Venus would not be a harbor for a boat, but that doesn't mean it couldn't.

This is just simple logic.

<strong> You cannot logically deny that if fish wore watches, floors wouldn't sing. You cannot unmake a fish by evolution, and we don't see fish being unmade, so evolution must not be dogma.

<strong> You assume Martha Stewart is a fish, but why should that make her a brick wall?
<strong> That explains rubber fish, which are always dogma, but does not answer the questions about Quantum mechanics, which is doctrine, and so neither is related to evolution or the yin and the yang. Calvinists may use hoes as well as spades.


<strong> But Einstein never went to Martha Stewart's alter, and he certainly didn't have wings. Einstein did believe that A1 Steak Sauce "makes any burger taste like a steak burger," so it was inevitable that Quantum mechanics would find Kurt Wise isn't a fish either, so we're back to square one. You've substituted your dogma for the yin and the yang, the truth and the right. This is not a an affront to Martha Stewart, but it does prove evolution.

<strong> Change is good if it is intelligent, but not without future, so it's a logical truism that if there is no future in intelligent design, it cannot be quantum mechanics. Thought teaches meaning, but only then, and only if, so it is now.

Rick

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

lpetrich

However, with QM, it is possible to calculate the probability of a rubber ball getting through. Using plausible dimensions and other physical values, it is something like 10^(-10^36) -- which is infinitesimally small.

And what brings you to that conclusion, O dk?

Neruda

human morals and ethics have no effect on the universe or the fact of evolution. if you find evolution to somehow be morally and/or ethically offensive, well, so much the worse for your morals and ethics. The universe doesn't care whether or not you approve of how it operates, because it doesn't know you're there. As my good buddy Richard Dawkins wrote, "This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose."

So grow up, dk. quit living in a dream world filled with fairies, unicorns, and gods. This is the way the universe works. get over it.

hyzer

rbochnermd

Well, by secular Darwin’s fossils – that last post was great stuff.

-hyzer

livius drusus

Agreed. He captured that refrigerator magnet word jumble feeling just perfectly.

dk

[*]dk: If you are naive enough to believe science operates without assumptions then your education has been woefully inadequate. Ask all you want but in science the evidence contains the explanation, not me, you or the Scientific community. I’ve exposed several revisionist stories commonly told by evolutionists. My intent was never to demean science, but to expose the politics that corrupt science. My strategy has been to strip evolution of instrumentation, and without instrumentation evolution reduces to a metaphysics based on scientism.[*]ps418: That's a nice demonstration of the power of faith, but it doesnt answer my question. So, I ask again,
<ol type="1">[*]do you have any explanation for the data that does exist, or not?
dk: All material explanations are problematic, all metaphysical explanations dogmatic.[*]Was the fossil record created that way?
dk: The geological column got shuffled over time by catastrophic and gradual forces, then reconstructed by fossils, carbon dating, radioactive decay rates, ocean sediments, ice ages etc...[*]Was it sorted that way by a flood?
dk: Floods can unleash catastrophic forces reflected in the geological record.[*]Or is the fossil record a record of progressive creation?
dk: The fossil record doesn’t exist as a continuous geological column, and would be better described as a giant jigsaw puzzle with gaps that span 100s of millions of years. The nomenclature fundamentally misstates the problem. Land masses are constantly worn down by erosion, while the water and plants constantly builds up sedimentary deposits. Sediments in the ocean floor are difficult to collect but promise a continuous record, but still vary with catastrophic events.[/list=a]

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

That’s not what they say at G8, WTO, Kyoto Treaty, or United Nations say. I suppose one might argue that nuclear, biological & chemical weapons of mass destruction play no part in the greater scheme of the universe, so ethics and morals are unimportant, relatively speaking. But the argument falls victim to its own trivialization.