Duvenoy

"Duvenoy, how have i been raving more than any of you?"
----------------------

Actually, none of us have been raving, just putting forth empirical evidence, or at least the place to find it if you are interested in looking.

Your opinion matters not at all to science, nor does mine. Science is not a popularity contest.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Duvenoy ]</p>

Synaesthesia

xBobTheAlienx,

I find those who respond to the points other's make in a substansive way tend to attract less ridicule.

So would you mind being precise in demarcating the limits of microevolution? Tell us all about microevolution upon microevolution upon microevolution over the course of tens of thousands of generations!

That's micro as a 10 gram micro machine is to a one hunded kilogram go-kart.

Skeptical

XBob, while the personal attacks are unecessary, the people directing them are irritated at you because you:

1) Have made continual comments that can only charitably be called "wrong headed"

2) Refuse to acknowledge when you are shown to be incorrect

3) Continually show that you don't understand what science is yet keep speaking critically about it

First, in an earlier post you made several comments about things such as lunar dust and the sun which have been shown to be wrong. Dead wrong. Not simply a little off, but completely incorrect. Do you think that scientists that are specialists in their field are somehow part of a gigantic plot to cover up the "truth" of creationists theories? Do you honestly think that some creationist website is more qualified to talk about matters such as lunar dust than an astronomer who studies these matters for a living and does actual experiments and research? Do you think that these creationists who propagate this BS have actually done any research on their own? Try asking a creationist what peer reviewed scientific papers they have written and had published.

Then, when you get called on the ridiculousness of your statements, you complain about people changing the subject. When people tell you that you should do some research on the subjects that you are trying to criticize, you complain about people posting articles for you to read to educate yourself. How would you feel if I started making posts criticizing the New Testament, and then when you said I was making inaccurate statements and that I should read particular passages, I complained about having to do too much reading? Do you see the problem here?

Finally, when asked repeatedly by MrDarwin to describe a circumstance where you would believe evidence for evolutionary theory, you have repeatedly failed to do so, offering only vague generalities. This is exactly the problem. If you cannot offer a clear, specific example of what would give evidence _in your mind_ of evolutionary theory, then there is no point in discussing the issue. You are admitting in principle that no evidence is enough. If that is the case, at least have the intellectual courage to admit that you have closed your mind.

BTW, be sure to go through your house and destroy the following items:

-lightbulbs
-microwave ovens
-toasters
-televisions and vcr's
-radios
-computers
-phones

All of these items are the products of science and since you obviously think that science doesn't work, you shouldn't be using them since for all you know they might just blow up the entire house.

If you are unwilling to do away with these items, do you understand that _exactly_ the same methodologies that created these products are used by astronomers and geologists to determine the age of the earth and universe. The _exact_ same methodologies are also used by biolgists when developing evolutionary theories. Course, they might all be wrong. Course, you seem to trust that when you turn the ignition on your car, you won't be blown to bits. You trust that when you use the phone, your brain won't be zapped by cosmic rays.

Ask yourself why you trust these inventions and then think that thousands of scientists using the only methodology that we have created that actually produces results that work are somehow completely wrong about subjects like the age of the earth and evolution.

Oolon Colluphid

Hi xBob

Okay, let me summarise the paragraphs from my last post, since you didn’t understand it.

1a. You have missed a crucial question that I and Mr Darwin has asked: ‘what is macroevolution’, and the allied ‘what would you consider evidence of it’?

1b. Evolution does not expect sudden drastic changes.

2. Speciation is the basis of macroevolution.

3. We see in nature a full range of degrees of speciation. It has also been observed in the wild and reproduced experimentally.

4. This matches what evolution predicts.

5. Some examples of things that are hard to classify, of characteristics that span disparate groups.

6. You do not know these basic things, yet argue against them. Therefore you are an ignoramus, and probably, a troll.

Any further questions?

Oolon

WWSD

Originally posted by xBobTheAlienx:
So far i havent seen anyone come back about the talkorigins article.

I would venture to say that this is because you offered no real couter-arguments besides "IS THAT THE BEST U GOT?" etc.
Once you can put together a coherent counter, i.e. one that makes sense and actually has content besides "IS THAT THE BEST U GOT?" someone will answer your post. Otherwise, you just look like a troll out for attention.


If you all think i belong in the RRP than maybe i will go there (just maybe).

You do belong there, not here. Senselessness is welcome there.


Merely because you cant change my opinion? Im not gonna be able to change yours so why whine cuz you cant change mine?

This makes me sick. If you could demonstrate that your points reflect the nature of reality I would be forced to change my "opinion."
That is how science works! You show me enough evidence to actually support your theory and I will have to change the way I look at the world.
A good example of this, IMO, was the shift in physics from classical to modern in the early 20th century. The field changed and became what it is today because it HAD TO! The evidece no longer supported the classical theories and scientists had to change accordingly.
But you have shown such an astounding lack of understanding of how science works that I almost feel as though I am wasting effort.

Furthermore, it is obvious that you are not going to abandon your beliefs, as that would be quite traumatic for you. But you seem to believe that the same holds true for us. This is not the case.
Demonstrate for me, concisely and without dodges, how creationism is the real state of the universe and I will HAVE TO change my view of reality.
Otherwise, go down to RRP and have yourself a blast.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: WWSD ]</p>

Starboy

Thanks for the response xBob,

Are you saying that you accept microevolution as a theory of change in a species?

Starboy

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by WWSD:
<strong>You do belong [in RRP], not here. Senselessness is welcome there. </strong>

One correction : senselessness will be torn apart there. That is my idea of an appropriate welcome for senselessness.

hezekiah jones

Indeed. There is an article by Plantinga in Robert Pennock's Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics entitled, "Methodological Naturalism?" In it Plantinga argues Christians have a special insight into issues in the philosophy of science because ... well, because they are Christians:

This is the sort of pompous drivel that emanates from he who is apparently regarded as one of the leading philosophers of religion in America.

WWSD

I was thinking something along the lines of: senslessness is welcome in RRP because it's so much fun to watch QoS rip it to bits!