Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 12-23-2002, 05:04 AM

Evolskeptic, do you believe that evolution can explain any of the patterns we see in life around us? For example, do you believe that evolution can explain the origin of the <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/silversword.htm" target="_blank">Hawaiian Silversword Alliance</a>? This is a group of morphologically diverse but closely related species found only on the Hawaiian islands, but which are closely related to some rather obscure plants on the North American mainland--to which they bear absolutely no resemblance.

Clutch · 12-23-2002, 08:10 AM

Hi, ctm.

Still embarrassing yourself with this stuff? All this time passes, but it's the same mined quotes, intellectual dishonesty, and immunity to shame. Maybe folks here can have a look for themselves...

<a href="http://www.kipertek.com/cgi-bin/wsmbb/wsmbb.cgi?RT+IONRYOBQJJ/NWOZLJELOQ+493+28+apologetic+3.1157" target="_blank">Evolution's best kept secret -- Aug, 2001</a> I especially like the vague racist anxieties in the worry over whether "a single gifted Caucasian might actually be able to out-reproduce an entire race of Negroes." Well, I suppose you would need powerful fears of some sort, to motivate your dishonesty and viciousness.

Others,

The link is for you. I encourage you to read ctm's performance there before trying to engage him. Bear in mind that, over a year later, he is still posting word-for-word the same tripe.

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]

pangloss · 12-23-2002, 08:31 AM

Imagine that....

Cut and paste regurgiposting by a creationist? I am utterly shocked!

MrDarwin · 12-23-2002, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch:
The link is for you. I encourage you to read ctm's performance there before trying to engage him. Bear in mind that, over a year later, he is still posting word-for-word the same tripe.

Yet engaging even the most obdurate creationists can provide a good foil for our arguments for evolution. We may not have changed the mind of randman, or any number of other creationists who posted here, but does anybody think they convinced anybody of the strength of creationist arguments? What better way to demonstrate the complete bankruptcy of creationism to the lurkers?

Dr Rick · 12-23-2002, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch:
Bear in mind that, over a year later, he is still posting word-for-word the same tripe.

But of course; it's not like creation "scientists" have ever come-up with anything new for the faithful to parrot through all of their "research."

While the "evolutionists" are furthering knowledge with descriptions of shared "hox" genes, discoveries of transitional whale fossils, and descriptions of the human and murine genomes, the creationists are increasingly marginalized into irrelevance as they helplessly watch the mountain of evidence against their belief grow with each passing year.

Rick

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Dr Rick ]

pz · 12-23-2002, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch:

<a href="http://www.kipertek.com/cgi-bin/wsmbb/wsmbb.cgi?RT+IONRYOBQJJ/NWOZLJELOQ+493+28+apologetic+3.1157" target="_blank">Evolution's best kept secret -- Aug, 2001</a> I especially like the vague racist anxieties in the worry over whether "a single gifted Caucasian might actually be able to out-reproduce an entire race of Negroes." Well, I suppose you would need powerful fears of some sort, to motivate your dishonesty and viciousness.

Actually, that's Fleeming Jenkin's objection:

Quote:

Suppose a white man to have been wrecked on an island inhabited by negroes, and to have established himself in friendly relations with a powerful tribe, whose customs he has learnt. Suppose him to possess the physical strength, energy, and ability of a dominant white race, and let the food and climate of the island suit his constitution; grant him every advantage which we can conceive a white to possess over the native; concede that in the struggle for existence his chance of a long life will be much superior to that of the native chiefs; yet from all these admissions, there does not follow the conclusion that, after a limited or unlimited number of generations, the inhabitants of the island will be white.

Despite the racist metaphor, it's really a very powerful argument against blending inheritance of the sort that Darwin proposed. How can any favorable character which rises in isolation ever become widespread in a population, if at every mating, the quality of the character is diluted?

It's a testimony to EvolSkeptic's ignorance that he thinks this is some kind of "secret" that evolutionists harbor. That particular argument got tossed out a century ago, when Mendel's works were rediscovered and it gradually became apparent that inheritance was particulate rather than by blending.

Clutch · 12-23-2002, 09:25 AM

pz, yes, that's what the link was for. The whole core of my replies is that ctm is recycling Fleeming Jenkins' "paintpot" complaint more than a hundred years after it was first advanced, and around eighty years after it was decisively answered. (I date the "decisive" bit to Fisher's work, rather than just the rediscovery of Mendel, but there's room for varying interpretations there.)

Anyhow, of course there may always be lurkers who learn through watching the sudden and messy dismantling of a creationist fraud. And everyone's time is theirs to use as they see fit! I simply did not want anyone to be in any doubt about what they were dealing with. This is not even a Vanderzyden, who would show at least an occasional semblance of engagement.

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]

RufusAtticus · 12-23-2002, 09:30 AM

Moderator's Note:

Evolskeptic is still new here. Although, his reputation might proceed him, I urge all to treat him with respect. We will not tollerate flaming. Please don't make his threads degenerate into madness before a conversation has even begun.

RufusAtticus
E/C Moderator

Bubba · 12-23-2002, 12:24 PM

Rufus, I couldn't agree more. Since it has been awhile since we have had a really good debate, why don't we use the formal debates section to allow Evolskeptic to air his views and provide a proper evolutionary rebuttal.

Maybe we could even get someone from ARN to debate with Evolskeptic and we could have a proper two on two debate format. I'd like to see a good clash of ideas.

II is a rational place, and we like to debate things in a rational manner. (But not a rational manor, right pz)

BTW, Evolskeptic, welcome to infidels.

Bubba here...

Chris H on creationtalk.

Bubba

bluefugue · 12-23-2002, 12:44 PM

Quote:

the creationists are increasingly marginalized into irrelevance as they helplessly watch the mountain of evidence against their belief grow with each passing year.

Scientific irrelevance, maybe -- not political irrelevance.

12-23-2002, 08:10 AM	#12
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Hi, ctm. Still embarrassing yourself with this stuff? All this time passes, but it's the same mined quotes, intellectual dishonesty, and immunity to shame. Maybe folks here can have a look for themselves... <a href="http://www.kipertek.com/cgi-bin/wsmbb/wsmbb.cgi?RT+IONRYOBQJJ/NWOZLJELOQ+493+28+apologetic+3.1157" target="_blank">Evolution's best kept secret -- Aug, 2001</a> I especially like the vague racist anxieties in the worry over whether "a single gifted Caucasian might actually be able to out-reproduce an entire race of Negroes." Well, I suppose you would need powerful fears of some sort, to motivate your dishonesty and viciousness. Others, The link is for you. I encourage you to read ctm's performance there before trying to engage him. Bear in mind that, over a year later, he is still posting word-for-word the same tripe. [ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

12-23-2002, 09:25 AM	#17
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	pz, yes, that's what the link was for. The whole core of my replies is that ctm is recycling Fleeming Jenkins' "paintpot" complaint more than a hundred years after it was first advanced, and around eighty years after it was decisively answered. (I date the "decisive" bit to Fisher's work, rather than just the rediscovery of Mendel, but there's room for varying interpretations there.) Anyhow, of course there may always be lurkers who learn through watching the sudden and messy dismantling of a creationist fraud. And everyone's time is theirs to use as they see fit! I simply did not want anyone to be in any doubt about what they were dealing with. This is not even a Vanderzyden, who would show at least an occasional semblance of engagement. [ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

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

12-23-2002, 05:04 AM	#11
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Evolskeptic, do you believe that evolution can explain any of the patterns we see in life around us? For example, do you believe that evolution can explain the origin of the <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/silversword.htm" target="_blank">Hawaiian Silversword Alliance</a>? This is a group of morphologically diverse but closely related species found only on the Hawaiian islands, but which are closely related to some rather obscure plants on the North American mainland--to which they bear absolutely no resemblance.

12-23-2002, 08:31 AM	#13
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Imagine that.... Cut and paste regurgiposting by a creationist? I am utterly shocked!

12-23-2002, 09:30 AM	#18
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Moderator's Note: Evolskeptic is still new here. Although, his reputation might proceed him, I urge all to treat him with respect. We will not tollerate flaming. Please don't make his threads degenerate into madness before a conversation has even begun. RufusAtticus E/C Moderator

12-23-2002, 12:24 PM	#19
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Rufus, I couldn't agree more. Since it has been awhile since we have had a really good debate, why don't we use the formal debates section to allow Evolskeptic to air his views and provide a proper evolutionary rebuttal. Maybe we could even get someone from ARN to debate with Evolskeptic and we could have a proper two on two debate format. I'd like to see a good clash of ideas. II is a rational place, and we like to debate things in a rational manner. (But not a rational manor, right pz) BTW, Evolskeptic, welcome to infidels. Bubba here... Chris H on creationtalk. Bubba

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.