|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kelsey Bjarnason
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
 |
|
[snips]
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:47:28 -0400, Gabriel wrote:
| Quote: |
: 1) A parent population can give rise to a distinct, non-interbreeding
: daughter population
No, a parent population of [mosquitoes] only gives rise to more
[mosquitoes].
|
I see you're not even honest enough to deal with *one single sentence*
without introducing yet more lies. I didn't say that the daughter
population would be anything other than "mosquitoes", did I? No, I
didn't - yet your refutation is only applicable if I in fact said this.
Why do you feel it necessary to lie so much? Is your faith so feeble you
can't maintain it without such dishonesty?
Oh, wait, you're a theist - which, based on evidence available thus far,
means you are by definition dishonest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: Hypocrite Gabriel Tripped Up By His Own "Rules" Again! |
|
|
On Jun 7, 12:46 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snipped previous]
| Quote: |
Court cases about things that are possible,
|
Evolution is possible everywhere except in your deluded mind. Your
fellow Christians have demonstrated it. They've tested it. They've
observed it.
Evolution has been directly observed. Speciation has been directly
observed. Speciation is macroevolution. Repeated speciation is what
leads to one "type" not being that "type" any more.
This has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt and has been proven
as such in the science courtroom in front of a jury of peers.
| Quote: |
witnessed countless times: murders, thefts, and so on, are a far
cry from something you believe took place supposedly for billions
of years that not one person has ever witnessed in the entire
recorded history of the human race.
|
How would one person observe things over billions of years, Moron?
You have clearly stated if it hasn't been observed, it didn't happen.
So why aren't you advocating that we set free all those criminals
where their crime was not witnessed by a human? Why?
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Locke
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: Re: Who You Buy a Used Religion from this God? |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:02:53 -0500, "The Doge of St. Louis"
<NOSPAMthedoge@pobox.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I have yet to hear any Creationist adequately explain why s/he would
worship a deity capable of creating the things described here:
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1400064902/sciencefriday/
What kind of twisted mind would create that rare genetic condition known
as "self-cannibalism"? What kind of sadist would come up with the Ebola
virus? What kind of pervert would allow children to be born with cleft
palates?
It's interesting that the people gassing on about the "miracle" of
creation never mention things like this.
As Dawkins mentioned, it would surely be a much different world if |
we had been created by "God". But, we are the products of eons
of evolution and as a result, there is imperfection and nasty
diseases. This is life.
The religious remain faithful and ignorant for many reasons. Mainly
because they're under the delusion that without "God" there is
no guidance, morality or salvation. The truth is, all we have is each
other.
"There is not enough love and kindness in the world
to give any of it away to imaginary beings." - Friederich Nietzsche |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Enkidu
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:04 am Post subject: Re: Who You Buy a Used Religion from this God? |
|
|
"The Doge of St. Louis" <NOSPAMthedoge@pobox.com> wrote in
news:NOSPAMthedoge-5DC78E.12025307062008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net:
| Quote: |
I have yet to hear any Creationist adequately explain why s/he would
worship a deity capable of creating the things described here:
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1400064902/sciencefriday/
What kind of twisted mind would create that rare genetic condition
known as "self-cannibalism"? What kind of sadist would come up with
the Ebola virus? What kind of pervert would allow children to be born
with cleft palates?
It's interesting that the people gassing on about the "miracle" of
creation never mention things like this.
|
I often get letters, quite frequently, from people who say how they like
the programmes a lot, but I never give credit to the almighty power that
created nature, to which I reply and say, "Well, it's funny that the
people, when they say that this is evidence of the almighty, always quote
beautiful things, they always quote orchids and hummingbirds and
butterflies and roses." But I always have to think too of a little boy
sitting on the banks of a river in west Africa who has a worm boring
through his eyeball, turning him blind before he's five years old, and I
reply and say, "Well presumably the god you speak about created the worm
as well," and now, I find that baffling to credit a merciful god with
that action, and therefore it seems to me safer to show things that I
know to be truth, truthful and factual, and allow people to make up their
own minds about the moralities of this thing, or indeed the theology of
this thing.
David Attenborough, from the BBC documentary Life on Air (2002)
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
-Douglas Adams |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mike Painter
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: Re: Who You Buy a Used Religion from this God? |
|
|
The Doge of St. Louis wrote:
| Quote: |
I have yet to hear any Creationist adequately explain why s/he would
worship a deity capable of creating the things described here:
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1400064902/sciencefriday/
What kind of twisted mind would create that rare genetic condition
known as "self-cannibalism"? What kind of sadist would come up with
the Ebola virus? What kind of pervert would allow children to be
born with cleft palates?
It's interesting that the people gassing on about the "miracle" of
creation never mention things like this.
|
It's a quality vs quantity issue. What kind of a god would let millions,
mostly children die of malaria for thousands of years. Modern science has
cut the number to "only" about a million a year, but still... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Wombat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:14 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Admits God's Creation is a Myth - Falls Face Fir |
|
|
On 7 Jun, 19:46, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:48:06 -0400, raven1
quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
: On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666: <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
:
: >On Jun 3, 9:58 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >> : On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >> : [snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
: >> : > Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
: >> : > populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
: >> : > that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
: >> : > got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
: >> : > you wish).
: >> :
: >> : I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
: >> : gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
: >> : evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
: >> : replace [god] with any deity you wish).
:
: >> I rest my case.
:
: >You;re a head case.
:
: >> What we have is an unobservable, untestable,
: >> unverifable belief: that of God creating all life forms.
:
: >Thanks for admitting that you blindly and gullibly believe in a myth.
:
: >You cannot supply one iota of scientific evidence for your beliefs and
: >that's where your story ends. Now that we have an on-the-record
: >admission of it, we can proceed.
:
: >And thanks for ignorantly falling face first into my trap. Yes,
: >that's what it was - it wasn't the challenge which you cannot meet.
: >It was just a simple trap to force you into facing the challenge you
: >cannot meet.
:
: >Now shall we get back to the question you've been running from for the
: >last several weeks you pathetic little coward? Here's the preface to
: >it. I'll put it in block caps so it's closer to your reading grade:
: >IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT OBSERVATION OF A CRIME BY A WITNESS, WHAT
: >DOES THE COURT USE TO PROSECUTE A CASE?
:
: >By what means does a court prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person
: >'A' committed crime 'X' when there were no eye witnesses?
:
: One might also mention to "Gabriel" that eyewitness testimony is the
: *least* reliable form of evidence in court. If offered an A/B choice
: between an eyewitness, or forensic evidence like fingerprints,
: bloodstains, shell casings, et al, a smart prosecutor would prefer to
: have the latter almost every time.
Court cases about things that are possible, things have been
witnessed countless times: murders, thefts, and so on, are a far
cry from something you believe took place supposedly for billions
of years that not one person has ever witnessed in the entire
recorded history of the human race. A critical difference you try
to gloss over.
|
Neat dodge. Now explain how a person can be caught and convicted
using forensic science if no one observed the crime being committed.
Wombat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
MarkA
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:36 am Post subject: Re: Who You Buy a Used Religion from this God? |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:26:14 -0700, Mike Painter wrote:
| Quote: |
The Doge of St. Louis wrote:
I have yet to hear any Creationist adequately explain why s/he would
worship a deity capable of creating the things described here:
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1400064902/sciencefriday/
What kind of twisted mind would create that rare genetic condition
known as "self-cannibalism"? What kind of sadist would come up with
the Ebola virus? What kind of pervert would allow children to be
born with cleft palates?
It's interesting that the people gassing on about the "miracle" of
creation never mention things like this.
It's a quality vs quantity issue. What kind of a god would let millions,
mostly children die of malaria for thousands of years. Modern science has
cut the number to "only" about a million a year, but still...
|
Presumably, a god who likes malarial Plasmodia. After all, we all know
how much HE likes beetles!
--
MarkA
(This space temporarily unavailable) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ben Goren
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
John Smith wrote:
| Quote: |
There is an even simpler answer:
People like Gabe are assholes.
You cannot, no matter how hard you try, make an asshole think.
|
Yes, but you /can/ get them to keep firing!
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cj
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:57 am Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
"> Gabriel wrote:
| Quote: |
Speciation, artificially observed or otherwise,
has never once shown anything even remotely close to what
evolutionism claims: that populations of [mosquitoes] give rise,
over generations (supposedly via mutations and accumulation of
small changes) animals that are now clearly no longer
[mosquitoes].
|
You are, of course, absolutely wrong. 1. Speciation has been observed in
mosquitoes as well as many other genera. 2. "Evolution" has made no such
claim.
3. Speciation can and does work by mutations and a variety of other genetic
mechanisms. 4. Your assertion that "evolution claims" that genera suddenly
arise from other genera is ludicrous and clearly demonstrates your ignorance
of simple biology.
Your demand for proof of something that doesn't happen within a few hundreds
of years is far different than a demand for proof of speciation (which is
amply available). It is quite baffling that anyone, such as yourself, would
repeatedly and volubly demonstrate, in public, that he was a fool. You are
truly a sad example of the uneducated among us.
Cj |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:00 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Admits God's Creation is a Myth - Falls Face Fir |
|
|
[snips]
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:46:50 -0400, Gabriel wrote:
| Quote: |
Court cases about things that are possible, things have been witnessed
countless times: murders, thefts, and so on, are a far cry from
something you believe took place supposedly for billions of years that
not one person has ever witnessed in the entire recorded history of the
human race. A critical difference you try to gloss over.
|
I know this is about like trying to teach a tapir to tap dance, but I'm
going to try explain this to you.
You say court cases about things that have been witnessed countless times
- murders and the like - are different from [x]. So far so good, but we
need to be clear what. exactly, [x] *is* in order to see if your point is
correct.
Given your previous comments, it would appear that [x] is "something - a
rat, say - changing into something else - a non-rat." Since you won't
define "rat" and "non-rat" in meaningful terms, this already poses a
difficulty, but we'll assume, for sake of discussion, you're only
interested in some sort of gross morphological change.
So your contention, then, is that cases about, say, murder differ from
gross morphological change, because murders are, in essence, a "known
event" and therefore we have something of a "baseline" of information
about them - we know how they work, we know what to look for, we can use
previous known examples to make reasoned determinations about current
cases.
Indeed, this is largely the point to forensics; from what is possible,
and what evidence is available, to determine what most likely occurred.
If one finds .22 shell casings on the floor and .22 slugs in the body,
one can infer, with some confidence, the victim was killed by a .22
caliber weapon, rather than a shotgun or being trampled to death by
elephants.
So let's look at a specific item: gun shot residue. How do we know this
is even relevant?
Well, we know - from examining how guns work - that when fired, guns
expel gases, gases containing specific chemical "fingerprints" which are
not generally found in items such as bubblegum or hair spray - meaning
that if you find GSR on someone, they either fired a gun or were very
close to a gun which was fired.
Ah, but wait... how did we determine this again? Right: we examined
known examples of guns, determined how they worked, then looked at the
case to see if there were distinct similarities between the evidence in
the case and the mechanics of how guns work - i.e. was their GSR on the
accused? We go from _known examples_, from _knowing how the thing
works_, to examining the case to see _if there is data consistent with
that_.
So let's try another example: blood spatter. If the accused was covered
in blood, is it in a patter consistent with being in proximity to the
injuries caused to the victim - or could he have picked it up because he
works in a slaughterhouse, or by helping some kid with a bloody nose?
Again, how do we determine this? Easy: we examine known cases, known
examples of this sort of thing. We determine how such wounds work, how
such splatter arises from them. We go from _known examples_, from
_knowing how the thing works_, to examining the case to see _if there is
data consistent with that_.
How about opportunity? Again, same deal. If the accused was seen
halfway across town five minutes before the murder took place, we know he
didn't do it. How do we know this? Easy: we go from _known examples_ of
transportation, _known limits_ on such means of transportation, to
examining the case to see _if there is data consistent with that_.
How about motive? Even there, we do much the same thing. Maybe they
were business rivals. Maybe the victim was sleeping with the accused's
wife. Chances are the fact they both inhale air from the same atmosphere
is insufficient motivation, but how do we sort out what is, and what is
not, likely sufficient motivation?
Easy: we examine _known cases_. We examine _known_ psychological and
similar factors. We go from _known examples_ of things which are
sufficient to motivate people to kill, to examining the case to see _if
there is data consistent with that_.
In every single step, we establish "this is how we know things work,
based on what we see, what we test, what we have observed", to "the
particulars of the case are consistent [or not] with what we know."
If all those factors add up - if the data gathered is, in fact,
consistent with what we know of how things work, based on observations
we've done of how those things work - then, and only then, can we hope to
even suggest the accused is guilty.
That is, we can't pick any random person off the street - you, for
example - and simply assert "he did it", because examination of details
will show such things as your not being covered in blood spatter, your
not being covered in GSR, your being three states away at the time the
deed was done and so forth. We can only do this - rule you out, and rule
him in - based on what we know of how the world works, what is and is not
physically possible, what is and is not reasonable.
And from this - from _knowing how things work_, based on observation and
testing, we can deduce that yes, he at least _could have_ been the one to
do it (though whether he did or not is another matter), or that no, he
could not have been the one to do it.
And this is where your arguments, questions, all fall apart.
You don't want to examine how guns work in order to see if GSR evidence
is consistent with the accusation. You don't want to examine how wounds
and splatter work to see if the splatter evidence is consistent with the
accusation. You don't want to learn how emotional involvements work to
see if the claimed motivation is consistent with the accusation. No, you
want to ignore every single aspect of the entire "case" and simply ask
whether or not someone has observed the entire murder in progress, from
planning to execution. If not, then by your methods, the accused must go
free, little details such as physical evidence simply do not matter.
Despite this, you say we *can* use such evidence in court, because we
*do* know how they work. This is inconsistent, as you are ruling out
exactly that same sort of approach when it comes to other areas -
evolution in particular - meaning that in your view, we *cannot* use such
methods. Yet you say we can. Does not compute.
Assuming you do, in fact, agree that we can use such methods, then the
obvious question becomes why you refuse to use them when the arena is not
a courtroom?
Let's look at what we know of evolution _from observation_.
We know that traits are inherited. We even know how.
We know that traits are "plastic" - they can be altered, added, removed.
We know that such alterations can be inherited.
We know that such traits are exposed to selection pressures.
We know that those pressures will affect the proportion of those
inherited traits within the population.
We know that entire populations can be thus modified.
We know that everything from eye color to skeletal size is determined, in
large part, by those traits.
This is all known, from direct observation and testing, in the lab and in
nature. For example, whether one classifies the peppered moth incident
as an evolutionary event (actually, two) or not, we know that the
inherited traits did spread through the population - twice - and we know
how and we know how the traits are spread and we have a pretty damned
good idea of _why_ they spread through the population as they did.
Which is to say, we know, based on observation and testing, how evolution
_works_. Just as we know, based on observation and testing, how guns
work. And just as we know, from the way guns work, that checking for GSR
is probably a sensible thing to do in many cases, so to do we know from
how evolution works that checking for significant similarities and minor
but significant differences between forms is a sensible thing to do.
And what do such examples tell us? They tell us that they are - or are
not - consistent with what we know of how the mechanics of evolution
work. If they aren't consistent, we toss 'em out. If one were to claim
that a fossil whale skeleton and a fossil rabbit skeleton showed a direct
and immediate pattern of descent, the notion would be chucked out, as the
conclusion is inconsistent with the mechanics of the process - much as
we'd chuck out the accusation against John Doe if he were found to be
across town at the time of the murder.
What is left, then, are those cases - the fossil history of the horse
comes to mind - where the sequences discovered *are* consistent with the
mechanisms involved, where they *do* meet the limits and requirements
imposed by how those processes worked. Such cases are comparable to
those court cases where the forensic evidence _is_ consistent with how
guns work, how blood spatter works, how transportation methods work.
Those are the cases where the evidence, based on what we know of the
methods, _do_ support a guilty conviction, or, in our case, that these
are, in fact, an evolutionary chain of descent.
So where does that leave you? It leaves you arguing that yes, we can in
fact rely on knowing the processes involved, and yes, we can use those in
court, and yes, knowing how guns and blood and transportation and the
like works allows us to show the accused is not the perpetrator or that
he probably is... but then it leaves you turning right around, for no
reason at all, claiming that we cannot use the exact same methods to "try
our case" when it comes to evolution, that the only acceptable thing is
to have a witness to every stage of the entire "murder", or we cannot
prove the case.
Or, in other words, it leaves you trying to explain why the very methods
you accept in the case of finding someone guilty and putting them in
prison for the rest of their life are to be tossed out the window
entirely when trying to do something as comparatively trivial as
determining whether one fossil shows descent with modification from
another.
You give no reason to throw out the process, you give no reason why we
have to forgo the very methods you agree are perfectly useful, you give
no reason why we cannot achieve just as much certainty in our cases as
the courts can in theirs, but you toss it all out anyways, allowing as
the only acceptable tool observation of the entire process - which you
don't even think is required in something as important as denying a
person their freedom for the rest of their lives.
Why? On what basis do you reject, in one situation, the very methods you
agree are perfectly acceptable in another, much more dire situation?
Right, on the basis that if you actually approached both cases the same
way, you'd end up with the same results - having to accept the
conclusions as valid, and this would bring your beliefs into question.
We've all seen it before, of course, many many times: given a choice
between integrity and belief, the faithful will inevitably choose belief.
--
Anyone can talk to God David, even you. -- Andrew Masten
Anyone can talk to cheese, Andy, even you. -- Fred Rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Admits God's Creation is a Myth - Falls Face Fir |
|
|
If this were talk.origins, I would nominate this for a Post of the Month
Award. Is there anything similar in alt.talk.creationism?
Makes me wish I could write that fluently and easily.
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
| Quote: |
[snips]
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:46:50 -0400, Gabriel wrote:
Court cases about things that are possible, things have been witnessed
countless times: murders, thefts, and so on, are a far cry from
something you believe took place supposedly for billions of years that
not one person has ever witnessed in the entire recorded history of the
human race. A critical difference you try to gloss over.
I know this is about like trying to teach a tapir to tap dance, but I'm
going to try explain this to you.
You say court cases about things that have been witnessed countless times
- murders and the like - are different from [x]. So far so good, but we
need to be clear what. exactly, [x] *is* in order to see if your point is
correct.
Given your previous comments, it would appear that [x] is "something - a
rat, say - changing into something else - a non-rat." Since you won't
define "rat" and "non-rat" in meaningful terms, this already poses a
difficulty, but we'll assume, for sake of discussion, you're only
interested in some sort of gross morphological change.
So your contention, then, is that cases about, say, murder differ from
gross morphological change, because murders are, in essence, a "known
event" and therefore we have something of a "baseline" of information
about them - we know how they work, we know what to look for, we can use
previous known examples to make reasoned determinations about current
cases.
Indeed, this is largely the point to forensics; from what is possible,
and what evidence is available, to determine what most likely occurred.
If one finds .22 shell casings on the floor and .22 slugs in the body,
one can infer, with some confidence, the victim was killed by a .22
caliber weapon, rather than a shotgun or being trampled to death by
elephants.
So let's look at a specific item: gun shot residue. How do we know this
is even relevant?
Well, we know - from examining how guns work - that when fired, guns
expel gases, gases containing specific chemical "fingerprints" which are
not generally found in items such as bubblegum or hair spray - meaning
that if you find GSR on someone, they either fired a gun or were very
close to a gun which was fired.
Ah, but wait... how did we determine this again? Right: we examined
known examples of guns, determined how they worked, then looked at the
case to see if there were distinct similarities between the evidence in
the case and the mechanics of how guns work - i.e. was their GSR on the
accused? We go from _known examples_, from _knowing how the thing
works_, to examining the case to see _if there is data consistent with
that_.
So let's try another example: blood spatter. If the accused was covered
in blood, is it in a patter consistent with being in proximity to the
injuries caused to the victim - or could he have picked it up because he
works in a slaughterhouse, or by helping some kid with a bloody nose?
Again, how do we determine this? Easy: we examine known cases, known
examples of this sort of thing. We determine how such wounds work, how
such splatter arises from them. We go from _known examples_, from
_knowing how the thing works_, to examining the case to see _if there is
data consistent with that_.
How about opportunity? Again, same deal. If the accused was seen
halfway across town five minutes before the murder took place, we know he
didn't do it. How do we know this? Easy: we go from _known examples_ of
transportation, _known limits_ on such means of transportation, to
examining the case to see _if there is data consistent with that_.
How about motive? Even there, we do much the same thing. Maybe they
were business rivals. Maybe the victim was sleeping with the accused's
wife. Chances are the fact they both inhale air from the same atmosphere
is insufficient motivation, but how do we sort out what is, and what is
not, likely sufficient motivation?
Easy: we examine _known cases_. We examine _known_ psychological and
similar factors. We go from _known examples_ of things which are
sufficient to motivate people to kill, to examining the case to see _if
there is data consistent with that_.
In every single step, we establish "this is how we know things work,
based on what we see, what we test, what we have observed", to "the
particulars of the case are consistent [or not] with what we know."
If all those factors add up - if the data gathered is, in fact,
consistent with what we know of how things work, based on observations
we've done of how those things work - then, and only then, can we hope to
even suggest the accused is guilty.
That is, we can't pick any random person off the street - you, for
example - and simply assert "he did it", because examination of details
will show such things as your not being covered in blood spatter, your
not being covered in GSR, your being three states away at the time the
deed was done and so forth. We can only do this - rule you out, and rule
him in - based on what we know of how the world works, what is and is not
physically possible, what is and is not reasonable.
And from this - from _knowing how things work_, based on observation and
testing, we can deduce that yes, he at least _could have_ been the one to
do it (though whether he did or not is another matter), or that no, he
could not have been the one to do it.
And this is where your arguments, questions, all fall apart.
You don't want to examine how guns work in order to see if GSR evidence
is consistent with the accusation. You don't want to examine how wounds
and splatter work to see if the splatter evidence is consistent with the
accusation. You don't want to learn how emotional involvements work to
see if the claimed motivation is consistent with the accusation. No, you
want to ignore every single aspect of the entire "case" and simply ask
whether or not someone has observed the entire murder in progress, from
planning to execution. If not, then by your methods, the accused must go
free, little details such as physical evidence simply do not matter.
Despite this, you say we *can* use such evidence in court, because we
*do* know how they work. This is inconsistent, as you are ruling out
exactly that same sort of approach when it comes to other areas -
evolution in particular - meaning that in your view, we *cannot* use such
methods. Yet you say we can. Does not compute.
Assuming you do, in fact, agree that we can use such methods, then the
obvious question becomes why you refuse to use them when the arena is not
a courtroom?
Let's look at what we know of evolution _from observation_.
We know that traits are inherited. We even know how.
We know that traits are "plastic" - they can be altered, added, removed.
We know that such alterations can be inherited.
We know that such traits are exposed to selection pressures.
We know that those pressures will affect the proportion of those
inherited traits within the population.
We know that entire populations can be thus modified.
We know that everything from eye color to skeletal size is determined, in
large part, by those traits.
This is all known, from direct observation and testing, in the lab and in
nature. For example, whether one classifies the peppered moth incident
as an evolutionary event (actually, two) or not, we know that the
inherited traits did spread through the population - twice - and we know
how and we know how the traits are spread and we have a pretty damned
good idea of _why_ they spread through the population as they did.
Which is to say, we know, based on observation and testing, how evolution
_works_. Just as we know, based on observation and testing, how guns
work. And just as we know, from the way guns work, that checking for GSR
is probably a sensible thing to do in many cases, so to do we know from
how evolution works that checking for significant similarities and minor
but significant differences between forms is a sensible thing to do.
And what do such examples tell us? They tell us that they are - or are
not - consistent with what we know of how the mechanics of evolution
work. If they aren't consistent, we toss 'em out. If one were to claim
that a fossil whale skeleton and a fossil rabbit skeleton showed a direct
and immediate pattern of descent, the notion would be chucked out, as the
conclusion is inconsistent with the mechanics of the process - much as
we'd chuck out the accusation against John Doe if he were found to be
across town at the time of the murder.
What is left, then, are those cases - the fossil history of the horse
comes to mind - where the sequences discovered *are* consistent with the
mechanisms involved, where they *do* meet the limits and requirements
imposed by how those processes worked. Such cases are comparable to
those court cases where the forensic evidence _is_ consistent with how
guns work, how blood spatter works, how transportation methods work.
Those are the cases where the evidence, based on what we know of the
methods, _do_ support a guilty conviction, or, in our case, that these
are, in fact, an evolutionary chain of descent.
So where does that leave you? It leaves you arguing that yes, we can in
fact rely on knowing the processes involved, and yes, we can use those in
court, and yes, knowing how guns and blood and transportation and the
like works allows us to show the accused is not the perpetrator or that
he probably is... but then it leaves you turning right around, for no
reason at all, claiming that we cannot use the exact same methods to "try
our case" when it comes to evolution, that the only acceptable thing is
to have a witness to every stage of the entire "murder", or we cannot
prove the case.
Or, in other words, it leaves you trying to explain why the very methods
you accept in the case of finding someone guilty and putting them in
prison for the rest of their life are to be tossed out the window
entirely when trying to do something as comparatively trivial as
determining whether one fossil shows descent with modification from
another.
You give no reason to throw out the process, you give no reason why we
have to forgo the very methods you agree are perfectly useful, you give
no reason why we cannot achieve just as much certainty in our cases as
the courts can in theirs, but you toss it all out anyways, allowing as
the only acceptable tool observation of the entire process - which you
don't even think is required in something as important as denying a
person their freedom for the rest of their lives.
Why? On what basis do you reject, in one situation, the very methods you
agree are perfectly acceptable in another, much more dire situation?
Right, on the basis that if you actually approached both cases the same
way, you'd end up with the same results - having to accept the
conclusions as valid, and this would bring your beliefs into question.
We've all seen it before, of course, many many times: given a choice
between integrity and belief, the faithful will inevitably choose belief.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:45 am Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
[snips]
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:32:14 -0400, Gabriel wrote:
| Quote: |
No, it seems you missed the point. We've observed bills stacking at all.
We've observed how many it takes to get to certain small heights. We can
test that concept, we can verify that concept.
|
I see. Sort of like how we've observed the plasticity of the genetic
code, how we've observed inheritance of traits, how we've observed those
traits propagating through populations, how we get to those certain small
heights, how we can test that concept and we can verify that concept.
Yes, okay, let's continue...
| Quote: |
This is in blatant
contradiction and a far cry from the fact that we've never observed any
populations of animals that are not [rat]s producing, over generations,
animals that are now [rat]s.
|
And here, suddenly, your dishonesty shows again. Your only objection to
producing stacks of nine trillion bills was its physical impossibility,
*NOT* the fact nobody has observed it happening. Thus to be honest and
consistent, your objection to evolution should rest only on the physical
impossibility of it, not the lack of observation... and you haven't
demonstrated any physical impossibility.
Thus you now, as a good and honest person with some actual integrity,
stop your bogus anti-evolution arguments and... oh, no, wait, you did it
again, you ignored your *own* arguments and went on to use completely
different standards when judging evolution, not because it is warranted
by a single thing you've said or shown, but "just cuz".
Yes, a very compelling argument that.
--
By Webster’s definition Hindus are atheists. -- John Musselwhite |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:45 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Admits God's Creation is a Myth - Falls Face Fir |
|
|
[snips]
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:02:05 -0400, Gabriel wrote:
| Quote: |
: Thanks for admitting that you blindly and gullibly believe in a myth.
No, just pointing out that we cannot observe God doing what He did,
cannot test it or verify it.
|
Whereas we *can* observe and verify the changing allele frequencies in
populations, we *can* observe and verify the plasticity of the genetic
code, we *can* observer and verify population divergence... yet you bitch
about us having nothing while spewing your religious crap at us.
Hypocrisy is just so much fun, isn't it?
--
Origin of Life? Just check my refrigerator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 3:00 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Admits God's Creation is a Myth - Falls Face Fir |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:08:02 -0400, Cory Albrecht wrote:
| Quote: |
raven1 wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:02:05 -0400, Gabriel
gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, just pointing out that we cannot observe God doing what He did,
cannot test it or verify it. Evidence is still quite apparent that He
did exactly what He told us He did.
Again, such as?
I'll cut to the chase. What, specifically, do you consider the best
arguments for the Biblical creation account? Not complaints against
evolution, the BBT, et al, what *positive evidence* do you have *for*
your specific position.
Don;t you just love how first Gabriel says that God creating the world
is unobservable, untestable and unverifiable, but then goes on to
contradict himself by stating that there is evidence for it?
|
I like how he bitches about evolution being untenable because of a
supposed lack of observation, but hey, the God thing? That's just peachy
despite a total lack of observation.
Not much you can say when confronted with such as that.
--
“Love is wonderful. It is women that suck.” -- Al Bundy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:00 am Post subject: Re: Gabriel Admits God's Creation is a Myth - Falls Face Fir |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:27:33 -0400, Cory Albrecht wrote:
| Quote: |
If this were talk.origins, I would nominate this for a Post of the Month
Award. Is there anything similar in alt.talk.creationism?
|
Well thank you. :)
--
“Warning! The girl is loose and she’s using it!” -- Firestarter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
