|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Devil's Advocaat
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: A Fine Napoleonic Retreat |
 |
|
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position appears
to be crumbling into doubt.
Creationism – God did it.
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
I wonder what the next step is going to be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ron O
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:28 am Post subject: Re: The only retreat in time will be that of atheistic natur |
|
|
On Jun 28, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:14:21 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position appears
to be crumbling into doubt.
Creationism – God did it.
On the other hand:
Evolutionism: Nature did it.
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
Naturalism: It darn looks like somebody did it, but its just an
illusion.
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
The Law and Chance Inference: The fossil record doesn't corroborate
the transformism of neoDarwinism and neither does genetics and the NFL
Theorems prove that the neoDarwinian "algorithm" can be no better than
a blind search but nonetheless nobody could have had any hand in the
emergence of life and its diversity.
I wonder what the next step is going to be?
I wonder what new fairy tale the atheists will dream up next.
Regards,
T Pagano
P.S. I've been gone for several months and its like I never left.
It's still like shooting fish in a barrel.
|
A fish in a barrel that thinks it is a big deal to shoot itself in the
foot.
The ID perps are still running the bait and switch instead of teaching
any of that wonderful science of ID that you claim exists. Sort of
makes you look like a fool for believing that they ever had anything
worth talking about.
Don't think that they lied to you and everyone else? Just get your
local school board to teach the science of intelligent design and
watch how fast the switch comes in. Find out that the switch scam
doesn't even mention that ID ever existed and then try to claim that
you have some kind of valid argument. Even you can't deny that the
same dishonest creationist perps that ran the teach ID scam for over a
decade are running the current bait and switch scam.
Ron Okimoto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
RAM
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:11 am Post subject: Re: The only retreat in time will be that of atheistic natur |
|
|
On Jun 28, 7:52 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 2008-06-28, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:14:21 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position appears
to be crumbling into doubt.
Creationism – God did it.
On the other hand:
Evolutionism: Nature did it.
Nature isn't an entity. It doesn't _do_ anything: it just is.
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
Naturalism: It darn looks like somebody did it, but its just an
illusion.
It doesn't look like someone did it, at least, it doesn't look like
anyone did it who wasn't deliberately trying to emulate mutation,
natural selection and drift.
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
The Law and Chance Inference: The fossil record doesn't corroborate
the transformism of neoDarwinism and neither does genetics and the NFL
Theorems prove that the neoDarwinian "algorithm" can be no better than
a blind search but nonetheless nobody could have had any hand in the
emergence of life and its diversity.
You have no idea what the NFL theorem says. Neither does Dembski.
I wonder what the next step is going to be?
I wonder what new fairy tale the atheists will dream up next.
Regards,
T Pagano
P.S. I've been gone for several months and its like I never left.
It's still like shooting fish in a barrel.
Too bad you are one of the fish.
Mark
|
Yes he must be either of the "blow fish" or "flounder" kind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kermit
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:56 am Post subject: Re: A Fine Napoleonic Retreat |
|
|
On Jun 28, 11:24 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Devil's Advocaat wrote:
On 28 Jun, 16:58, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Devil's Advocaat wrote:
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position appears
to be crumbling into doubt.
Creationism – God did it.
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
I wonder what the next step is going to be?
Theistic evolution already says, in effect: "Don't claim that nobody
did it."
Is that a linguistic double negative for emphasis?
Let me rephrase it then: "It is unreasonable to claim that nobody did it."
|
Then... it's not unreasonable to not claim that nobody did it?
| Quote: |
--
Steven L.
Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
Kermit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kermit
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:08 am Post subject: Re: A Fine Napoleonic Retreat |
|
|
On Jun 28, 3:14 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position appears
to be crumbling into doubt.
|
You skipped a step.
| Quote: |
Creationism – God did it.
|
1. Classic Creationism - God said it, and I believe it, and that
settles it.
2. Creation Science (because science is respectable) - God did it, and
we can prove it.
| Quote: |
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
|
OK, it's really science this time.
| Quote: |
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
|
We haven't done any actual research yet, but we're getting closer to
science.
| Quote: |
I wonder what the next step is going to be?
|
ID? What ID? We just want academic freedom <wink, wink>
Kermit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
louann_m@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:13 am Post subject: Re: A Fine Napoleonic Retreat |
|
|
On Jun 28, 12:50 pm, dmca...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) wrote:
| Quote: |
Creationism – God did it.
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
I wonder what the next step is going to be?
What I think they're doing is trying a series of promises to
"only put it in a little" until they find out how little is little
enough to get consent.
|
You are a vulgar, vulgar, insightful, vulgar man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Steven J.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: Re: The only retreat in time will be that of atheistic natur |
|
|
On Jun 28, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:14:21 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position appears
to be crumbling into doubt.
Creationism – God did it.
On the other hand:
Evolutionism: Nature did it.
No, Tony, the point of evolutionary theory is that it is possible to |
go into a great deal more detail than "nature did it," with testable
predictions about *how* "nature did it."
| Quote: |
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
Naturalism: It darn looks like somebody did it, but its just an
illusion.
Actually, the problem is that it doesn't look like anyone in |
particular did it: there are all sorts of adaptions that it is
tempting to attribute to "design," but the overall pattern we see
doesn't fit any plausible design philosophy or purpose (why, e.g. keen
eyes for predators combined with camoflage for prey? why both
pathogenic organisms and immune systems?).
| Quote: |
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
The Law and Chance Inference: The fossil record doesn't corroborate
the transformism of neoDarwinism and neither does genetics and the NFL
Theorems prove that the neoDarwinian "algorithm" can be no better than
a blind search but nonetheless nobody could have had any hand in the
emergence of life and its diversity.
So far as I know, Dembski has never actually said that the fossil |
record and genetics don't corroborate common descent; his position is
that no unguided mechanism can produce such a result. Behe has noted
that, in fact, the fossil record and genetics *DO* corroborate common
descent ("the transformism of neoDarwinism," as you put it, although
one would not expect fossils to be terribly informative about the
mechanisms, as opposed perhaps to the "tempo and mode," of evolution).
| Quote: |
I wonder what the next step is going to be?
I wonder what new fairy tale the atheists will dream up next.
Evolutionary theory is not in retreat. The OP's point was that |
"scientific creationists" have been forced to remove more and more of
the detail from their proposals to get their dogma "equal time" in
schools, until very little is left, and this is because they have no
positive, testable theory or actual evidence for it. These are not
problems that evolutionary theory suffers from.
| Quote: |
Regards,
T Pagano
P.S. I've been gone for several months and its like I never left.
It's still like shooting fish in a barrel.
Welcome back. Perhaps you should consider investing in actual |
ammunition.
-- Steven J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Caranx latus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: Re: A Fine Napoleonic Retreat |
|
|
Kermit wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 28, 11:24 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Devil's Advocaat wrote:
On 28 Jun, 16:58, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Devil's Advocaat wrote:
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position appears
to be crumbling into doubt.
Creationism – God did it.
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
I wonder what the next step is going to be?
Theistic evolution already says, in effect: "Don't claim that nobody
did it."
Is that a linguistic double negative for emphasis?
Let me rephrase it then: "It is unreasonable to claim that nobody did it."
Then... it's not unreasonable to not claim that nobody did it?
|
It's not that it's not unreasonable to not claim that nobody did it, but
rather that not claiming that nobody did it is not reasonable. Or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ferrous Patella
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:07 am Post subject: Re: The only retreat in time will be that of atheistic natur |
|
|
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in
news:oxx9k.10093$Hi7.1065@newsfe05.lga:
| Quote: |
Woland wrote:
On Jun 28, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:14:21 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position
appears to be crumbling into doubt.
Creationism – God did it.
On the other hand:
Evolutionism: Nature did it.
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
Naturalism: It darn looks like somebody did it, but its just an
illusion.
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
The Law and Chance Inference: The fossil record doesn't corroborate
the transformism of neoDarwinism and neither does genetics and the
NFL Theorems prove that the neoDarwinian "algorithm" can be no
better than a blind search but nonetheless nobody could have had any
hand in the emergence of life and its diversity.
I wonder what the next step is going to be?
I wonder what new fairy tale the atheists will dream up next.
Regards,
T Pagano
P.S. I've been gone for several months and its like I never left.
It's still like shooting fish in a barrel.
The Black Knight Strikes again!
And look! He's discovered a dragon! Naturally speaking.
|
Quite a speach! Recognition from the chair should have come first,
though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ernest Major
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: The only retreat in time will be that of atheistic natur |
|
|
In message
<f686199e-508a-4efb-b5db-097fb611fa02@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Rodjk #613 <rjkardo@gmail.com> writes
| Quote: |
On Jun 28, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:14:21 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position appears
to be crumbling into doubt.
Creationism – God did it.
On the other hand:
Evolutionism: Nature did it.
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
Naturalism: It darn looks like somebody did it, but its just an
illusion.
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
The Law and Chance Inference: The fossil record doesn't corroborate
the transformism of neoDarwinism and neither does genetics and the NFL
Theorems prove that the neoDarwinian "algorithm" can be no better than
a blind search but nonetheless nobody could have had any hand in the
emergence of life and its diversity.
I wonder what the next step is going to be?
I wonder what new fairy tale the atheists will dream up next.
Regards,
T Pagano
P.S. I've been gone for several months and its like I never left.
It's still like shooting fish in a barrel.
Pagano is a legend in his own mind. Too bad no one else thinks so.
Rodjk #613
He's the most effective debunker of intelligent design to grace |
talk.origins.
--
alias Ernest Major |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mike Dworetsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: A Fine Napoleonic Retreat |
|
|
"Caranx latus" <karode@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:g471ne$sc4$1@aioe.org...
| Quote: |
Kermit wrote:
On Jun 28, 11:24 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Devil's Advocaat wrote:
On 28 Jun, 16:58, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Devil's Advocaat wrote:
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position appears
to be crumbling into doubt.
Creationism – God did it.
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
I wonder what the next step is going to be?
Theistic evolution already says, in effect: "Don't claim that nobody
did it."
Is that a linguistic double negative for emphasis?
Let me rephrase it then: "It is unreasonable to claim that nobody did
it."
Then... it's not unreasonable to not claim that nobody did it?
It's not that it's not unreasonable to not claim that nobody did it, but
rather that not claiming that nobody did it is not reasonable. Or not.
|
Thanks, it's all perfectly clear now.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
The Enigmatic One
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: The only retreat in time will be that of atheistic natur |
|
|
In article <apagano-tfsc64h696fi9ah4d6pr44805l80a931kf@4ax.com>,
not.valid@address.net says...
| Quote: |
I wonder what new fairy tale the atheists will dream up next.
Regards,
T Pagano
P.S. I've been gone for several months and its like I never left.
It's still like shooting fish in a barrel.
|
Wow.
You're a fucking moron!
-Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Hare-Scott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: The only retreat in time will be that of atheistic natur |
|
|
"T Pagano" <not.valid@address.net> wrote in message news:apagano-
| Quote: |
and the NFL
Theorems prove that the neoDarwinian "algorithm" can be no better than
a blind search
|
Please demonstrate this or show a reference to the demonstration.
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:07 am Post subject: Re: Steven J gets both the facts about Lenski's work and the |
|
|
Yap, yap, yap.
Are you done yapping yet, Tony?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
RAM
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:17 am Post subject: Re: Steven J gets both the facts about Lenski's work and the |
|
|
On Jun 29, 7:58 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:06:57 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:37 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:25:21 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
-- [snip]
No, Tony, the point of evolutionary theory is that it is possible to
go into a great deal more detail than "nature did it," with testable
predictions about *how* "nature did it."
1. Nonsense. Random mutations coupled to natural selection explains
only a very narrow range of observations. That is, it explains minor
variations---back and forth---within (admittedly) fuzzy limits of
EXISTING characteristics.
You post this shortly after reports of how _E. coli_ in the lab has
evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, an ability hitherto unknown
among this strain.
1. As usual Steven J don't read too well and I suggest he re-read my
response to Spaceman concerning Lenski's work.
2. Spaceman (or rather his usual reporting of what others write)
misled the reader as to what Lenski's observations were. The change
which occurred in a particular E. coli population was the ability to
transport citrate through its cell membrane NOT its ability to
metabolize citrate. E. coli already possessed this ability.
3. And since neither I nor creationists in general argue for the
immutability of species one wonders how a change requiring two or so
mutations has the slightest thing to do with the issues plaguing
neoDarwinism.
4. Fact of the matter is that minor changes involving one or two+
mutations conferring some beneficial change to EXISTING functionality
is not all that unusual. The issue is that Steven J and the rest of
the atheists have inappropriately extrapolated this well beyond
observational science to explain how the E. coli came to exist in the
first place.
5. Most of these minor changes are the result of existing gene
function being broken or degraded. These observations are NOT
evidence of progressive, coherent change towards something novel
requiring thousands of mutations to explain biological diversity.
6. By "novel" it is simply meant some structure, system, or organ
which did not exist in predecessor populations. With this definition
in mind EVERY biological structure, system, and organ which has ever
existed according to the secular prehistorical account was at some
point "novel." At some point each and every structure, system, and
organ had to emerge and develop to maturity.
You post it weeks after reports of how Italian
wall lizards, transplanted to a new island home on Pod Mrcaru, evolved
cecal valves in their digestive tracts (again, a trait previously
unknown in this species).
Since Steven J got the facts wrong with regard to Lenski's work with
E. coli I have no reason to believe he gets the facts correctly here.
You post it, on the other hand, years after
reports of how random mutation coupled with natural selection have
produced bacteria able to digest nylon, or to resist -- or even feed
upon -- antibiotics unknown in nature. There is NO reason, empirical
or theoretical (as opposed to theological) to suppose that mutation
and natural selection can alter a population "only [within] a very
narrow range." Even Michael Behe's (demonstrably flawed) argument in
_The Edge of Evolution_ only proscribes certain types of
transformations, with no indication that, e.g. the changes needed to
produce lemurs and humans from a common ancestor require any sequence
of mutations that Behe finds problematical.
It is encumbent upon Steven J to show with these examples of 2+
mutations in single-celled organisms where (often) EXISTING gene
function is degraded or reduced has the slightest thing to with how
novel structures, systems, and organs requiring thousands of mutations
in the right order are added coherently and PROGRESSIVELY over time.
Oh, and strictly speaking, "nonsense" implies that my assertion is not
merely wrong, but self-contradictory or otherwise absurd on its face.
I think you should stick with the more modest "you err."
"Nonsense" does not have to be self-contradictory and is often so
absurd that the issue of correctness never enters the picture. Your
claim that there exists empirically testable details of how a dinosaur
forearm transformed into an avian wing or how a mesonychid transformed
into a whale is flat absurd. No such tests exist; no such
observations exist; in fact there is a dispute between the Dawkinsians
and the Gouldians about how this even occurs conceptually.
It is amazing how the big lie of atheism blinds its adherents.
|
No blinding in atheism is comparable to your own religious
fanaticism. It is your religious beliefs that lead you to wastefully
spending emotional and intellectual energy on creationist beliefs that
will die an appropriate death as a result of the Steven J's of the
world.
Your creationist contrivances are so hokie as to lack "truthiness."
Ray, Glenn, and numerous other creationists who post here won't spout
your nonsense because they don't value your intellect but only your
emotional commitment to a reactionary religious world view that they
share.
Your "kind" is heading to extinction as a result of evolutionary
competition with the creativity of science. Just as the "Witch" kind
slowly became extinct as religious belief due to the excesses at Salem
so to will the "creationist " kind become extinct for its contemporary
excesses in denying the findings of physics, geology, biology,
anthropology, and allied sciences that reveal the "truthiness" of
evolution. The death of creationism will be for the good of mankind
in general and will relieve religion of a destructive viral burden.
Your efforts are part of the reason for creationisms eventual
failure. Keep up the good work.
RAM
| Quote: |
snip
Regards,
T Pagano |
|
|
| 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
