|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Devil's Advocaat
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:57 am Post subject: Pot And Kettle Maybe? |
 |
|
Many creationists claim that evolutionary theory is dogmatic,
unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable, yet when they are
asked questions such as, “where is your supporting evidence?” or “can
you provide citations for your source materials”, they either become
abusive, repeat their previous claims (as if repetition reinforces the
truth) or remain strangely silent on such issues. Why is that I
wonder? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: Re: Pot And Kettle Maybe? True. Evolutionists hold to a dog |
|
|
T Pagano wrote, On 04/07/08 02:19 PM:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Many creationists claim that evolutionary theory is dogmatic,
unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable,
1. The creationist claim is not that evolutionary theory, in and of
itself, is dogmatic or unquestionable but that it is treated so by
secularists and atheists. In what way is it treated this way?
Evolutionists make no effort to genuinely test the theory; that is,
they make no effort to search for refutations.
|
Other than those many palaeontologists and even more numerous amateur
fossil hunters who would just absolutely love (no sarcasm!) the
publicity from being known as the person who found a bunny rabbit
fossilized alongside a trilobite.
| Quote: |
2. Remember that only a theory which can be refuted can be considered
scientific. However, since the atheists make no attempt whatsoever to
search for falsifications they treat the framework of evolutionary
theories as inviolate and unquestionable. Discordant observations are
ignored as anomolous. The lion share of work is to amass
|
Every fossil found, and there have been millions, is a a potential
falisification of the theory of evolution, as is every act of molecular
genetics which produces a phylogenomic tree of species and how they are
related.
| Quote: |
cooroborative evidence which every false theory in history has been
|
Funny, then, how the dual nested trees of life from morphology and
molectular genetics corroborate each other.
| Quote: |
able to accomplish. The creationist claim that atheists hold
evolutionary theory as inviolate is an historical, psychological, and
sociological statement of fact.
|
I'll let others deal with the rest of your crap.
[...snippage...] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob Casanova
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:53 am Post subject: Re: Pot And Kettle Maybe? True. Evolutionists hold to a dogm |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 13:28:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.linthompson@gmail.com>:
| Quote: |
On Jul 4, 2:19 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
snip
3. The fact that random mutations combined to natural (or even
artificial) selection has NEVER been observed to result in the
emergence or development of some novel structure, system, or organ has
never bothered atheists. Recall that this mechanism is supposed to be
the engine for the emergence and development of EVERY biological
structure, system and organ that has ever existed. The fact that the
fossil record which should have captured some of this emergence and
develpment of novelty shows NOTHING BUT sudden appearance of "mature"
structures and stasis of those structures over millions of years never
bothered the atheists.
Steven L mentioned the Italian Wall Lizard
|
Hey, Tony may be an arrogant jerk, but he's not in the same
class as "Leisure Suit Larry"!
Oh, wait, you meant a *real* lizard...
Never mind...
| Quote: |
, and said he didn't want to
look it up again, and I don't blame him.
But just to make sure everyone sees your position for the bankrupt
wreckage it is, I will provide the info. You can read it, then bray a
few times about victory and mercy rules before you slink off to your
cave for another few months (but watch out for the vestigial eyes in
those blind cave fish while you're in there!)
Here's the reference:
Herrel A, Huyghe K, Vanhooydonck B, Backeljau T, Breugelmans K, Grbac
I, Van Damme R, Irschick DJ. (2008) Rapid large-scale evolutionary
divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation
of a different dietary resource. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 105(12):
4792-4795.
PZ Myers discusses it here- and has some photos:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php
The lizards evolved a brand new structure- a cecal valve- when they
were introduced into a new habitat. There are other less dramatic
changes too, but the cecal valve is a novel structure.
Buh-bye, Tony.
Chris
-- |
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rusty Sites
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:46 am Post subject: The Great Bloviator |
|
|
You go on and on but you never say anything except that you have
vanquished the evil evolutionists. If that's true, why do you bother
coming back? In truth you are a very ignorant man who is driven by
nothing but delusions of grandeur. I think you probably have mental
problems and should seek help. Your arguments are easily refuted and
have been again and again. One quickly learns that attempting to have a
rational discussion is an exercise in futility. You aren't "beating"
anybody. You are just a nut job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Gregory A Greenman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: Re: The Great Bloviator |
|
|
In article <R4-dneVYCetJiO3VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@supernews.com>,
Rusty Sites <SpameYouToo@spamex.com> declared...
| Quote: |
You go on and on but you never say anything except that you have
vanquished the evil evolutionists. If that's true, why do you bother
coming back? In truth you are a very ignorant man who is driven by
nothing but delusions of grandeur. I think you probably have mental
problems and should seek help. Your arguments are easily refuted and
have been again and again. One quickly learns that attempting to have a
rational discussion is an exercise in futility. You aren't "beating"
anybody. You are just a nut job.
|
Who are you talking to?
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: Re: Albrecht asserts the atheist would love to find a falsif |
|
|
Oh looky! My very own subject line! Does that mean I have finally "made
it" here in talk.origins? :-)
T Pagano wrote, On 05/07/08 03:53 PM:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:21:03 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote:
T Pagano wrote, On 04/07/08 02:19 PM:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Many creationists claim that evolutionary theory is dogmatic,
unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable,
1. The creationist claim is not that evolutionary theory, in and of
itself, is dogmatic or unquestionable but that it is treated so by
secularists and atheists. In what way is it treated this way?
Evolutionists make no effort to genuinely test the theory; that is,
they make no effort to search for refutations.
Other than those many palaeontologists and even more numerous amateur
fossil hunters who would just absolutely love (no sarcasm!) the
publicity from being known as the person who found a bunny rabbit
fossilized alongside a trilobite.
1. Making the finds Albrecht sacastically offers are not all that
|
Once again you show that you are incapable of reading for comprehension.
Or did you just miss that part where I specifically disclaimed sarcasm
in what I wrote?
Oh, and please call me Cory - there's no need to be so formal.
| Quote: |
unusual. As such we have observed how atheists deal with discordant
obsevations. They typically produce an ad hoc excuse or they vilify
the finder as a fraud or charlatan so they don't have to address the
find.
|
Cites. Show your evidence.
| Quote: |
2. For example when this forum's own Ed Conrad produced fossil
evidence to members of the atheist scientific community of petrified
bones, teeth and even soft organs -- SOME HUMAN -- between coal veins
his evidence was re-interpreted and he was villified.
|
Ed Conrad *claimed* he had such fossils, but I don't believe he actually
offered his specimens up to observation & testing by scientists.
Of course, now Ed's alter ego Lin Liangtai is claiming that NASA has
taken pictures of fossilized neurons on Mars as is withholding evidence
of past life on Mars. Such claims don't exactly have a positive effect
on the potential validity of his "man as old as coal" claims.
| Quote: |
3. In any event the issue is not what the professional paleontologist
(or the amateur) would do if he "accidentally" found a falsification
but that professional paleontologists make no effort whatsoever to
determine what would count as a falsification and then to actively
search for such falsifications. Atheists only make efforts to
ensconce their dogma with verifications which tell us nothing about
whether their framework is true or false.
|
Every fossil ever discovered is a potential falsification of
evolutionary theory. You think that by now some creationist somewhere,
some time in the last 200 years would have found the hypothetical bunny
rabbit with the T. rex.
Your implication of a conspiracy theory amongst palaeontologists is only
an implication of your kookiness.
| Quote: |
4. Albrecht's implication that any true believer in evolutionism
professional or amateur would joyfully interpret some observation as a
falsification or that the amateur who offered some discordant fossil
would be greeted with open arms by the professional community is
simple-minded nonsense. Or Albrecht is just plain niaive.
|
You bet the "professional community" would accept it joyfully. because
as soon as that fossil bunny rabbit was reliably dated scientists woudl
jump all over it in in a nearly orgasmic attempt afiguring out how this
could happen. The one who coudl come up with a new fundamental theory
that tied together all of biology and explained the anachronistic
lagomorph would be more famous than Stephen Hawking and would win the
Nobel Prize.
Science is extremely competitive. Scientists never miss a chance to
point out each others' bad data, non-logical inductions or faulty
experiments.
Again, only a kook implies a conspiracy theory.
ObSpellingFlame: "naïve" (optionally without the diaresis).
| Quote: |
2. Remember that only a theory which can be refuted can be considered
scientific. However, since the atheists make no attempt whatsoever to
search for falsifications they treat the framework of evolutionary
theories as inviolate and unquestionable. Discordant observations are
ignored as anomolous. The lion share of work is to amass
Every fossil found, and there have been millions, is a a potential
falisification of the theory of evolution,
I agree but unless the professional paleontologist determines what
would count as a falsification in advance and plans to actively look
for them it matters little how many fossils are swept in. As near as
I can determine no one is making much (or any) effort at determining
what would count as a falsification.
|
Gee. I wonder ho many times people have suggested something a bunny
rabbit found fossilized witha T. rex, or a human skeleton with a
trilobite? No, nobody has *ever* suggested anything like that. (No that
was sarcasm.)
[...more of Tony's blithering snipped...] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shane
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: Re: Albrecht asserts the atheist would love to find a falsif |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:55:02 -0400, Cory Albrecht wrote:
| Quote: |
Oh looky! My very own subject line! Does that mean I have finally "made
it" here in talk.origins? 
|
Well you have finally made it with Tony, However, if you toe
a British Natrualist, Scottian, Paulian, Evangelical
Martinezian line, you can even make it with Rays God.
| Quote: |
T Pagano wrote, On 05/07/08 03:53 PM:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:21:03 -0400, Cory Albrecht
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote:
T Pagano wrote, On 04/07/08 02:19 PM:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Many creationists claim that evolutionary theory is dogmatic,
unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable,
1. The creationist claim is not that evolutionary theory, in and of
itself, is dogmatic or unquestionable but that it is treated so by
secularists and atheists. In what way is it treated this way?
Evolutionists make no effort to genuinely test the theory; that is,
they make no effort to search for refutations.
Other than those many palaeontologists and even more numerous amateur
fossil hunters who would just absolutely love (no sarcasm!) the
publicity from being known as the person who found a bunny rabbit
fossilized alongside a trilobite.
1. Making the finds Albrecht sacastically offers are not all that
Once again you show that you are incapable of reading for comprehension.
|
Which marries up remarkably well with his inability to write
for comprehension if that line above is any indication.
[...] |
|
| 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
