Debate still rages over Darwin

reply to post by Fundie


heheheh why thanks for the compliments

its not so much trolling just me and aerm have done this dance before and i can predict his tactics and none sequiters (check back i did the ceolocanth reality check several times and both long before he puled it out and did exactly what i said passed of a class of species as a single fish, which he does the same for with drosphilia of the many species/subspecies/insipid species)

and ive got a good enough memory to remember all the times he contradicts himself and then pull them out to highlight the hipocracy

such as the Noob ays all christians suck and are dumb about evolution but then i pull out a quoite where he is the one insulting well known christians and evolutionists

if you always say the same thing no matter how many times it been shown to be wrong or just stuff you make up and lie about a little mocking is warrented

and well as he displays such a fine brand of generalisation in his hate and diinformation then its unsuprising he gets treated to a little arrogance over the diatribe of abuse he casts at everyone that not in his gang

if you have evidence for u to look at we will, but if the evidence is pretending 30+ species are 1 fish

and you dabble only in generalisation that isnt really scientific ...like the fish will always be fish, which is unscientific and doesnt in any way relate to taxonomy or cladistic in its terminology

and the classics dinousaurs will always be dinoaurs birds will always be bird, even the statments wrong it should read dinoauria or more specifically therapods and aves

present the evidence leave out the non sequiters red herrings and other logical fallacies and storys to pad it out a little and we will look at the evidence, but make sure its conflicting with ToE not something someone else made as a strawman varient

p.s. if i was trolling Aerm wouldnt i be following Aerm not the other way around?



[edit on 19/2/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by Fundie


Try checking out the Gish-Gallop link provided earlier in the thread.

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by Fundie

 

Try checking out the Gish-Gallop link provided earlier in the thread.

1. The link is currently dead.
2. Isn't gannip gannop an old parker brothers game?

Originally posted by jfj123
1. The link is currently dead.
2. Isn't gannip gannop an old parker brothers game?

I'm sure it's more fun than being exposed to a real Gish Gallop. Daune Gish is a creationist who used to challenge evolutionary biologists etc to debates.

Then he would use his, say, 20 minutes to rapidly spout out as many of the most inane basic creo scatology involving complete lies, misrepresentations, wacky assertions, and fallacies. Then the poor dude he was debating would have the same time to try to fix the damage, it generally takes about 20 minutes to explain one or two fairly complex aspects of evolutionary science to a non-specialist audience. So the person had the choice of taking apart a sliver of scat and letting most slide, or trying to quickly take down all and failing.

Even when corrected, Gish would just spout the same old at the next opportunity.

The best way is to just pick the most ridiculous assertion and work on it. Most honest people with the ability for rational thought will see through the whole charade and apply 'SCAT' to the remainder. Those who won't never would have either way.

Either that, or ignore it. On the internet you can see a form of 'cut and paste gish gallop' and variants.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by melatonin]

The main crux of the creationist proof is all misdirection and inaccurate "debunking" of the evidence supporting evolution. No evidence supporting creationism or ID is ever offered. Creationists basically challenge those that do not follow their view to prove a negative.

Somewhere, another thread, is a great Neil De Grasse video (prob from YT) titled 'Stupid design'.....it's about 10 minutes, and sums up nicely what has been trying to come out of MY pie hole for years.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


weedwhacker I've always considered yours more of a pork trap than a pie hole

PS: I just watched the video....how much simpler can it get?

[edit on 19-2-2009 by griffinrl]

reply to post by griffinrl


I shouldn't respond on a thread....but I am intrigued, not sure if I was insulted or complimented......

Just to stray back to topic....I'm having some trouble understanding WHY Darwin is debatable. In the late 19th century his observations and writings were, to borrow a phrase, 'Earth Shattering' to the collective psyches of his era.

Let's re-examine the 'World View' that he was shaking....and compare to today's modern 'World View'.

NO electricity...
NO airplanes....
NO running water....
NO modern medicines....

We take for granted so many things, items that science has provided us, yet there is STILL a "debate" about Darwin???

I shudder as I think about the immense stupidity that still infects the Human race.....

LOL....I was just playin' !

But again as far as world views it's even evident in our fears and worries. Back in the day it was fairies and dragons and demons, etc. But as society advances so do the psychological level of our fears. Now instead of fairies and dragons we have flying saucers and little grey aliens.

Oh yeah...I think my favorite part of the video was the reference to the entertainment complex in the middle of a sewer system

[edit on 19-2-2009 by griffinrl]

reply to post by griffinrl


griff!!! Thanks for making me spit up my beverage!!!

yeah....entertainment....sewer....priceless!

I don't know what else to say, that would be new, concerning Darwin.

Certainly could reference Dawkins, and DNA....or I could waste valuable ATS space and mention the thousands of scientists who have all contributed to the effort....

I'll just focus on one man, who is 'fortunately' still with us....Stephen Hawking.

Darwin? He did a lot, and we thank him for it....he dared to break the conventions of his day, and that was bold and brave.

Science would not progress if it weren't for visionaries like him.

Stephen Hawking also, still with us, while not perfect (he IS Human, after all) has contributed a great, great deal to modern science.

So....Pythagoras, Newton, Galileo, Brahe, Darwin, Einstein, and Hawking....(and to all the rest I left out) we salute you!!!!

quote]Originally posted by weedwhacker
In the late 19th century his observations and writings were, to borrow a phrase, 'Earth Shattering' to the collective psyches of his era.
[

Scientist always try to prove what they already believe to be true, is actually true. But you guys have done nothing but mock, make fun of me, like a bunch of gossiping girls out on your next "Power Lunch" .

I am no Scientist and unlike many atheist's I see, I don't "pretend" to be.

NOR am I in a formal debate, but I am flattered by the "Gish Gallop" innuendo. I know that kind of thing adds so much more to your usual ad-hom attacks and various other a-typical darwit tactics when you don't have anything to substantiate your name calling and ad hoc comparisons.

In the meantime, I am still waiting for the three questions that never got answered.

In the late 19th century his observations and writings were, to borrow a phrase, 'Earth Shattering' to the collective psyches of his era.

You'll not only have to borrow it, but you are going to have to sell it too because his "discovery" was NOT the *Block Buster* you seem to think it was.

We take for granted so many things, items that science has provided us, yet there is STILL a "debate" about Darwin???

Yeah when is THAT area of Science going to produce something more than fancy artistry, skull scuptured hoaxes and fudged data? One can have respect for other science's weed, even while Darwinism still rides those other Science's coat tails.

I shudder as I think about the immense stupidity that still infects the human race.....

LOL I know what you mean. I may not be the best composer for these posts but my GOD man, have you ever tried to read some of that stuff noobfun posts? I took my microsoft narrator and had it read your posts, and then his.

Try it.

The idea people don't buy into Darwinian dimwittedness, isn't new and in fact since I have been arguing with them for the past 7 years, It amazes me how angry they get when someone uses term's like random chance. They YELL as if it is US, making these words up, when I remember it was THEM, that coined these phrases.

They just aren't in-style anymore and those screaming it isn't correct, are even more disappointed 6 months from the day they thought they had it right this time.

I am not alone and inspite of the one person who would withstand the usual ridicule (fundie), we creationists endure, we "try" to get the facts inbetween the Darwinsts blasting us with their bombastic claims of mountans of this and supported by all who care etc,, blah blah blah.

Darwin wasn't only wrong,

he knew he was too

so do many more

The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal:

Introduction: Charles Sibley and his student, Jon Ahlquist, were interested in avian molecular systematics. Sibley had been a prominent advocate of protein electrophoresis as a phylogenetic tool in the 1960s, but apparently had some difficulty in recognizing boundaries. In the early 1970s, he scandalized Yale University by being led out in handcuffs from his post as director of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, due to his apparent involvement in plots to smuggle the eggs of endangered bird species out of their home countries and into his laboratory. This story is recounted in, of all places, Sports Illustrated (24 June 1974) -- it was apparently of greater concern to falconers than to molecular evolutionists.

Sibley paid a fine and continued his avian systematic research. In the 1980s he and Ahlquist adopted a technique for comparing the DNA of different species to find out just how genetically different they are.

DNA hybridization is based on the idea that evolution represents the accumulation of DNA point mutations in different bio-historical lineages. If those mutations could somehow be summed and counted, one could tell just how much genetic change has accumulated since the species diverged from their common ancestor. digilander.libero.it...


Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis:
Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor

The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

"Feathers For T-Rex?", Christopher P. Sloan, National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 196, No. 5, November, 1999, pp.99,100,105

Interesting Quote - "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism" Storrs L. Olson, Smithsonian

All too often, their “Materialism” is the father of the “evidence.”

The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

“Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature….Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358.

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422.

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." Albert Fleischmann. Witnesses Against Evolution by John Fred Meldau (Denver: Christian Victory Publishing, 1968), p. 13.

“[T]he theory suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts…No one can demonstrate that the limits of a species have ever been passed. These are the Rubicons which evolutionists cannot cross…Darwin ransacked other spheres of practical research work for ideas…But his whole resulting scheme remains, to this day, foreign to scientifically established zoology, since actual changes of species by such means are still unknown.” Albert Fleischmann, "The Doctrine of Organic Evolution in the Light of Modern Research," Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 65 (1933): pp. 194-95, 205-6, 208-9.

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Louis Bounoure. The Advocate, 8 March 1984, p. 17.

“And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books, 1988), pp. 5-6. Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous." R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation." Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903). 63.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

"What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected in `normal science,' such a dogmatic approach does not appear healthy." R. Brady, "Dogma and Doubt," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 17:79, 96 (1982)

Let me guess,, I am about to be accused for "quote mining"

Right out of the Darwit playbook.

ho hum



[edit on 19-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by yogi9969





It's pretty clear to see, I don't really understand what the big deal is. Nature always trys to simplify it's form, make jobs easier, why else would a chimp become a human. I think that creationists put us on a pedistal and act as if Earth is some sort of holy temple, where god started all life. Well in reference to that the Universe is about 14 billion years old and well Earth is only about 4.5 Billion years so chances are if your looking for an answer about your devine creator you should look elsewhere because he didn't start here and by all means will not end here.

reply to post by TNT13


Like I said in a previous post TNT...it's basically about pride and ego with creationists. That's an argument you will never win.

reply to post by griffinrl


Ya clearly, been in enough arguements to figure that out lol. But realistically how can anyone with common sense dispute that fact, that the universe is 14 billion years old and Earth is only 4.5 billion, how does anyone with a sand pebble of thought not grasp the fact that the probability of life starting elsewhere is something like 70%, the 30% being the probability that all life started here. So with those odds how could anyone with any common sense not see the obvious folly in human thought here. And also the only reason that the probability of life starting here is so high, is that we haven't found significant life elsewhere yet, in reference if life was found on mars even microbial the probability that all life starting on earth drops to the low end of infinite, so .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
.



[edit on 19-2-2009 by TNT13]

[edit on 19-2-2009 by TNT13]

reply to post by TNT13


Well you know what they say about common sense I'm sure

It's not very common!

[edit on 19-2-2009 by griffinrl]

Originally posted by TNT13

It's pretty clear to see, I don't really understand what the big deal is. Nature always trys to simplify it's form, make jobs easier, why else would a chimp become a human.

Is that a statement or a question?
I think that creationists put us on a pedistal and act as if Earth is some sort of holy temple, where god started all life. Well in reference to that the Universe is about 14 billion years old and well Earth is only about 4.5 Billion years so chances are if your looking for an answer about your devine creator you should look elsewhere because he didn't start here and by all means will not end here.

I am not looking for any answer and I don't have to look anywhere.

However you seem to have some inside skinny on what he told you he started with or when and what he is going to create next.

I am always amazed when people who don't believe in God, seem to have such an intimate knowledge of him.

You on the other hand, have his itinerary

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by TNT13

 

Like I said in a previous post TNT...it's basically about pride and ego with creationists. That's an argument you will never win.

One thing I'll never do,, is argue with

a mind reader

reply to post by Aermacchi


I'm not going by "Me knowing god", I'm going by the facts of how old we think the universe is and how old we think the earth is. The earth wasn't here from the beginning and by that estimation of time it won't be here at the finish of the universe either. I'm using science as my tool, not trying to say I "know" god, you should try it sometime.... FACTS!!!!!!!1

Believe me...some minds are quite simple to read

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Scientist always try to prove what they already believe to be true, is actually true. But you guys have done nothing but mock, make fun of me, like a bunch of gossiping girls out on your next "Power Lunch" .

more tastey AD-hom goodness

I am no Scientist and unlike many atheist's I see, I don't "pretend" to be.

ad-hom, generalisation

deffine acting like a scientist? sat in a white lab coat and glasses splicing genes? ... or do you mean anyone who actually bothers to read anything scientific to refute your generalised nonsense arguments?

more of your generalistic anti-atheist hate rant , and you dont pretend to be ..... thats becasue you couldnt if yoiu tried ..although im fairly sure theres a reply out there where your talking about your scientist firends and how you spend ages reading all the scientific literature ....

In the meantime, I am still waiting for the three questions that never got answered.

well ask them again but leave out the red herrings none equitors and general cut and paste nonsese to make your posts look well thought and well rounded instead of just literally gish-gallop

LOL I know what you mean. I may not be the best composer for these posts but my GOD man, have you ever tried to read some of that stuff noobfun posts? I took my microsoft narrator and had it read your posts, and then his.

back on the ad-hom ....your dont spell check your tupid and im not listenting to you crap again?

The idea people don't buy into Darwinian dimwittedness, isn't new and in fact since I have been arguing with them for the past 7 years, It amazes me how angry they get when someone uses term's like random chance.

becasue the way it meant to be used is clearly different to the entirley random process of freak events you pass it off to be

7 years and till havnt learnt athing about what your arguing about ... 7 years and still just copy pastes (hey if your jumping on the ad-hom horse and galloping through your posts i may as well have some fune too)

I am not alone and inspite of the one person who would withstand the usual ridicule (fundie), we creationists endure, we "try" to get the facts inbetween the Darwinsts blasting us with their bombastic claims of mountans of this and supported by all who care etc,, blah blah blah.

funny maybe if you left all the none sequitor and red herrings out of the coopy paste machine we would have le to reply to and you could reply more often ..... and maybe with th e shorter replies you might actually ya know ...find room to put a fact or 2 in there

The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal:

, he scandalized Yale University by being led out in handcuffs from his post as director of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, due to his apparent involvement in plots to smuggle the eggs of endangered bird species out of their home countries and into his laboratory.

so NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH EVOLUTION, red herring !!!

if this nonsense is supposed to diprove it then Haggard getting caught with a rent ot disprove gods existance ..and im not dumb enough to try that argument even for a laugh

Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis:
Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor

The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

"Feathers For T-Rex?", Christopher P. Sloan, National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 196, No. 5, November, 1999, pp.99,100,105

Interesting Quote - "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism" Storrs L. Olson, Smithsonian

wow national geo got all excited and ran a story before it had been checked by scientists properly, and even before it was checked many scientit were warning it looked suspicious

so doesnt disprove evolution either just that national geo is a popular press magazine not a scientific journal and some times it screws up to get the scoop

All too often, their “Materialism” is the father of the “evidence.”

switch made-up-ism for materialism and your on to a good description of your own arguments

so far someone doing omthing illegal and a magazine screwing up dont cast any dought on evolution

- Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

this would be the 6th edition the same one as the 1872 edition .... and nealry 140 year out of date

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin

it did thats why it isnt a current scientific text book ...things have moved on since pre 1850

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422.

arguing for lamarkism, states several argumenst for darwinism should never be used then use's them to promote lamarkism .....

(Denver: Christian Victory Publishing, 1968), p. 13.

more then enough said on this one

Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 65 (1933):

well we discoverd DNA and fixed all that ... jesus what next going to directly quote Huxley's argument?

Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957),

NEXT!

Victoria Institute (1943),

Next!

Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903). 63.

i hadnt even read down this far when i made the Huxley comment

book may have been 1903 letter was earlier though probabily 1850-60 or maybe 70 ....so again a possible 140 years out of date


you think a few quotes from variou people over the last 150 year proves your case? sorry no dice, facts figures and testing not redherrings genrealiations and your usual copy paste

and no, no quote mining in this lot, becasue the quote are reals, some are really old some are arguing badly for lamarkism but they are all real ..i only call dishonesty or logical fallacy when you use them

or unless your trying to make an argument from authroity using them?



[edit on 20/2/09 by noobfun]