Always talking about micro-evolution?

What if we agree to only quote peer-reviewed science sites, like PubMed.org? Um, blimps use helium, not hot air. Nice try, though. Maybe next time you'll do some research before you try to insult us.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-17-2004]

Discussions of Pascal's Wager belong in the Faith and Belief forum rather than here on the Evolution board.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

You mean, the transitional fossils? All over the place. Here's a bunch right here: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQWhy don't you start with that, and then you can get back to us? How do you know what the odds are?

How about you go to TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy and read just a bit. You will find specific links to creationist sites all over the place. These are there to allow the reader to see both sides without anyone putting words into the creationist mouths.Why would any of us here refer to creationist sites? Unless perhaps in a thread ripping them up. Generally that seems unfair to me. They are such very easy targets. I prefer to wait for someone like yourself to refer to what you think is the strongest arguments.

quote:

---

Plus, I have to admit I really don't think I like this stuff much, because you never seem to find a single evolutionist willing to quote a creation website or hardly ever find a creationist quoting evolutionist websites. So, you have only biast opinions with only biast resources, and basically, since they won't agree with anything but evolution, there is a predicament.

---

That is an interesting misconception. Evolutionary biologists like virtually all scientists are mostly unaware of creationists. Like all other sciences, methodological naturalism, evolutionary is in the business of hypothesis construction, testing, and falsifying. This is done in major public and private university laboratories and not on websites. The biased resources you claim we use are exaclty the same "biased" resources as geneticists, microbiologists, and general molecular biologists. The method we use to form, test or falsify our hypotheses are identical to those used by any other science i.e. chemistry, physics. So it seems 1) you think science is equivalent to randomly airing opinions on websites 2)there is a greater scientific conspiracy to suppress your personal beliefs....odd state of mind. Could you perhaps indicate where during your education you came encountered this view of science?Perhaps you could actually point to a single scientific discovery or invention that has been made by or benefited from creationists using appeals to the supernatural?

Biased, peer reviewed.

Whoa, whoa! Hold your horses!
Let me tell you one other thing about this group of evolutionists. They unknowingly support the cause of the enemy. The enemy has a very subtle plan, and he intends to convince you to join forces with him. To do that, he must first creat DOUBT in your mind. EXACTLY like he did with EVE in the garden. Once the doubt was planted, the serpent was basically in control. It's an old tactic that still works. They will attempt to brainwash you with doublespeak, paleobabble, etc, then tell you you're not nearly as smart or educated as they are and therefore you couldn't possbily be expected to understand evolution. Just hold firm, and keep your eyes on the Lord.Please note that these guys are very familiar with AIG, ICR, Hovind (and I don't 100% agree with Hovind on several items), and others. They'll always refer you to talkorigins.com as if it were some sort of authority. Sort of like a republican asking you to listen more often to Rush Limbaugh. But don't reference AIG, or ICR or any of those places because you'll be blasted. The BEST ammunition is in their own writings, because their own scientists can't even agree amongst themselves (not to mention science changes all the time). Richard Dawkins himself single-handedly and unknowingly cause ToE evolution to cease to exist (his theory of punctuated equilibrium forces the ToE into a situation in which it can no longer be falsified, in which case it's no longer testable and can't be called a theory anymore. That's why ToE is usually referred to as FACT in many modern textbooks and scientific writings). And they have taken the time to carefully craft counter-arguments that are so ludicrous that you'll probably do a backward flip off you chair at times. They're as blind to the existence of God as Balaam was to the angel ready to strike. Their ludicrous arguments are designed to leave you so flabbergasted, that you'll possibly wind up calling them names or getting otherwise nasty. This is their first goal. Then, they ask for an apology to make you bow down to them and "take the initiative." Before you know it, you'll constantly be on the defensive (see again, ad hominem attacks, fallacies, etc) and eventually wind up so disgusted that you'll disappear from the forum and they'll claim victory over another creationist. That's how they argue, and that's the cycle. Read some of the posts in which they discuss creationists in a derogatory way, call us names, refer to our low intelligence, etc. etc. I've seen numerous exchanges similar to what I've just described, and they themselves have even pointed that out in various posts. (and no, I can't recite the posts from memory at the moment, but I can and will if you ask. The posts are out there). I suggest you be patient and spend a couple of days researching (reviewing existing posts) so you become familiar with how your audience responds to various stimuli.I can see by your post, that you are on fire, praise God. But remember the words of our Lord: - Matthew 10:16That doesn't mean to be sneaky and devious. It means more like, test the air for danger, stay below the radar, and out of the line of enemy fire or you won't survive (and don't throw your pearls to "Nebraska man"). Be harmless, unlike me (my posts often drip with sarcasm, but I just can't help it after they post some of those exceedingly ludicrous arguments).Now take a deep, easy breath.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

Read post #219. See what I mean? Crash is so pathetically predictable. My students roll with laugher after my predictions repeatedly come true with almost chilling accuracy. You're mostly right. Except that I LOVE to take stuff off their evolutionist websites, then let them try to beat ME up over the information! LOLOLOL! OOOH, OOOH, my ribs hurt, OOOH! And they don't even realize what happened. It's happened so many times. The problem with evolutionists is that they often don't agree with themselves or each other; so if you quote something from one evolutionist and tell it to another evolutionist, you'll usually get blasted because they "thought" the info came from YOU! LOL! It just shows how uninformed they are in regard to what's going on in their own camp. They are great at using "buzzwords" and cut-and-pasting from websites, but when they have to actually explain something in their own words, it becomes plain that their comprehension of the subject matter is virtually imperceptible. Oh, but wait; I must also say here that there are indeed a number of posters here who are very knowledgable and do indeed conduct considerable research and do thorough homework. Their problem is that they (except theisitc evolutionists) start out assuming God doesn't exist, and they really don't have much else, outside of evolution, to believe. You'll see who they are. And who they aren't.Oh, and I also forgot to mention: If you really land a couple of good arguments that they hate, they may pick on you for grammar or punctuation, (even thought they are guilty of the same thing) so don’t type too fast. They’ll try any attack just to throw you for a loop and off the subject. Just hold on tight, the ride will be fun.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

Biased? It's a web portal to medical, chemical, and biological peer-reviewed journals, like the JAMA and others.Are you saying that every scientific publication that doesn't have the imprinteur of AiG or something is biased? Why would a medical journal be biased in favor of a biological conspiracy? Why would chemists band together with biologists to fool people?If you're going to level a charge of bias, maybe you could substantiate that with evidence?

What he's saying, of course, is that the whole edifice of creationism comes crashing down the minute you actually take a critical look at it.You know what I like so much about science? It works even when you don't believe in it. You can wake up one morning full of doubt that your shower will deliver hot water, but it does. You can be terrified and uncertain about the reliability of your DVD player, but when you pop in The West Wing, it still works.I'm not too impressed with a worldview that only seems to be true just so long as you don't ever seriously entertain the idea that its false.I implore you to look at the evidence of evolution with as critical an eye as you choose. Look at the evidence as certain as you can be that evolutionists are simply mistaken. But look at the evidence. It's valid whether you believe in it or not.And then look at Skeptick here, scared to death that you might turn a critical eye on creationism, imploring you never to even entertain the possibility that it might not be an accurate model. Yeah, I guess we're all assholes for having such airtight arguments and well-documented data that poor little Skeptick had no recourse but to call us names. My heart bleeds for 'im. You mean the ones you can't ever seem to convincingly refute? I would think a man of God wouldn't be so likely to get crass when his dog-eared copy of "Darwin on Trial" just doesn't have the answer. Is that how you witness for your God?

If that's true, why are you always so staggeringly impotent and unprepared for my arguments? You've yet to do any actual research beyond a quick Google when you post. I would think, Nostrodamus, that you would have all the time in the world to grab some real evidence after you're done vetting tomorrow's posts in your palantir.Did you have any plans to get back on topic? Just curious. I was, you know, wondering if we were going to actually have a discussion or just pick on the noob.

quote:

---

They are great at using "buzzwords" and cut-and-pasting from websites, but when they have to actually explain something in their own words, it becomes plain that their comprehension of the subject matter is virtually imperceptible. Oh, but wait; I must also say here that there are indeed a number of posters here who are very knowledgable and do indeed conduct considerable research and do thorough homework. Their problem is that they (except theisitc evolutionists) start out assuming God doesn't exist, and they really don't have much else, outside of evolution, to believe. You'll see who they are. And who they aren't.

---

Interesting claim. Could you do the following for me Skeptic, show how the following article that you can access via Pubmed are a in denial of your or anybody elses god/gods, is biased, or demonstrate that the authors knowledge of the field is imperceptible?
Note, the article is open access. You can read it for free.Papadopoulos D, Schneider D, Meier-Eiss J, Arber W, Lenski RE, Blot M.
Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Mar 30;96(7):3807-12.Second, please demonstrate a better way of conveying detailed and complicated sciences such as genetics and molecular biology without summarizing a point and then connecting to the actual gathered data. you are arguing that it is better to make unsupported assertions rather than to link to the enormous amount of data that is available for anyone to access if they themselves are interested.That is what creationists cannot do...you can claim your "goddidit" but cannot provide a testable or falsifiable hypothesis that would demonstrate the veracity of that statement. Evolutionary biology is based on methodological naturalism which allows one to propose, test and either support or falisfy a hypothesis. What is best is anyone of any belief or non belief can reproduce the experiments.All that is left to you is to comfort yourself by refusing to actually read any of the primary literature (or even the literature that is available for the educated or willing to be educated layperson), out of this ignorance make assertions about science that you cannot support, and then based on that, claim that science is wrong and scientists are liars. The interesting thing is you have yet to demonstrate where there is such major conflict among evolutionary biologists about evolution. Do you mean those who advocate the Out of Africa hypothesis of human evolution versus the multi-regionalists? Guess what, both groups are composed of ardent evolutionists even if they disagree over the precise mechanism. I challenge you to find a scientific field that does not have such disputes raging at all time...and yet science progresses...where does that leave creationism?Creationism is stuck where it has been since its beginnings. It is composed of reactionaries who have no hypothesis. They merely nay say, mischaracterize, distort and outright lie about what science says or does. They almost uniformly have absolutely no knowledge or background in any scientific discipline. They almost universally refuse to educate themselves, feeling more secure and confident remaining ignorant and clinging to their baseless beliefs. Creationism proposes nothing. Creationism has not produced a single scientific discovery. Creationism has never contributed to a scientific discovery. Creationism is not even a single set of beliefs but rather a disparate grouping of conflicting contradictory fundamentalist religious dogmas that are united by their hatred of the progress science has made at the expense of masses of available blind followers. Creationism is the antithesis of methodological naturalism. The worst thing about creationism is that it is an affront to those of actual faith. Whereas those of strong faith can withstand the progress made by science in learning and characterizing the unknown without feeling that their faith is shaken or threatened, creationists cringe in fear and denial with every leap science makes.
Science says boo...creationists jump

[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 02-17-2004]

Dawkins did not formulate the PE theory, in fact, he was a vocal opponent of it for many years. Nor is PE unfalsifiable or untestable.

---

"You're Green, You're Ugly and the Gods Hate You."

Hey..cmon now...don't let things like "facts" or "accuracy" get in the way of the debate. Cut and paste..that's all you evil-utionists do. Why not describe all research ever done on epigentics in two words? Because you are afraid where this conversation is going? That is just an evasion tactic to try and convince me that pink unicorns don't steal my left sock from the washing machine after every load. Ha ha LOL! you guys can't even agree among yourselves..half of you believe PE, the other half believe monkeys gave birth to humans, and the rest believe microtomes to microbiologists..I should know, I teach my students math at Patriot Universty.