Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,197 Year: 5,454/9,624 Month: 479/323 Week: 119/204 Day: 19/16 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   morality, charity according to evolution
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 29 of 243 (310487)
05-09-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Modulous
05-09-2006 11:35 AM


Post Titles
Is this post "some random thoughts" Mod?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2006 11:35 AM Modulous has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 86 of 243 (311855)
05-15-2006 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Hyroglyphx
05-14-2006 8:04 PM


A new thread
Thank you Ned for your genuine concern, however, has it ever occured to you that maybe you've been lied to? I know that seems unthinkable to someone of your caliber, but could it be possible? I wonder.
Perhaps you can start a thread and correct me on those things that I been lied to about.
Meanwhile here are some of the total clangers you have dropped in your short stay. With these we see how much you don't know:
NJ writes:
He said, what's the north of the North Pole. And from what I gathered from that quip, he's essentially saying, we'll never really know either way, so who cares? But I don't think man will be truly satisfied until he knows the answer of his origins.
A total miscomprehension of the point. But to be fair you did point out that you don't know much about the big bang.
NJ writes:
But looking back in the fossil record shows no changes either. Everything appears abruptly, fully formed, without any evidence of gradations.
Just plain wrong.
NJ writes:
But alas, he was found very much alive off the coast of Africa. What's effectively worse, the living Coelecanth is exactly the same as his fossilized contemporary.
The living Coelecanth is not even in the same genus as the known fossils.
NJ writes:
No macroevolutionary progress has ever been observed, and it can't be studied or tested without these observations.
All "macro evolutionary" processes have been observed in a number of different ways.
NJ writes:
His thesis was very clear and eloquent. I suspect that you simply disagree with him on grounds that his cohort is William Dembski or that you don't like the implications of his thesis. In either case, your incredulity is suspect.
You didn't even ask what was wrong with the math. If you had asked you would have been shown. It isn't the implications; it is the math -- it is bogus.
NJ writes:
Where the theory gets hazy, (and I'm afraid in many cases, its intentional), is to obscure the line of possibility into the realm of what we know is currently impossible. I think that evolutionists silently agree that they'd love nothing more than an actual fossil that undeniably points to one species forming into an entirely new taxonomical niche. Thus far, the evidence to support said evolvement is either scant, inconclusive, or non-existent.
Now you suggest that the evidence does exist (if scant). Different form "shows no changes either" above. There are several excellent examples of exactly the above.
NJ writes:
Any and everything I bring up is in direct response to something someone has said in a previous post.
I mentioned the "old fish" -- the red herring -- exactly who brought that up? You don't understand evolutionary biology well enough to know that the Coelecanth being still around simply doesn't matter (though if it was really identical that would be a surprise).
Well, I wasn't aware we had so many sages here in EvC for me to learn from. Now that one of my sages has informed me that I've been lied to, I can finally begin to learn the truth.
I am not one of the "sages". There are, however, one or more researchers in the relevant sciences here. You can indeed learn the truth if you are able to.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-14-2006 8:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-15-2006 11:22 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 93 of 243 (311963)
05-15-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Hyroglyphx
05-15-2006 11:22 AM


Too much for this thread -- we are off topic already.
There is too much here. If you show me that you actually want to discuss something by opening a thread I'll be interested in participating.
However, I have limited will power
NN writes:
The living Coelecanth is not even in the same genus as the known fossils.
There are two known living types of Coelecanth, the Commoros and the Sulawesi. The difference between them is about as far-reaching as the difference between a Tabby and a Calico. The fact is the Coelecanth is its own Genus, and the fossilized version is no different between livings one. So, in 350 million years it either forgot to evolve or macroevolution simply doesn't exist.
This is EXACTLY the kind of problems you seem to have. Your paragraph is in itself confused.
The differences being discussed are between extant Coelecanths and fossilised ones (NOT by the way 350 million years ago but less than a third of that - which is no material). The similarity of the living ones has NOTHING to do with the differences between the fossil ones and the living ones.
All the rest of your statements contain the same kind of misunderstandings and/or errors. Open a thread and we can go into detail.
ABE
And you brought up the Coelecanth on a thread about morality. That is why I called it a red herring. You need to focus.
Edited by NosyNed, : Thought of something else

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-15-2006 11:22 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-15-2006 12:57 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 117 of 243 (312593)
05-16-2006 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2006 8:12 PM


Re: altruism and homosexuallity
Homosexuality is NOT the subject of this thread.
However,
o, homosexuals have to go against their own self-proclaimed natural desires in order to genetically survive?
Human sexuality is NOT binary. Individuals vary from very heterosexual to very homosexual. Most are somewhere in between with a strong leaning to one side. It is quite reasonable for a prodominantly homosexual individual to be a little or when pushed a bit able to engage in heterosexual behavior.
Homosexuality can also be present in the population if it is linked to advantageous behaviors (as others have pointed out several times I think.)
Homosexuality can also simply keep arising because it can be brought on by a number of different mutations and they occur fairly easily.
There is evidence for the first and second cases above. I don't think there is any at all for the third.
ABE
You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what I think
Something you may think but the evidence that exists suggests that you are (again ) wrong.
Edited by NosyNed, : Can't leave well enough alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2006 8:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2006 9:09 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 215 of 243 (315107)
05-25-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 10:29 AM


Re: Logical coherence
...Dembski said something like: "Creationism is lacking any qualities that offer the kind of empirical evidence required by science,
I knew it!!
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 10:29 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024