|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 12/10/2002 : 19:49:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by a65phalcon
The fact of the manner was and is I got rude simply due to the fact some people of this board are total pricks. I can only deal with pricks for a certain amount of time.
You're projecting. In fact, you cannot deal with people who call you on your inane and dishonest rhetoric.
As for "a certain amount of time", I see no one urging you to hang around for any time whatsoever.
quote:
Originally posted by a65phalcon
Then I tend to blow my lid...I extend my apologies.
Your disingeuous apologies are every bit as puerile as is your general attitude.
quote:
Originally posted by a65phalcon
I do think though that there are many potholes in Darwin's theory.
What you think is wholly irrelevant at this point. You made 3 specific claims: - That Darwin himself often stated that he had no empircal data but was going a whim.
- That you've answered the request that you substantiate the above claim to the best of your abilities, and
- That you've stated several fucking [sic] times that you've answered this request to the best of your ability.
So, my little prick slayer, show me where Darwin stated that he had no empircal data but was going a whim. Show me where you've previously answered that question. And show me where you've stated several fucking [sic] times that you've answered the question to the best of your ability. Because, my little prick slayer, the only potholes evident so far are those that characterize your integrity. And, trust me, what you know about Darwin wouldn't fill the smallest of these potholes. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
 |
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 19:58:27 [Permalink]
|
@tomic
I think your point is valid. It is plausible and exceptable to say, "I or we don't know". But, whenever I pose a question or state an opinion I get lynched on here. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 20:00:54 [Permalink]
|
What got the ball rolling?
There was an experiment back in the 50's done by a Dr Miller where he passed electricity through an atmosphere of reductive gasses in a glass sphere and over night created organic compounds. It was decided in the 70's that the Earth did not have such an atmosphere and so the experiment was considered invalid. Creationists cheered this turn of events and still call it a scientific fraud, although it was nothing of the sort.
However it was found in the 90's that the Earth actually did have a reductive atmosphere. One that was caused by the Orpheus collision. The same catastrophe that gave birth to the Earth's Moon. Creationists refuse to acknowledge the redemption of Miller's work.
If you don't like that ball, in this decade NASA discovered that there are masses of organic compounds just drifting between the stars. Life could literally fall from the sky.
No magic is required.
No one knows for sure but there were any number of ways it could have happened. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 20:04:15 [Permalink]
|
The thing that gets a person lynched here is stating opinion as fact and not backing it up. If something is an opinion you should also have some sort of reasoning that led you to that opinion. Just stating opinions isn't very helpful to anyone.
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 20:05:59 [Permalink]
|
| Reasonabledoubt you my friend are a tool. If you want to play the antagonist that is totally fine. But, I think most of us on this board truly are looking for genuine conversation. You're just a sad little man whose time is better spent discrediting the morals of others. If it were at all possible I would digitally pimp slap you. However, that would solve nothing. I feel sorry for you and the fact you feel the need to pursue such petty points. Rather than tearing down the belief systems of others, maybe your time would be better spent doing something constructive. It is really sad to see such a pathetic little man struggle and get so frazzled over such a little statement. Maybe you should try answering my questions every once in awhile. You sad, sad, sad little man. |
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 20:22:21 [Permalink]
|
| Slater....if you could post a link to this experiment I would love to read it. I am not being sarcastic, just wanna check it out. |
|
|
|
Kilted_Warrior
Skeptic Friend
Canada
118 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 21:42:58 [Permalink]
|
Opinion:
"I am absolutely positively sure that Evolution happened"
Fact:
"It is very possible that evolution happened"
Opinion:
"There is no way in the proverbial HELL that creation happened"
Fact:
"I am nearly absolutly sure that there is no way evolution happened"
Opinion:
"People are gullible idiots"
Fact:
"Most people are gullible idiots"
Hope that clears it up |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 02:55:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can only deal with pricks for a certain amount of time. Then I tend to blow my lid...
Does your wife know about this!?  |
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 07:58:59 [Permalink]
|
| a65phalcon, if you would just either admit you were wrong, or provide proof that "Darwin himself often stated that he had no empirical data but was going a whim", then all this would be behind us. Pride only stings for a little while when pricked, just get over it... |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 09:12:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Darwin did rely on, or theorize that most of his work would be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt down the road.
a65phalcon, please do us all a favor and at least read what Darwin wrote before saying Darwin said this or Darwin said that.
First all scientists rely on future generations of scientists to examine their theory. No single scientists or even a team of scientists working over an entire life time can do that much work especially for a theory as complex as Evolution.
Second no theory is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I will give you the same link I gave Fireballen dealing with theories, laws, & "proofs". http://www.carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm
Finally your idea that Darwin didn't present evidence is unfounded. Of the 14 chapters of The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, all but maybe the last are presentations of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. He noted possible problems with his theory and devoted at least 4 chapters to dealing with them, and yes he knew that future scientists would work with his theory and modify it and maybe reject it outright.
Here is what Darwin had to say about his theory at the beginning of the last chapter.
quote:
As this whole volume is one long argument, it may be convenient to the reader to have the leading facts and inferences briefly recapitulated.
That's right, one big argument with so much evidence he felt he should summarize it in the final chapter.
quote:
I am skeptical about Darwin.
Great! I would be too if I knew that biologists around the world simply accepted his theory at face value and were not trying to test it or expand upon it. Of course that is not what biologists around the world have been doing for nearly the past 150 years. There are thousands of articles a year published on research dealing either directly or indirectly with evolution including whole journals dedicated to the subject.
quote:
My problem is trying to explain to myself, how life can just spring up?
And for at least the 3rd time now, what in the hell does this have to do with evolution or Darwin????? Its like me saying I have a problem with the notion that we just stick to the Earth by some invisible force called gravity so I am very suspicious of that Bohr guy and his atomic model of matter. Both are totally separate ideas with the only commonality is that the both deal with life.
quote:
I would like an explanation as to how life all the sudden appeared.
My gosh man you are asking for information that many professors trying to tackle the subject have a time grasping and spend years just understanding the basics. If you are really interested then I suggest at least two years of upper level organic chemistry just to get started (after taking the lower level chemistry pre-requisites of course) this along with biology classes including upper level cell biology and microbiology classes and finally a good upper level biochemistry class. After all of this then you would be in a good position to start tackling the explanation of the origins of life proposed by the scientists studying the subject.
To understand this you have to understand the basics of life and the cell including many modern variations and the chemistry behind life.
Finally I recommend a book which has the first 6 chapters dedicated to an overview of the subject, but despite the fact that I do have the background classes I mentioned above I still had to read it about 4 times to totally grasp it, but maybe I am just slow on the uptake.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/019850294X/qid=1039622598/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2162701-2626311?v=glance&s=books
Good luck. |
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 09:33:36 [Permalink]
|
jmcginn....thanks for the link and the advice. As of late I have decided to step away from this arguement for several reasons.
1. I may or may not be as viced in this subject as I think. Therefore I will try and re-read and or study the subject a little more closely. Hopefully, this might solve the problem people are seeing with my arguement. Maybe I am just not schooled enough on Darwin's theory therefore I will reevaluate it.
2. I don't really know about you guys, but I am tried of talking about this.
3. My original post was not meant to question Darwin, rather I was trying to grasp the scope of the group. |
|
|
|
Kaneda Kuonji
Skeptic Friend
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 10:38:28 [Permalink]
|
a65phalocn, you have my repect. I myself used to be LDS before I left organized faith in its entirety. I am looking for my own path, and it may or may not be some form of the divine. I might just remain an agnostic. But know this: No matter what people like Pat Robertson tell you, attending church is not a requisite of worship. God is humble (based on the bible's description), and does not need the attention of everyone.
Me? At this point I am looking for my own path. I believe good people need not concern themselves about what faith they are. Organized churches have become so corrupt that I wonder why so few have taken notice until recently. I'm glad to see an uprise in skeptics and other religions. It means stronger minds, and organized religion hates that :) |
Rodney Dean, CI Order of the Knights of Jubal
Ivbalis.org
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 11:06:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by a65phalcon
... I will try and re-read and or study the subject a little more closely. Hopefully, this might solve the problem people are seeing with my arguement.
a65phalcon, you stated: "Darwin himself often stated that he had no empircal data but was going a whim."
You attribute a statement to Darwin. Either he did, indeed, say this, or he did not. At issue is whether or not you fabricated the attribution. This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with your understanding and everything to do with your methods.
As for your decision to "study the subject a little more closely", that can only be commended. I would encourage you review the material available at the Talk.Origins Archive. It is an excellent site. Also, should you be interested in reading some great commentary, anything written by Stephen Jay Gould is worth reading. Good luck in your endeavor.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 13:25:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by a65phalcon
jmcginn....thanks for the link and the advice. As of late I have decided to step away from this arguement for several reasons.
Your welcome.
quote:
1. I may or may not be as viced in this subject as I think. Therefore I will try and re-read and or study the subject a little more closely. Hopefully, this might solve the problem people are seeing with my arguement. Maybe I am just not schooled enough on Darwin's theory therefore I will reevaluate it.
You might consider starting with just basic science and how it works. Don't get me wrong I am not belittling you, but our education system does a terrible job of teaching this critical methodology and its not an easy methodology to grasp. I have known a few "science" professors in my time that could learn a bit more about it.
quote:
2. I don't really know about you guys, but I am tried of talking about this.
Sounds fair.
quote:
3. My original post was not meant to question Darwin, rather I was trying to grasp the scope of the group.
Ok, maybe next time watch the wording of your question a little better because allot of people here obviously thought otherwise (that combined with the fact of what you stated Darwin supposidly said). |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 12/11/2002 13:26:42 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 13:59:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kaneda Kuonji
God is humble (based on the bible's description), and does not need the attention of everyone.
Huh?!
Exodus 34:14 - For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
and a thousand other petty laws and rituals that God commanded from his people make God anything but humble!
Where'd you get that idea? |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
