|
|
|
fleshmortification
New Member
USA
7 Posts |
 Posted - 11/04/2001 : 18:27:17 [Permalink]
|
REPOSTED IN CORRECT FORM:
Kudos to you Dr. Slater for being such a concise and splendid debater and spellchecker. Perhaps when I am your age, I too will be as enlightened and have this much free time. You must be retired. Also, thanks for the grading my homework, I'll remember my spelling and grammar if I ever write a thesis for your class. By the way:quote:
One of my prize positions is a copy of a work by [Darwin's] grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, on the subject of Evolution.
What is this, yoga? Touché, good doctor. Details, details…
quote:
[Creationist detractors] writings are aimed solely at their congregations-not scientists- for the sole purpose of fleecing them out of their hard-earned cash.
I've never paid a penny for any lecture or literature I've received from any of these men or organizations. In fact ICR is kind enough to send me a free newsletter every month! Greedy bastards!
quote:
I have no respect for creationists at all. They are a medieval "cancer" in modern culture.
If we have no credibility why are we such a threat-enough to be compared to cancer?!!
quote:
Now, that chatty snake, was he a metaphor or a fact?
Fact. I hope you never have the privilege of finding out.
quote:
The "Good Book" says that the sons of Noah went to the four -corners of the Earth and that all the races of the world came solely from these brothers.
Just like Gould says.
The descendants of these brothers lived in isolation in Europe, Africa, Asia and the "Holy Land." Minor differences in these brothers were passed down only to the descendants in a given area, like say Africa. Over the generations the different peoples--who are "all brothers"--took on recognizable racial characteristics.
So if you take a Melanesian from the Fiji Islands whose hair is like sheep's wool, brown eyes shot with blood and whose skin is so dark it really is black, using the bible you can trace him back to Noah.
If you took a Swede with hair so blonde it looked white, bright blue eyes and skin so lacking in coloration that you can seen the veins beneath it, using the bible you can trace him back to Father Noah also.
Two people-from the same family-who couldn't look more different from one another. The sole reason for the difference is that they spent so many generations separated from one another.
No argument here. Call it what you like. Still doesn't prove I came from an ape.
quote:
Unless you are some kind of a racist who claims that races other than his own were created by daemons--then if you are going to believe Genesis you have to accept evolution as a fact.
Not a racist either. When I spend the summer in Cancun, I got a pretty good tan, my feet were like leather and I now have a pretty high tolerance to the Habenero pepper. Is this evolution Dr Slater?
Anywoo, staying on the subject:
The theory of Organic Evolution is invalid-because it has never been observed! I'll give you 26 reasons, starting with this one:
1) Spontaneous generation has never been observed! Life only comes from (drumroll, please) LIFE! Ever hear of the law of biogenesis? Of course you have. Sad to say evolution conflicts with this law.
More later, I'm sure someone has something to say about this and I'm bored….
PS Slater, I would be more than happy to read anything you would like to present by your selection of literature as long as it doesn't bore me to death. I believe in K.I.S.S. Is that scientific? (Probably not.) After all, I'd say the majority of society are not science nerds, que no? And by the bye, how many of Phillip Johnson's book have you read?
P.P.S. Is this the science I'm supposed to take seriously? Or a different kind?
http://aolsvc.digitalcity.com/losangeles/family/event.adp?eid=571460
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he wasn't real |
 |
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 20:23:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Anywoo, staying on the subject:
Hardly...
quote:
The theory of Organic Evolution is invalid-because it has never been observed! I'll give you 26 reasons, starting with this one:
1) Spontaneous generation has never been observed! Life only comes from (drumroll, please) LIFE! Ever hear of the law of biogenesis? Of course you have. Sad to say evolution conflicts with this law.
If you want us to think you're paying attention to simple concepts and not just looking for a fight, you're not doing a very good job. Go back and read Tokyodreamer's pre-emptive rebuttal. Aw, hell, nevermind. Evolution, for our purposes, is the change in allele frequency over time. Abiogenesis (what you just described) is the emergence of organic molecules from inorganic molecules. Neither requires the other in order to be true. And I'd really like to see a reference to the "law of biogenesis" apart from all the creation science links that appear on Google.
quote:
More later, I'm sure someone has something to say about this and I'm bored….
Why am I not surprised.
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues
[edited for formatting]
Edited by - PhDreamer on 11/04/2001 20:24:56 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 20:52:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
The theory of Organic Evolution is invalid-because it has never been observed! I'll give you 26 reasons, starting with this one:
1) Spontaneous generation has never been observed! Life only comes from (drumroll, please) LIFE! Ever hear of the law of biogenesis? Of course you have. Sad to say evolution conflicts with this law.
If you want us to think you're paying attention to simple concepts and not just looking for a fight, you're not doing a very good job. Go back and read Tokyodreamer's pre-emptive rebuttal.
I've almost impressed myself with my prediction. 
Still kinda sad though.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 21:20:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've almost impressed myself with my prediction.
Still kinda sad though.
Maybe you've been at this too long TD. I was going to point this out to him, but PhD beat me to it.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 21:22:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
The theory of Organic Evolution is invalid-because it has never been observed! I'll give you 26 reasons, starting with this one:
1) Spontaneous generation has never been observed! Life only comes from (drumroll, please) LIFE! Ever hear of the law of biogenesis? Of course you have. Sad to say evolution conflicts with this law.
If you want us to think you're paying attention to simple concepts and not just looking for a fight, you're not doing a very good job. Go back and read Tokyodreamer's pre-emptive rebuttal.
I've almost impressed myself with my prediction.
Well, I'm glad someone is. 
quote:
Still kinda sad though.
Indeed. I'll just about guarantee you this kid got his "26 reasons" straight from a creation science website; given that he boldly posts his first without realizing his "law" is sophistry, I doubt we'll even see an acknowledgement of error.
Hey Flesh, wanna hear 26 reasons why creation science isn't science?
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues
[edited for formatting dammit]
Edited by - PhDreamer on 11/04/2001 21:23:08 |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2001 : 05:51:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hey Flesh, wanna hear 26 reasons why creation science isn't science?
I do! I do! 
"Hey Butt-Head check this book out! There's a talking snake, a naked chick, then some guy puts a leaf on his SCHLONG!!" [Beavis and Butt-Head Do America] |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2001 : 06:10:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I've almost impressed myself with my prediction.
Still kinda sad though.
Maybe you've been at this too long TD.
Actually, I haven't! That's why I was proud. I'm so easily amused... (and yes, I do laugh at my own jokes!)
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2001 : 08:39:04 [Permalink]
|
Interesting thread. Thus far, I've enjoyed it. The old, "It's just a theory!" non-argument will live forever (asuming that there is indeed such a thing as 'forever').
Something we, on both sides of the discussion, forget all too often is that any and all deities are no more than theories as well. And imperfectly documented theories at that.
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes.
Edited by - filthy on 11/05/2001 08:43:05 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2001 : 08:51:30 [Permalink]
|
Good point filthy. It's interesting that the same people that claim that evolution has never been observed hold up the Bible as evidence. Nothing in that book has been observed or duplicated in any lab.
At least evolutionary science can say that despite claims to the contrary from creationists that haven't bothered to actually check it out for themselves and offer nothing but quotations from the ICR. The ICR, of course, has a mission statement that says they exist for the sole purpose of disproving evolution and that any findings MUST back their view. I don't think you can get any less impartial or fair than that.
If a scientist has results that don't jibe with their model, they rework the model. The ICR can't say the same.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2001 : 09:51:20 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps when I am your age, I too will be as enlightened and have this much free time.
Pray to Jesus and shun the base ways of science--and odds are, you won't reach my venerable age. Lucky dead you, sitting on a cloud, praising god, every second of every day, forever and ever and ever.
Doesn't that sound like fun? That oughtta be good for about three minutes.
You must be retired.
No, retirement isn't even a consideration. I partly own the place, I can do what I want when I like. Lately that has meant seven day weeks and twelve hour days.
Writing these pieces takes very little time.
Also, thanks for the grading my homework
I believe my remark was in regard to your bringing up my typo "scietific".
…Erasmus Darwin, on the subject of Evolution…
What is this, yoga? Touché, good doctor. Details, details…
Yoga? Touché? I don't have a clue as to what you are asking.
Erasmus Darwin, Charles paternal grandfather wrote a book about evolution even before Charles was born. The only problem with this book was that Erasmus never did any field-work. He noted the changes over time but came to no conclusion on what was the driving force behind them.
[Creationist ] writings are aimed solely at their congregations-not scientists- for the sole purpose of fleecing them out of their hard-earned cash. I've never paid a penny for any lecture or literature I've received from any of these men or organizations. In fact ICR is kind enough to send me a free newsletter every month! Greedy bastards!
They are after bigger bucks than the couple of pennies it costs to give you a scrap of paper.
If we have no credibility why are we such a threat-enough to be compared to cancer?!!
How does being a threat to civilization lend you credibility? Credibility would take away at least some of the threat.
Now, that chatty snake, was he a metaphor or a fact?
Fact. I hope you never have the privilege of finding out.
What, do you think ole' brier snake was the devil? Read your bible again. Snake is just snake.
But it's a much older story than the Jewish version. There is in the Louvre a carved green steatite vase, inscribed c. 2025 BCE by King Gudea of Lagash, dedicated to the late Sumerian manifestation of the Goddess that shows Eden. It has 2 copulating vipers, entwined along a staff in the manner of the caduceus. In the original version of this story man is the slave of the gods and forced to labor in the garden. Snake and Mrs. Snake help to free them by finding the fruit of knowledge. This is the story where the expression "the truth shall set you free" originates from.
The "Good Book" says that the sons of Noah went to the four -corners of the Earth and that all the races of the world came solely from these brothers.
Just like Gould says.
No argument here. Call it what you like. Still doesn't prove I came from an ape.
No one ever said you were descended from an ape. Descent from apes is a Creationist straw man.
You said that evolution itself was impossible--I'm just showing you the place in your bible that says it happened.
Not a racist either. When I spend the summer in Cancun, I got a pretty good tan, my feet were like leather and I now have a pretty high tolerance to the Habenero pepper. Is this evolution Dr Slater?
You go on vacation get a tan and find that you like jalapeños and wonder if this is evolution? Do you think if you stayed there long enough you would become Negroid? Maybe Asian from eating fortune cookies? No wonder the thought of evolution upsets you so. You haven't a clue as to what it is.
1) Spontaneous generation has never been observed! Life only comes from (drumroll, please) LIFE! Ever hear of the law of biogenesis? Of course you have. Sad to say evolution conflicts with this law.
Biogenesis is a "principle" not a "law", but since you can't even get "theory" correct we'll let that pass.
Since evolution deals only with the why and how life changes over the generations perhaps you would care to explain to the rest of us what the fuck you think it has to do with the creation of life?
You may as well ask "If evolution is a fact how can you explain why two of the planets revolve in a different direction from the others" (That snide remark was an actual question asked of me by a woman professing to be a Creationist about three years ago)
And isn't the "theory" that you are putting forward that human life comes from a pile of dirt that had magic breath blown on it?
Isn't dirt as dead as..well…dirt?
PS Slater, I would be more than happy to read anything you would like to present by your selection of literature as long as it doesn't bore me to death.
Climbing Mount Improbable by Dr Richard Dawkins. The guy holds the Charles Simonyi chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. It has lots of nice pictures to keep you from being bored.
After all, I'd say the majority of society are not science nerds, que no?
Science nerds? I see you look down your nose at scientists. Why am I not surprised?
And by the bye, how many of Phillip Johnson's book have you read?
Johnson , the lawyer from U C Berkeley? I read his "...Opening Minds" most of it anyway. I have to agree with his colleagues across the bay that I've spoken to about him…the man's an ass. You may notice, when you go to your local Barnes & Nobel, that you can't find Johnson's books in the science section. Rather they are always placed with religion. That's so that you don't get confused as there is no actual science in them.
P.P.S. Is this the science I'm supposed to take seriously? Or a different kind?
They got the dates wrong in this blurb for a childrens show. The Dinos were extinct only a few million years before these large mammals showed up in the Oligocene. And much less than that before the giant carnivorous flightless birds were the scourge of South America in the Eocene. But the rest of it is pretty close. 65,000,000 years brings you to today.
What's the matter with this type of science? Is vertebrate paleontology a lie from a talking garter snake too?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2001 : 11:33:15 [Permalink]
|
Ah, Slater, you are a treasure. I love your wit (when I'm not on the receiving end of it).
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
fleshmortification
New Member
USA
7 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2001 : 16:18:26 [Permalink]
|
Thank you Slater, you are an interesting fellow, even I admit it. However, you've done nothing for me as far as convincing me that I should accept the THEORY of evolution, or that you have anything against creationists except, as you put it, utter contempt.
Oh and by the way, I was splitting hairs, being a tad bit ornery and obnoxious-suprise, suprise…
quote:
One of my prize positions  is a copy of a work by [Darwin's] grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, on the subject of Evolution.
(italics added)
…Oh well, guess you didn't get it.
Anyways,I apologize TokyoDreamer for not sticking to the subject which, to my observation has resulted in nothing but everyone patting each other on the back and blowing smoke up each other proverbial holes. That seems to be the purpose of this website anyway.
quote:
I'll just about guarantee you this kid got his "26 reasons" straight from a creation science website
1) I challenge you to prove that accusation,
2) ME using information that you may have heard or read from a creation scientist is like me saying, "No fair, you got your 'facts' from someone who believes in evolution!" Pretty stupid, eh?
quote:
At least evolutionary science can say that despite claims to the contrary from creationists that haven't bothered to actually check it out for themselves and offer nothing but quotations from the ICR.
quote:
…given that he boldly posts his first without realizing his "law" is sophistry, I doubt we'll even see an acknowledgement of error.
No acknowledgement of error is correct, Dion Warwick, I mean PhDreamer..
LAW of biogenesis:
"The teaching that living organisms come from other living organisms, as opposed to abiogenesis. The author of the modern formulation of "the fundamental law of biogenesis" was German physiologist and comparative anatomist Fritz Müller (1864). Ernst Heinrich Haeckel [1] led Müller's formulation "the biogenetic fundamental law," which can be stated briefly as the teaching that in its development from the egg to adult stage, the animal tends to pass through a series of stages which recapitulate the stages through which its ancestry passed in the development of the species from a primitive form. In other words, the development of the individual is a condensed expression of the development of the race."[2]
I shall continue with my banter, no apologies. There really wasn't much to respond to anyway in the last few rebuttals…AND seeing how there's one of me and well, too many of you, I digress from any arguments concerning reason #1. So without further ado-
For those of you who just tuned in:
Our subject: The theory of Organic Evolution is invalid-because it has never been observed!
Reason #2) Aquired Characteristics
They CANNOT be inherited! (e.g. the giraffes long neck is not a result of it's ancestors straining to reach higher leaves. Similarly, a body builder will not pass on his muscle tone to his kid!
Define:
"Acquired characteristics": modifications produced in an individual plant or animal as a result of mutilation, disease, use and disuse, or any distinctly environmental influence. Some examples are docking of tails, malformation caused by disease, and muscle atrophy. The belief in the inheritability of acquired characteristics, proposed by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck [3] in 1809, was widely accepted at one time, but is now rejected. Geneticists have affirmed that inheritance is determined solely by the reproductive cells and is unaffected by somatic (body) cells." [4]
[1]German biologist, originally a physician in Berlin, became Privatdozent at Jena, afterward extraordinary professor of comparative anatomy, later professor of zoology, a chair established for him at Jena. This position he occupied for 43 years with intervals for zoological travels to various parts of the world. When Darwin's Origin of the Species appeared in 1859, Haeckel was deeply influenced by it, so that he became "the apostle of Darwinism in Germany." Among Haeckel's famous books are his General Morphology (1866), Natural History of Creation (1867) and Die Weltraetsel (1899), English title, The Riddle of the Universe, publ. 1901. By his 60th birthday Haeckel had published 42 works of some 13,000 pages, plus many monographs. Rudolf Steiner knew Haeckel personally, and in his autobiography, Chapter 15, Steiner recorded a very interesting and perceptive impression of the great scientist. The "genealogical tree" of Haeckel to which Steiner refers is set forth in its original form in Haeckel's General Morphology and developed in his later writings.
[2] Rudulph Steiner Archives http://www.elib.com/Steiner/Def/biogenesis.html
[3] Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, chevalier de , 1744–1829, French naturalist. He is noted for his study and classification of invertebrates and for his introduction of evolutionary theories. After varied careers he turned his attention to botany, and recognition of his skill followed upon publication of Flore françoise (3 vol., 1778). He was elected to the Academy of Sciences, and, aided by Buffon, he traveled over Europe, under the title of royal botanist, visiting museums and collecting material for the museum of the academy. From 1793 he was professor of zoology at the Museum of Natural History. His ideas concerning the origin of species were first made public in his Système des animaux sans vertèbres (1801). He introduced the terms biology and Invertebrata and suggested the invertebrate classes Infusoria, Annelida, Crustacea, Arachnida, and Tunicata. He is also considered the founder of invertebrate paleontology. His later works were Philosophie zoologique (2 vol., 1809; tr. Zoological Philosophy, 1963) and Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres (7 vol. in 8, 1815–22). Blindness and poverty marred his later years. Lamarck's theory of evolution,. or Lamarckism, asserts that all life forms have arisen by a continuous process of gradual modification throughout geologic history. To explain this process he cited the then generally accepted theory of acquired characteristics, which held that new traits in an organism develop because of a need created by the environment and that they are transmitted to its offspring. Although the latter hypothesis was disputed during Lamarck's lifetime by Cuvier and others and was rejected altogether as the principles of heredity were established, Lamarck's theory of evolution was an important forerunner of the work of Charles Darwin, who recognized a modified influence of environment in evolutionary processes.
[4] The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Copyright © 1994, 2000
Columbia University Press, Licensed from Columbia University Press
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/people/A0828684.html
Thank |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2001 : 19:28:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Reason #2) Aquired Characteristics
They CANNOT be inherited! (e.g. the giraffes long neck is not a result of it's ancestors straining to reach higher leaves. Similarly, a body builder will not pass on his muscle tone to his kid!
What you are describing is Lamarkian Evolution, an evolution theory that predated Darwinian Evolution and was abandoned in favor of the Darwinian model long before anyone understood the mechanisms of inheritance.
An argument against Larmarkian Evolution is not an argument against Darwinian Evolution. It does suggest that you do not understand the basic mechanisms of Darwinian Evolution.
Edited by - espritch on 11/05/2001 19:38:23 |
|
|
|
ZaphodBeeblebrox
Skeptic Friend
USA
117 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2001 : 22:42:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
An argument against Larmarkian Evolution is not an argument against Darwinian Evolution. It does suggest that you do not understand the basic mechanisms of Darwinian Evolution.
Yeah, that's like claiming that you can disprove that the Sun burns Hydrogen into Helium via the Proton-Proton Reaction, by quoting what Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington remarked after he, successfully, disproved Henry Norris Russell's Theory of Gravitational Contraction, which states that the Sun radiates Light, by Contracting by 70 feet per year:
quote:
I am aware that many critics consider [that] the stars are not hot enough [for Fusion Reactions to occur in their Cores]. The critics lay themselves open to an OBVIOUS RETORT; we tell them to go and find a hotter place. [emphasis mine]
If you Ignore Your Rights, they WILL, go away.
Edited by - ZaphodBeeblebrox on 11/05/2001 22:44:52
Edited by - ZaphodBeeblebrox on 11/05/2001 22:45:37 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
