RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (18) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2006,14:08   

Quote
Comment #97009

Posted by afdave on April 17, 2006 06:58 PM (e)

I can see that the Flank and Davidson have read the book ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’ … I have an idea for a simple, fun exercise. I’m an Electrical Engineer and business man and I used to fly AF jets. I like simple, uncomplicated arguments and I like people to cut to the chase … fast. Let’s say I was undecided about where life on earth came from or how it began. I hear the YECs and the ID people saying it came from an Intelligent Agent/God or whatever. I hear the Darwinists saying it happened by chance evolution. And everybody quotes all these long-winded academic sources. I would love to hear from each of you, everybody in YOUR OWN WORDS, not referring to a single outside source what YOUR theory is and WHY you believe it in 5 simple statements, i.e. the top 5 reasons for your belief. Take me from when and how it all began to where you think its going and why … very short and simple so my pea brain can understand it … try explaining it nicely and politely.

   
Corkscrew



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2006,14:33   

I'm afraid I'm going to go a couple over the five-statement limit - sorry about that :(

1) We know that artificial selective pressures (with a few random mutations thrown in) can give rise to substantial changes in organisms (e.g. chihuahuas vs great danes).

2) We know that the various natural selective pressures can give rise to similar changes, albeit (usually) more slowly (e.g. finch beaks, moth colour schemes, etc).

3) We have a fossil record in which many quite radical transitions are documented in sufficient detail that the individual steps are quite obviously within the scope of the aformentioned selective pressures (e.g. mesonychids to whales).

4) We can even make and confirm non-trivial predictions based on the premise that life is limited to naturalistic evolutionary processes (e.g. the resemblance between one human chromosome and two chimp chromosomes, haemocyanin in stoneflies, Tiktaalik). In other words, it's extremely useful.

5) There is no direct scientific evidence for the presence of a Designer of any sort.

6) The premise that an unspecified intelligent designer did something unspecified at some unspecified point in the process (which is all that ID claims) hasn't given rise to any testable predictions whatsoever. In other words, it's bloody useless.

7) Hence, it's fairly sensible to affirm evolution as a useful scientific concept, and fairly daft to affirm Intelligent Design as a useful scientific concept.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2006,17:48   

Re "what YOUR theory is and WHY you believe it in 5 simple statements"

I don't have a theory that could be called mine.

But as to why I accept the core conclusions of the current theory-

Theory predicts several places in which unexplained contrary evidence could be found*; any such find would put limits on usefulness of the theory. Lots of such finds together would eventually lead to rewrite of theory.

Antievolutionists aren't publishing lists of verifiable contrary evidence.

*Fossils of a taxonomic group way earlier than expected for that taxa; extensive similarity of DNA between one species and a distant taxa, that doesn't show up in closer relatives of that species; close relatives far outside geographic range of their presumed ancestors; a member of a species giving birth to something in a distant taxa.

Henry

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2006,18:26   

5 easy steps....  Harumph!  That's today's American society for you: 10 second news bites because that's the duration of a typical person's attention span.  It's so much easier to believe than to actually think and learn the truth.

Hey, what's that shiny thing? :D

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,00:41   

If I were to play devil's advocate here, could I come up with 5 reasons to accept ID?  Hmmm, maybe I should try...

1.  Um, goddidit.

2.  Evilutionists are just church-burnin', ebola-spreadin', atheists (and atheism is evil, evil, evil!;)

3.  Jesus loves you.

4.  I just can't believe that evolution could be true and my personal disbelief is stronger than any evidence you could come up with.

5.  Goddidit...and did I mention how evil the atheists are?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,03:32   

Thankyou, corkscrew and Henry J for your polite answers.  I would think you other folks would also want to give polite answers if you want others to see the truth of your viewpoint ... just a suggestion!

To answer corkscrew ... I agree with (1) and (2) except that I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial.

As for (3), I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional ... my understanding of mesonychids and whales can be found here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp.  To me the evidence of zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth fits the idea of a global flood quite much better than the alternatives.

I don't quite follow (4)

I would agree with (5) that the evidence for a Designer is not scientific in the sense that you can demonstrate it in the lab.  The reasons I believe there is one are more like the reasons I believe George Washington existed.  

I would also agree that ID is useless by itself because it stops short of identifying a designer.  I am a creationist which means I believe I can identify the designer as the God of the Bible.  This is incredibly useful if you believe as I do that this God wants a relationship with the humans he created and will someday make a new world.  Of course, to arrive at all these conclusions requires much evidence from several disciplines ... science only goes so far.  But contrary to the mudslingers, there is excellent evidence available ... I would never just say something non-sensical like "You just have to have faith".  Many organized religions have done a disservice to lots of people by making statements like this.

A basic outline of my line of reasoning is this (keep in mind I have an Electrical Engineering degree, so I think like an engineer) ...

1)  I see highly sophisticated, biological machines at every level in nature, macro to micro.
2)  I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time.  I have no reason to believe that biological machines would be otherwise--they are made of the same stuff--it all comes from the same periodic table.
3)  Knowing this, it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere--space alien, God, supercomputer in some galaxy--apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea, so I guess I'm not totally crazy with this idea.
4)  Next, I look at the fossil record with the zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and I conclude that there must have been a massive, global flood which buried all those fossils.
5)  Now I pick up a Bible and I find a book that claims that (a) a Designer created life on earth and (b) there was a global flood which buried all these critters I find in the rock layers ... interesting
6)  I'm skeptical of the Bible at first because everyone says "that's just a religious book full of myths", but on closer inspection, I find it to be accurate in every historical detail which is possible to be verified by archaeology.  I read it from cover to cover to give it a fair analysis and I am struck by the accuracy with which it describes human behaviour.  I'm also fascinated with the apparent fulfilled prophecies which involve the rise and fall of major nations and also this incredibly influential person--Jesus of Nazareth.  To be sure, there are things I don't understand, but I'm not so arrogant as to write them off without evidence for doing so.  I know from history that multitudes of people have blindly accepted statements like "that book is just a myth" only to be proven wrong by some guy willing to work hard enough to really examine the evidence.  Of course, many DO turn out to be myths, but I have done my own thorough examination of the Bible, and I have not found it to be a myth.
7)  I put this (and some other factors ... admittedly, this is abbreviated) all together and in my mind and it all adds up to me to make a pretty good case that the Bible is literally true--complete with a real God, the Creation, the Flood, Moses, Jesus ... the whole deal.

I think you will find that there are many folks out there who followed similar lines of reasoning and wound up with the same conclusion.  C.S. Lewis is one prominent individual who was a skeptic for many years, but eventually became a loud proclaimer of Christian tenets.  Lee Stoebel, author of Case for Faith and Case for Christ is another agnostic-turned-Christian.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,04:20   

afdave Says:
April 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pm

Quote
My personal opinion is that our educational institutions–from the public schools to the Ivy League universities have been gradually taken over in the past hundred years or so by the anti-God (anti-supernatural if you will) crowd, basically because good, competent people like our present ID people were not very involved and let them do it. The results in the public schools are obvious and similar results are beginning to show at the college level as well.


http://telicthoughts.com/?p=640

Looks like afdave is not so neutral after all.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,04:20   

Quote
2)  I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time.  I have no reason to believe that biological machines would be otherwise--they are made of the same stuff--it all comes from the same periodic table.
This is the same argument Intelligent design supporters use, and is simply an argument from ignorance, why deosn't fly as proof in science. Many of the people who work with these 'machines'  and help to show how they have evolved are engineers by training.

Quote
apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea
Panspermia has nothing to do with intelligent aliens, it simply states living matter has been deposited on earth one or more times e.g. on meteorites.

Quote
4)  Next, I look at the fossil record with the zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and I conclude that there must have been a massive, global flood which buried all those fossils.
The fossil record does not look like what we expect if the foold were true, but it does fit in with what we would expect from what we understand from geology and evolution, and if these fossils were deposited over millions of years.

Quote
I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial.
Mutations in bacteria and other pathogens confer resistance. Some humans have mutations which give them resistance to AIDS and other diseases, and others that generally make their immune system stronger. Other people have mutations that make their bones stronger.

Quote
I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional
The link you gave doesn't seem to work. Firstly a loose definition of a transitional fossil is one that has some features of one species and some of another, it does not mean the direct desendent of one and the direct ancestor of another. I am not sure about the specific problems you have with the whales, but we have good reason to believe that our current idea of evolution is correct.Each of these fossils get less 'whale like' the further back we go, so the phylogenetic tree fits in with evolution. Constructing the phylogenetic tree when we just had some of the fossils told us where to look for the rest. Also, using the fossil skulls it was possible to reconstruct the acoustics of the ears of these creatures and see that the ears got progressively better at hearing underwater, which is what evolution would predict.

Also with Tiktaalik evolution told us exactly where to look to find the fossil based on where it would fit in the phylogeny. This is why evolution is the best scientific theory because it makes the best predictions. Creation science has made predictions, especially based on flood geology, but these have been shown to be wrong. The fossil record supports a gradual sedimentation, and features such as the grand canyon would look quite different if they were caused by the flood.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,04:21   

afdave:

Well, one small point. Nobody will (I hope) contest that magic is the one-size-fits-all universal all-purpose explanation for everything. It's simple, it requires no knowledge, research, study, or work. And accordingly, no matter how compelling any alternative explanation might be, magic is STILL simpler and easier to understand. And furthermore, no  matter how accurate any alternative might be, magic can't ever be ruled out.

To address some of your other points:

Quote
I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial.

No doubt you haven't. And perhaps there's no doubt you ever will. But your inability to hear really has nothing to do with whether these things happen. I suggest that a mutation is beneficial or not within a context. Let's try a wild example: Let's say you suddenly mutated and became 5 feet taller. Would this be "beneficial"? Well, yes for some purposes, no for others. For sure you would have to change your lifestyle; your new height would be a considerable handicap otherwise. But your NEW lifestyle might be entirely viable, maybe even fabulous. So was this mutation beneficial?

Quote
I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional

While, once again, your awareness doesn't much matter, you may also have a viewpoint issue here. From a more evolutionary viewpoint, ALL fossils are transitional, and indeed ALL organisms alive today are ALSO transitional. Evolution is a constant, permanent state of transition. Granted, it's a very very slow process.

Quote
1)  I see highly sophisticated, biological machines at every level in nature, macro to micro.

Yes, we all do. Of course, you might be trying to stack the deck with the word 'machines'. Let's call a machine, anything with any mechanics.

Quote
I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time.

Yes, I'm an engineer as well, and nothing I create works well without a lot of effort. However, I can notice that the *process* of creation is very different. Give me a billion years to throw darts, and kill off every throw that misses the bullseye, and by golly, what's left is nothing but bullseyes. Must be a miracle, yes?

Quote
it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere

Yes, of course there could. And there we stop, dead-ended. Yep, could be. Can we ever disprove this, even in principle? Nope, we never can. End of the line.

Quote
I look at the fossil record with the zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and I conclude that there must have been a massive, global flood which buried all those fossils.

With all due respect, you are kidding yourself. You have a *magic book* which TOLD you a flood did it, and you don't know enough geology or hydrology to realize this couldn't possibly explain the evidence. But for people not pre-convinced otherwise, this isn't very hard. Floods are common. The effects of floods are thoroughly observed and understood. What floods can and cannot do is beyond any informed dispute. What we observe is the *exact opposite* of what a flood would produce.

Quote
Now I pick up a Bible

Perhaps doing so has caused your inability to understand floods, your inability to understand transitions, your inability to hear about beneficial mutations, etc. At least, this is something to be concerned about.

Quote
on closer inspection, I find it to be accurate in every historical detail which is possible to be verified by archaeology.  I read it from cover to cover to give it a fair analysis and I am struck by the accuracy with which it describes human behaviour.

Well, yes, I would agree. The Bible, as far as we can tell today, contains much of historical accuracy, and people understood other people back then just as they do today. But there is a critical difference between the facts, and the conclusions from the facts. For example, lightning hits a tree. No dispute. Now, WHY did lightning hit that tree? A scientist might talk about differential voltages, leaders coming up from the tree, completed circuits, etc. A theologist might say "God is warning us". Whose interpretation is correct? Who knows?

So we have a very big problem here. You have decided that we cannot (for the most part) dismiss any of the facts in the Bible, and therefore you have decided that the conclusions based on those facts are equally correct. But these are only interpretations, and the distinction needs to be kept clear. We know for a fact that lightning hit the tree. We cannot therefore accept as a fact that some god was trying to tell us anything. It's very different to think the Bible tells deliberate historical falsehoods, and to think that history was filtered through the religious beliefs of the authors. Their beliefs are a different kind of fact.

  
ToSeek



Posts: 33
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,04:34   

Well, I'll just put down the key one for me, but it takes some explaining:

1. There are many potential findings that would blow the theory of evolution completely out of the water. None of these have been found. For example:

- Fossils go neatly from less complex to more complex as time goes by. There are no - none, zero, nada, zilch - anachronisms to be found: rabbits in the Silurian era or human skeletons alongside dinosaurs. How does your flood do that?

- Every living thing ever found can be placed neatly into a family tree. There are no gryphons or centaurs or half-bird, half-mammals.

- Every living things features are consistent with its position in the family tree, from its body plan to its biochemistry to its genetic sequence. (For just one example, the odds of humans and chimpanzees having the same Cytochrome C is something like 1 in 10^90. But they do.) You come up with the same tree no matter what. The odds of that are beyond astronomical, while a single organism that didn't fit would be the death knell for evolution.

- Every living thing uses the same genetic code. One organism with a different code would be an utter failure for evolution.

There's plenty more I could say, but that's the clincher for me.

  
Corkscrew



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,06:20   

Quote
To answer corkscrew ... I agree with (1) and (2) except that I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial.


The classic example here is the "nylon bug" bacterium, in which a single frame shift mutation has apparently transformed a well-documented gene for digesting sugar into an equally well-documented gene for digesting nylon. The interesting thing here is that the modified gene couldn't have existed before nylon was invented, as it completely destroys the bacterium's sugar-eating capability (which would, of course, be instantly fatal in the absence of nylon).

Quote
As for (3), I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional ... my understanding of mesonychids and whales can be found here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp.  To me the evidence of zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth fits the idea of a global flood quite much better than the alternatives.


Disclaimer: I have no interest whatsoever in attacking your religious beliefs. However, the scientific claims of flood geology that are made on the basis of those religious beliefs are, to the best of my understanding, complete mince. The idea is apparently that a massive worldwide flood somehow managed to sort zillions of fossils into exactly the order that would be predicted on the basis of potassium-40 and uranium-235 dating, and no other characteristic. For some unspecified reason, this corresponded very well with the arrangement that would be predicted by species, genus, etc - members of the same species, regardless of age, sex, size or any other factor, always end up in strata that return approximately the same apparent ages when dated.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no physical process that can achieve this. Of course, if you think God was directly involved then that's not a problem - but if you can't make testable hypotheses about how exactly God was involved then your conjectures can't be considered scientific.

Back to the whale evolution. The transition described here looks like:
- Sinonyx
- Pakicetus
- Ambulocetus
- Rodhocetus
- Basilosaurus (note especially that it had land-animal-like feet)
- Dorudon

The only gap there that's significantly bigger than that between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua is the one between Rodhocetus and Basilosaurus. I'm no palaeontologist, but apparently other similarities (such as inner-ear structure) are sufficient to demonstrate a close relationship.

Obviously I can't really reply to the entire Answers in Genesis article here (although if you have any specific questions I'll go away and do the research), but I'd particularly like to critique one comment they make:

Basilosaurus did have small hind limbs (certainly too small for walking), and Teaching Evolution says ‘they were thought to be non-functional.’ But they were probably used for grasping during copulation, according to even other evolutionists.

The claim here appears to be that the fact that Basilosaurus's legs had some purpose means that they can't be pointed to as being vestigial. This is bonkers. Of all the myriad different forms that such graspers could have taken (pincers, tentacles, hooks, suckers, etc.), Basilosaurus just happened to pick a variant that was massively similar in both appearance and structure to limbs used for a completely different purpose by other animals?

Quote
I don't quite follow (4)


I said:
4) We can even make and confirm non-trivial predictions based on the premise that life is limited to naturalistic evolutionary processes (e.g. the resemblance between one human chromosome and two chimp chromosomes, haemocyanin in stoneflies, Tiktaalik). In other words, it's extremely useful.

The hypothesis that species originate only through naturalistic evolutionary processes (rather than divine intervention) can be used to make predictions that can then be tested. Specific examples of these are:

1) It was noted that humans have 23 chromosomes per haploid whereas all our nearest relations have 24. We know from investigation that it's practically impossible to just lose a chromosome's worth of genetic material - that kills the organism quite fast. Thus it was hypothesised that one of the human chromosomes must have resulted from the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. To test this prediction, a comparison was done of chimpanzee chromosomes and human chromosomes. One human chromosome turned out to be effectively identical to two chimp chromosomes (or, at least, to what they'd look like if they'd fused together)

2) Haemocyanin is used by the majority of non-winged arthropods to transport oxygen around their bodies. Winged arthropods use a different system involving tiny capillaries. Since, on other grounds, stoneflies were considered to be "primitive" in comparison to other winged arthropods, it was proposed that they might have vestigial features - such as haemocyanin. This was checked and found to be correct. IIRC, stoneflies are the only winged arthropods known to possess haemocyanin.

3) The recent discovery of Tiktaalik was a classic example of evolutionary predictivity. Based on their hypotheses about the evolutionary path from fish to amphibians, scientists were able to figure out exactly where they should look (in terms of location and strata) if they wanted to find a transitional fossil. They found a transitional fossil. To quote from Nature:
Tiktaalik retains primitive tetrapodomorph features such as dorsal scale cover, paired fins with lepidotrichia, a generalized lower jaw, and separated entopterygoids in the palate, but also possesses a number of derived features of the skull, pectoral girdle and fin, and ribs that are shared with stem tetrapods such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega.
(Quote taken from here)

In short, even if a chorus of angels appeared tomorrow and announced that God had indeed created the world in six days and that evolution had nothing to do with it, scientists would probably still keep using the evolutionary premise because it's so darn useful. In science, predictivity is king, and evolution has a heck of a lot of it.

Quote
I would agree with (5) that the evidence for a Designer is not scientific in the sense that you can demonstrate it in the lab.  The reasons I believe there is one are more like the reasons I believe George Washington existed.


That's fair enough. But, if you don't believe that there's necessarily scientific evidence for a Designer, why support ID? Just to clarify: ID does not just say "there's a Designer"; it says "there's a Designer, and His presence is scientifically detectable". The problem with that is that the vast majority of actual scientists in the relevant fields feel that the ID mob are, uh, not talking via the usual orifice.

Believe whatever you like. Claiming that your beliefs are scientific when they're not, though, is profoundly dishonest, and that's precisely what the DI and co. are doing.

Quote
I would also agree that ID is useless by itself because it stops short of identifying a designer.  I am a creationist which means I believe I can identify the designer as the God of the Bible.  This is incredibly useful if you believe as I do that this God wants a relationship with the humans he created and will someday make a new world.  Of course, to arrive at all these conclusions requires much evidence from several disciplines ... science only goes so far.  But contrary to the mudslingers, there is excellent evidence available ... I would never just say something non-sensical like "You just have to have faith".  Many organized religions have done a disservice to lots of people by making statements like this.


I'm sorry, I didn't go into sufficient detail on what I meant by "useful". When referring to science, this term means "can be used to generate testable predictions". Your belief that the God of the Bible created the world is indeed useful to you, but not in this specific scientific sense. It is not scientifically useful. It makes no testable predictions that have subsequently been confirmed, and as such it can't be evaluated using the scientific method of hypothesis testing and peer review- it's not scientifically tractable.

The reason this is an issue is that this scientific method is specifically tailored so as to home in on highly accurate solutions to scientifically-tractable questions. It homed in on evolutionary biology over 100 years ago, and has since been homing in on increasingly detailed evolutionary descriptions of species' origins. Whether you feel the scientific method is applicable in a given situation is a philosophical question rather than a strictly scientific one, but the fact that science has indeed converged on one solution strongly suggests that this is a scientifically tractable problem - if it weren't, you'd expect the scientific community to be all over the place on this issue, which it manifestly is not.

Quote
A basic outline of my line of reasoning is this (keep in mind I have an Electrical Engineering degree, so I think like an engineer) ...


You might be interested to know that evolutionary processes also function very well as electrical engineers. In particular, genetic algorithms have recently been harnessed to produce highly-efficient chips. This science is still in its infancy, but appears very promising. See this guy's website for more details (I recommend starting with the paper at the bottom of the list).

Evolutionary processes also operate very well at optimising the structure of things like wings and engines, and can be surprisingly good at writing computer programs. Here is a great example - for more, I recommend browsing outwards from the wikipedia page

Quote
2)  I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time.  I have no reason to believe that biological machines would be otherwise--they are made of the same stuff--it all comes from the same periodic table.


As I mentioned, it's entirely possible to evolve solutions to quite complex problems - no intelligence required. The reason why this doesn't occur with non-biological machines is that non-biological machines don't reproduce in any meaningful sense, and hence evolutionary effects can't kick in.

Quote
3)  Knowing this, it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere--space alien, God, supercomputer in some galaxy--apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea, so I guess I'm not totally crazy with this idea.


You may be pleased to hear that that's not something that science can in any way disprove - one would not expect a sufficiently secretive God to be scientifically detectable. There's even an entire theological position about origins known as theistic evolution that proposes that God used evolution to His own ends. It may interest you to know that C. S. Lewis was (broadly speaking) a theistic evolutionist.

Quote
4)  Next, I look at the fossil record with the zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and I conclude that there must have been a massive, global flood which buried all those fossils.


To the best of my knowledge, no geologist has ever come to that conclusion without already having decided that the Bible is literally true. I'm no geologist, but the inference I'd draw from this is that the evidence does not in fact support this viewpoint. I already mentioned one problem (the sorting of fossils); I can look up more if you're interested.

I hope the above verbiage has been vaguely informative for you :)

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,06:51   

Quote (Aardvark @ April 18 2006,09:20)
afdave Says:
April 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pm

Quote
My personal opinion is that our educational institutions–from the public schools to the Ivy League universities have been gradually taken over in the past hundred years or so by the anti-God (anti-supernatural if you will) crowd, basically because good, competent people like our present ID people were not very involved and let them do it. The results in the public schools are obvious and similar results are beginning to show at the college level as well.


http://telicthoughts.com/?p=640

Looks like afdave is not so neutral after all.


Who said anything about me being neutral?  I'm an active Creationist and very involved politically.  I am also an Electrical Engineer, former AF jet pilot, very successful business man, and a large contributor to various causes ... maybe yours if you're nice to me and convince me why I should.  But I try to be polite and I honestly like to hear evolutionists state, in their own words, why they believe in macro-evolution.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,07:06   

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
I would never just say something non-sensical like "You just have to have faith".  

This is the part that fascinates me.  When I were but a whippersnapper, many decades ago, "Faith" was one of the basic tenets of religion.  In fact, many current theologians still believe that to be true, and think that the search for "proof" of God harms religion more than it helps.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,07:29   

Quote
But I try to be polite and I honestly like to hear evolutionists state, in their own words, why they believe in macro-evolution.

Well, it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of evidence. Incredible as it may sound to the unaided ear, opinions based on evidence, tested and honed by reality, are qualitatively different from "beliefs" that people hold because, well, because people hold beliefs.

As a rule, people accept "macro-evolution" because that's the inevitable conclusion supported by all available evidence. People reject it because their religious doctrine can't tolerate it. I have never seen an *informed* rejection (as opposed to a maze of misrepresentations) except on religious grounds. I can respect Kurt Wise, saying that his interpretation of selected scripture trumps reality. Evidence either matters or it does not. Evidence says macroevolution not only happens, but can't be avoided. But if evidence does not matter, then of course belief is all that's left.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,12:02   

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,11:51)
...

Who said anything about me being neutral?  I'm an active Creationist and very involved politically.  I am also an Electrical Engineer, former AF jet pilot, very successful business man, and a large contributor to various causes ... maybe yours if you're nice to me and convince me why I should.  But I try to be polite and I honestly like to hear evolutionists state, in their own words, why they believe in macro-evolution.

Hi,

I believe evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see on Earth.

The main reason that I think this way is that evolution exposes itself to the scientific method and is falsifiable.

If you are talking "origin of life", then evolution has little/nothing to say about that, atm.

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a longer period.

BTW afdave. I came to this argument from the ID POV. So far I have found the "pro-evolutionists" far more honest, open minded and humorous than the ID mob.

In fact, what most anoyed me about ID was the sheer dishonesty of its main suporters.

Have you read the "wedge document"? How unscientific is that?

EDIT: BTW. All fossils are transitional.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,16:11   

AFD said:

Quote
To answer corkscrew ... I agree with (1) and (2) except that I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial.


Here is a beneficial mutation to a protein that was documented in a population in Italy.  It helps reduce the risk of arteriosclerosis (clogged arteries), heart attack, and stroke. The mutation is now becoming fixed in the local population.  There are many others if you cared to look for them - Google is your friend.

beneficial mutation

AFD said:

Quote
As for (3), I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional ... my understanding of mesonychids and whales can be found here


There are literally hundreds of lineages in the fossil record that are considered "transitional" form. Here are but a few:

transitional fossils list

How could you miss the big excitement about the latest tetrapod transitional announced earlier this month, Tiktaalik?  It was in all the papers.

Tiktaalik discovery


For me, the most compelling evidence for the veracity of ToE is the twin nested hierarchies of life:  the tree of ancestry derived from the molecular evidence matches perfectly with the tree of ancestry from the fossil record.  Two completely independent lines of evidence that point unmistakably to the conclusion of common descent.

You can read more about it, and plenty of other evidence here

Evidence for common descent

Note that unlike your AnswersInGenesis source, virtually every article at TalkOrigins is backed up by references and citations to actual peer reviewed scientific research, so you can check the original data yourself.

Combat pilots are supposed to have good situational awareness.  Do you?  Let's see you assess the situation honestly after reading ALL the available evidence.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,16:21   

To add to my previous comments, one thing evolution explains even more directly than it explains origins, is the interrelatedness of species, anatomically, genetically, and geographically. (The only thing Creationism or I.D. even address is why there's life at all.)

Henry

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,17:56   

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
I would also agree that ID is useless by itself because it stops short of identifying a designer.  I am a creationist which means I believe I can identify the designer as the God of the Bible.

Intelligent Design has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, no siree!  </sarcasm>  Would you care to explain why your religious opinion is any better than my own and why I should be forced to adhere to your religious beliefs (learning ID, a religious conjecture, as scientific fact)?

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
3)  Knowing this, it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere--space alien, God, supercomputer in some galaxy--apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea, so I guess I'm not totally crazy with this idea.

Deism has always appealed to me. . . .

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
6)  I'm skeptical of the Bible at first because everyone says "that's just a religious book full of myths", but on closer inspection, I find it to be accurate in every historical detail which is possible to be verified by archaeology.  I read it from cover to cover to give it a fair analysis. . . .

Could you please provide the evidence for the Jewish Exodus from Egypt?  Could you please provide the evidence that Jesus actually lived (outside the Bible, and the Josephus forgery doesn't count)?  As far as a fair analysis, could you please analyze and interpret Deut 20:10-14 for me?

If you'd like, I could recommend a couple "anti-Bible" and/or skeptic sites if you'd like to really learn about the other side of the controversy that is religion.

As far as evolution goes: I don't "believe" it to be true, I "accept" it as true based upon the mountain of evidence in its favor.  Here's a link to a page describing the speciation (macro-evolution) of one salmon species into two in Washington State. Here's 29 evidences of macro-evolution.  Also, here is a comprehensive list of Creationist Claims and their refutations.

I hope everyone can eventually shrug off their religous beliefs and accept science, but I've found that most creationists are unable to accept any inputs that don't affirm their narrow and rigidly-defined worldview.  Therefore, I've encountered very few ex-creationists who accepted the evidence and "switched sides."  I hope, Dave, that you aren't so entrenched in your worldview that you, too, are unable to change it.

Best regards!

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,22:19   

I feel that Afdave would be somewhat put out if we asked him to prove that he could fly a plane, without reference to any outside evidence, nor having the plane with him to demonstrate it, etc etc.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,01:00   

I didn't say "prove" ... obviously, this would require outside sources ... I said I would like to HEAR your theory in your own words and the 5 top reasons WHY you believe it

To those who have been polite enough to accomodate my request, thanks!  Believe it or not, it is quite rare to find unless you specifically ask.

BTW- does anyone know of a good online chart or tree showing current evolutionary understanding of how life developed which covers it all, from single-celled organism to humans, preferably from a well-recognized source?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,01:12   

Quote
does anyone know of a good online chart or tree showing current evolutionary understanding of how life developed which covers it all, from single-celled organism to humans, preferably from a well-recognized source?



This is the best example that I know of.  Obviously, the gazillions of different organisms aren't going to fit on single page, so this tree is clickable, entering into higher and higher categories with each click.

I'm not sure what you consider to be "well recognized", but I hope you find this adequate.  If you should find other trees that surpass this one in either accuracy or thoroughness, please post it. :)

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,01:53   

In return, perhaps AFdave can tell us what kind or level of scientific information it would take for him to change his mind about creationism being correct?

  
Reluctant Cannibal



Posts: 36
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,02:03   

Hello AFDave,

Rather than answer your original question as asked, I will step back and address a more fundamental point. What is an explanation, and why are some explanations more satisfying than others? My apologies if I appear to be wasting your time on something so basic and obvious, but it is usually the unexamined background ideas that give rise to such different views of the world.

You may not be a scientist in a formal way, but all of us act as scientists as we seek explanations in our day to day lives. A good explanation explains why something is the way it is, and more importantly, why it is not different. A truly satisfying explanation fits together logically, gives a deeper understanding of the thing explained, and sometimes illuminates things that might have appeared unrelated. In nature there are alway deeper levels of explanation -- for example, you can understand aerodynamics in terms of fluid mechanics, and fluid mechanics in terms of the physics of molecules. A satisfying explanation leads to more explanations at the deeper level, and suggests new avenues of investigation. An unsatisfying explanation is sterile -- it leads nowhere.

People who accept the evolutionary explanations for the complexity and diversity of life, and who have thought them through and understood them, find those explanations the most satisfying. To them, the alternatives are too simple and superficial, and don't really function as explanations at all.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,05:46   

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
Thankyou, corkscrew and Henry J for your polite answers.  I would think you other folks would also want to give polite answers if you want others to see the truth of your viewpoint ... just a suggestion!

Hey, lighten up, I was just joking.  Geez.

Quote
I would also agree that ID is useless by itself because it stops short of identifying a designer.  I am a creationist which means I believe I can identify the designer as the God of the Bible.  This is incredibly useful if you believe as I do that this God wants a relationship with the humans he created and will someday make a new world.  Of course, to arrive at all these conclusions requires much evidence from several disciplines ... science only goes so far.  But contrary to the mudslingers, there is excellent evidence available ... I would never just say something non-sensical like "You just have to have faith".  Many organized religions have done a disservice to lots of people by making statements like this.

Perhaps you could tell us what evidence you have available and how you think it qualifies as evidence?  Note: I'm not attacking your religion, but it may be helpful to differentiate between what you see as "evidence" and what science can accept as "evidence."

Quote
1)  I see highly sophisticated, biological machines at every level in nature, macro to micro.

Are you sure of that?

Quote
2)  I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time.  I have no reason to believe that biological machines would be otherwise--they are made of the same stuff--it all comes from the same periodic table.

It has been said that more scientific advances come from "Oops" moments than from "Eureka" moments.

Quote
3)  Knowing this, it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere--space alien, God, supercomputer in some galaxy--apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea, so I guess I'm not totally crazy with this idea.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that the could be a designer.  The trick is to show some evidence for it.

Quote
6)  I'm skeptical of the Bible at first because everyone says "that's just a religious book full of myths", but on closer inspection, I find it to be accurate in every historical detail which is possible to be verified by archaeology.  I read it from cover to cover to give it a fair analysis and I am struck by the accuracy with which it describes human behaviour.  I'm also fascinated with the apparent fulfilled prophecies which involve the rise and fall of major nations and also this incredibly influential person--Jesus of Nazareth.  To be sure, there are things I don't understand, but I'm not so arrogant as to write them off without evidence for doing so.  I know from history that multitudes of people have blindly accepted statements like "that book is just a myth" only to be proven wrong by some guy willing to work hard enough to really examine the evidence.  Of course, many DO turn out to be myths, but I have done my own thorough examination of the Bible, and I have not found it to be a myth.

Are you USAF?  I'm just wondering what country you came from where they told you the Bible was a myth.  In this country, we are inundated with Christianity and most don't have the stones to call it a myth.  Also, prophecies are tricky things, considering they usually take a measure of interpretation.  And, it would once again be useful to define "evidence."

Quote
7)  I put this (and some other factors ... admittedly, this is abbreviated) all together and in my mind and it all adds up to me to make a pretty good case that the Bible is literally true--complete with a real God, the Creation, the Flood, Moses, Jesus ... the whole deal.

This is logical fallacy.  If I factually report that a meeting took place at 5, that doesn't mean that I will necessarily factually report what happened at the meeting.  Because some details are correct, doesn't mean that god exists, caused creation in 6 literal days, flooded the world, etc.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,05:57   

It looks to me like AFDave is really MCDave.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,08:05   

Perhaps the most common pattern, let's call it pattern #1:

1) Make statements/ask questions
2) Get tons of excellent replies
3) Either vanish entirely, or ignore all replies and change the subject.

Maybe there's supposed to be a call-and-response, but this congregation is giving the wrong response?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,11:51   

Every head bowed ... every eye closed ... repeat after me ... homina, homina ...

Hey I like that ... MC Dave ...

No seriously, I am an honest-to-goodness Creationist (gasp) with a neck shade other than red and I don't live in a trailer in the South ... oh, to the guy asking about which nationality of AF I was in ... USA ... I flew T-38's and I hear all kinds of people in this country say the Bible is a myth ... co-workers, relatives, you name it ... I am not kidding when I say that I appreciate all you people giving me serious answers on why you believe in (oops ... accept) evolution.  I'll take as many as I can get ...

One more question though ... some guy on the main PT site was insulted that I called him a Darwinist ... said that's like calling an African-American a "nigger" ... what's up with that?

Pretty soon I'll reciprocate and give my 7 points on why I'm a Creationist ... hopefully I won't get too many rotten tomatoes

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,11:54   

Oops ... I forgot I already posted my 7 points earlier ... I'll try to answer objections soon ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
ToSeek



Posts: 33
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,12:00   

Quote (afdave @ April 19 2006,16:51)
One more question though ... some guy on the main PT site was insulted that I called him a Darwinist ... said that's like calling an African-American a "nigger" ... what's up with that?

Well, I'd say that's rather an overreaction, but, still, about the only people who use the term "Darwinists" are creationists. I don't know of anyone who would call themselves a Darwinist.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,12:30   

So what's the proper term?  Evolutionist?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,12:39   

Quote (afdave @ April 19 2006,15:30)
So what's the proper term?  Evolutionist?

You wouldn't call an astrophysicist an "Einsteinian" or "big-banger".

Similarly, for biologists at least, the proper term is not "Evolutionist" or "Dawinian", it's "biologist". Or maybe "immunologist", "geneticist", etc.

There are only a very few, mostly cranky, exceptions to this labeling scheme.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,12:41   

Personally, I've always thought the specific objections to the term "Darwinist" were a little silly. And comparing it to a racial slur is beyond silly.

"Evolutionist" is really no better, though, and I'll tell you why. It's the "ism". Using terms like this for the opposition gives the creationist a little boost from the outset. It amounts to an unstated premise: There are two worldviews here, two "isms" on equal footing, and you have to choose which to believe.

As folks have been telling you here, "belief" is not at issue when assessing the relative merits of scientific hypotheses. And, further, evolution does not come with a worldview. Its adherents run the gamut, politically, religiously, morally, etc. Follow the evidence, all the evidence, not just the bits and peces that can be twisted into supporting a foregone conclusion, and evolution's the only game in town.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,12:41   

Quote

Pretty soon I'll reciprocate and give my 7 points on why I'm a Creationist


Too much jesus, too little science. All done.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,13:04   

Quote
So what's the proper term?  Evolutionist?
An evolutionist is another term for someone who studies evolutionary biology, like someone who studies genetics is a geneticist. Darwinism if you really stretch the definition can refer to the modern synthesis as it existed in the early part of the last century. There is not really a word for someone who accepts modern science who is not a scientist, only for someone like yourself who does not.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,17:06   

Quote
Too much jesus, too little science. All done.


Steve keeps bebopping into this thread with one-liners because secretly he wants a little more Jesus, a little instruction in capitalization rules, and a little less science ...

Hmmmm ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,02:39   

I am a computer engineer and was brought to this debate by the ID side trying to convince me that biologists were hiding facts. After some very convincing arguments and actually beginning to doubt the biologist's explanation, I started to do some of my own research.

What I found was that the ID community was primarily driven not by evidence, but religion. In fact the people who originaly tried to convince me of ID (and claimed that it wasn't religious) were clearly very religious people. ID could very well have some good points, but they try to claim things that they cannot prove. Plus instead of releasing studies, often they only released press releases in response to scientist's studies.

Evolution does not make any claims beyond that which they can show within reason. ID activists claim that Evolution wants to make claims about the origins of life, but the evidence for the origins of life is very sparse and the theory of evolution doesn't touch it because it is so sparse. Occasionally someone does some experiements on how life could have intially formed, but as of yet no conclusions have been drawn, and certainly this is outside of the scope of evolution.

After doing my own research I found that ID's view of evolution tends to be mostly misconceptions and strawmen. To me, this is not a convincing argument, and if I may be so bold, it should not be a convincing argument to anyone. The people who believe in ID WANT to believe. Scientists should not allow their emotions to become involved with the search for facts.

As for myself, I attend church weekly, but remain agnostic. I could probably discuss the Bible and philosophy with the best if I were so inclined, but I find that my perspective tends to only brings out anger with some people so I keep it to myself. I have found that no matter how much arguing I do with someone, I'm never going to change their religious views. People have to want to change their views themselves.

I know this is going to lead nowhere. You, afdave, will not change your opinion. In fact, anyone posting on this forum will probably not change their opinion. We have done all the searching that we need to form our opinions, and drawn our conclusions. I think that here are those of us who wish to be told what to think and then there are those of us who wish to draw their own conclusions. Most people on here try to draw their own conclusions (even you afdave). Of those who wish to draw their own conclusions, some try to be objective and weigh all the evidence while some try to do that while also bringing in a belief system, which really isn't proven by any objective means (at this point in history). The latter method isn't good enough for me.

--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,05:14   

bourgeois_rage:

May I suggest a slightly different emphasis? I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but you might try a different view on for size anyway:

Quote
After doing my own research I found that ID's view of evolution tends to be mostly misconceptions and strawmen. To me, this is not a convincing argument...I think that here are those of us who wish to be told what to think and then there are those of us who wish to draw their own conclusions.

My observation is that the two use methods exactly inverse of one another. Biologists base their conclusions on what their research reveals, and often disagree vociferously on how that evidence is best interpreted. This is healthy, because the points of disagreement pinpoint where clarification is needed, and direct further research appropriately.

Creationists, exactly the contrary, start with their conclusions. The conclusions aren't lousy because they are based on misconceptions and strawmen; rather the misconceptions and strawmen were confected as required to justify foregone conclusions unfortunately refuted by reality.

In a nutshell, biologists draw conclusion from evidence, and creationists manufacture evidence from conclusions.

Quote
some try to be objective and weigh all the evidence while some try to do that while also bringing in a belief system

And so this is probably a misunderstanding. A belief system contrary to fact *prevents* one from weighing evidence, or often even recognizing evidence. The belief system dictates the "evidence". The chronological sequence matters. In biology, evidence->conclusions. In creationism, conclusions->misrepresentations and strawmen.

  
davidS



Posts: 1
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,09:00   

What AFDave requests: to summarize in 5 easy steps 150 years of scientific discovery, reminds me of a parable.

Around 2,000 years ago there were two prominent rabbis, Shamai and Hillel, who led two competing schools of Jewish thought.  A gentile approached each one and asked this question.  "Please explain to me all the teaching of Judaism while I balance on one foot."  Shamai drove the man away from his door.  Hillel responded, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, the rest is commentary."

The Shamai in me wants to beat AFDave with sticks knowing that he is only putting everyone on.  If he were serious, he would not make this obviously ridiculous demand, but first devote himself to true study. The Hillel in me knows this too, but says okay, if I give him my best answer maybe mockery can be converted to thoughtfulness.

And I do think, AFDave, that you have been answered in that spirit in these posts.  I will contribute 3 easy steps.

1) Evolution is simply a description of the natural world connecting all living things through descent from a common ancestor.  The rest is mere detail that changes with new discoveries.

2) Render unto science what is scientific understanding of the material and natural world; render unto God what is religious thought, faith and understanding of the spiritual or supernatural world.

3)  Once you allow your faith to encompass the wisdom of 1 & 2, by the grace of Darwin, you are saved.

  
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,09:40   

Right you are, Flint.

I've never been the best writer in the world, so sometimes my arguments can be somewhat disjointed. I guess my closing line was trying to be somewhat diplomatic.
Quote
some try to be objective and weigh all the evidence while some try to do that while also bringing in a belief system

ID does try to address some of the evidence, but due to their belief system they throw out whatever does not fit in. For instance Carbon dating and radioactive decay seems to be a problem for them. Instead of trying to fit their theory around those tools (which is what scientific theories do), they claim the tools are broken and throw them away. The same can be said of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The sad/funny part is that for those who actually look into the claims, a lot of times the jumps in their logic/coverups are obvious. With ID proponents, they are actively trying to keep themselves in the dark or are being intentionally disingenuous.

Quote

In a nutshell, biologists draw conclusion from evidence, and creationists manufacture evidence from conclusions.

That's probably about as concise as one can be. I endorse this answer to afdave's question.

--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,10:05   

Quote
The sad/funny part is that for those who actually look into the claims, a lot of times the jumps in their logic/coverups are obvious.

One needn't spend a whole long time looking at "global flood" claims to realize that evidence simply doesn't matter. No biblical fable could be more emphatically fiction, in every way possible. Every single detail of the flood before, during, and after is not just impossible but flagrantly, preposterously, insanely impossible. Watching creationists defend the flood is a ringside seat into understanding what faith can do to the brain.

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,10:37   

The thing about the flood, and people looking for physical evidence of it, fail to remember that it was a miracle.

You're probably not going to find physical evidence of something that it physically impossible.

Same goes for Jesus's ressurection. You're not going to prove scientifically that a miracle occured, I don't think.

And as far as machines go, a waterfall is a machine. A river is a machine. The hydrological cycle is a machine.

The sun is a machine. The solar system is a machine.

Hurricanes are machines.

And on and on and on.....

Are all these machines intelligently designed?

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,11:26   

Quote
You're probably not going to find physical evidence of something that it physically impossible.

Of course not. What's fascinating is that those who *expect* to find evidence of the impossible, *do* find it, and the very real evidence to the contrary, they do *not* find.

I have no problem with the notion that the flood was magic, happened in an alternate universe, or was fiction. Whatever renders it immune to actual observation is good enough for me. It's when creationists try to cram a flood into the actual observations that we get our key insight: evidence *does not matter*.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,12:29   

Quote
Watching creationists defend the flood is a ringside seat into understanding what faith can do to the brain.
Yep.
Quote
It's when creationists try to cram a flood into the actual observations that we get our key insight: evidence *does not matter*.
Exactly. Listen to a YEC like Salvador Cordova or Paul Nelson for ten minutes and you get the distinct impression their brains have been replaced with bags of kitty litter. If you believe in Noah's Ark and a 6,000 year old earth and a voice-activated nothingness creating elements of the universe on command, you are (at least) mildly insane.

   
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2006,03:34   

Afdave, I used to be a creationist (and fundie) for a long long time. I started doubting, did a lot of research and realised I had been lied to by the people I trusted most. Even more, I have been spreading their lies as if it was truth, and that made me a liar too. It is better to be honest than to believe. If you really want answers, go and find them for yourself (read, think, learn and repeat). Read the critic material instead of just pro-creationism lies. Gather enough knowledge to make informed choices. You don't even have to be open, just be honest.

If some people here respond to you with personal attacks, don't blame them. And just to repeat what Steven Elliot said, that pro-evolution people are more honest (and open) than creationist/pro-ID people. I'll second that.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,02:47   

Thanks for the explanations ... I wanted to see if there is anything new which might convince me that Macro-Evolution really happened, but there's apparently not ...

Corkscrew had some very thoughtful answers and I was particularly interested in his understanding about whale evolution ... but what I found appears to me to be another case of wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists ... non-existent skeleton parts drawn in to make the skeleton look the way they want it to, etc.  Darwin predicted an enormous number of transitional fossils ... but 140 years later, we only have a handful of disputable examples.  In my opinion, it is too early to draw conclusions about Tiktaalik

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/almostwhale.asp

I have not studied the nylon-eating bacteria, but it sounds interesting.  I guess I should revise my terminology regarding 'beneficial mutations'.  It can be very ambiguous to determine what exactly is 'beneficial.'  How about this?  <i>No one has ever shown me a mutation which INCREASES the information in the organism.</i>  This is probably a less ambiguous statement.

I agree that evolutionists' observation of variation within the living world is quite valid and can be very predictive. Creationists also observe this variation, but we realize that there is no NEW information being added to genomes.  There is only LOSS of information, hence the phenomenon of "dead-end" species, such as cardinals.  I had an interesting dialog one time with an evolutionist about Chihuahaus and Great Danes.  He basically said you could breed back a pair of Chihuahuas to eventually get a "mutt" or even a Great Dane and was citing evolutionary theory to support this.  I'm curious to know if there are other evolutionists who believe this?  All my observation tells me that you have to have the Great Dane info in some "mutt" parents rather far back in time in order to breed a Great Dane.  Once you breed down to a Chihuahua, the Great Dane info is gone--artificially selected out.  This understanding of breeding is why I believe it is entirely possible that all "dog-type" animals, for example--dogs, coyotes, wolves, etc. came from one, genetically rich "dog-kind" pair.

I like your link to the Genetic algorithm, but again, this kind of thing is not "Evolution" in the sense that any new information is being added.  The computer program is just selecting EXISTING information, just like what happens in nature.

It is also baffling to me how evolutionists cannot see evidence for a global flood.  One huge piece of evidence to me is the Grand Canyon.  To me it has always seemed absurd to assume that the Colorado river carved the canyon over millions of years.  A much more plausible explanation to me is that the whole region was laid down by water over a short period of time--after all, it is fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock.  Then as the water subsided, the canyon was carved in what was still soft sediments, then subsequently hardened.  What is so convincing about this hypothesis is that Mt. Saint Helens showed us precisely how this happens.  We have a "mini-Grand Canyon' right there at Mt. Saint Helens and it happened in 1980--no speculation needed at all.  How can evolutionists deny this evidence?  Fossil sorting is also interesting:  what we have in the fossil record is exactly what one would expect to find if there was a global flood due to hydraulic sorting.  

I think the whole Creation/Evolution debate is a very intersting topic and I think it involves a lot of science, philosophy, human prejudice and other factors.  I agree that many pro-evolution people are open-minded.  I think explains why so many excellent scientists are jumping the "Darwin ship" and turning into Creationists.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,02:55   

Quote
No one has ever shown me a mutation which INCREASES the information in the organism.

I love how the Index of Creationist Claims says about this argument, ""It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim,...  

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,03:19   

Quote
No one has ever shown me a mutation which INCREASES the information in the organism.
First could you please define what you mean by information. If a gene duplication occurs and one of the proteins changes to perform a new function, is this not an increase of information?

Quote
This understanding of breeding is why I believe it is entirely possible that all "dog-type" animals, for example--dogs, coyotes, wolves, etc. came from one, genetically rich "dog-kind" pair.
No domestic dogs evolved from wolves. If you think that changes in morphology leading from wolves to other dogs could not have occurred without huge amounts of extra 'information' I suggest you google "evo-devo".

Quote
The computer program is just selecting EXISTING information, just like what happens in nature.
Could you also describe the difference between genotypic and phenotypic information and how we measure the two.

Quote
A much more plausible explanation to me is that the whole region was laid down by water over a short period of time--after all, it is fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock.  Then as the water subsided, the canyon was carved in what was still soft sediments, then subsequently hardened.
Could you please explain how a flood roduced a steep cayon and not a wide shallow one. Also how does the creationist model account for the meanders, and deep perpendicular tributaries.

Quote
Fossil sorting is also interesting:  what we have in the fossil record is exactly what one would expect to find if there was a global flood due to hydraulic sorting.
You convinienty left out microfossils, which are arranged exactly how we would expect if they were deposited gradually.

Quote
I agree that many pro-evolution people are open-minded.  I think explains why so many excellent scientists are jumping the "Darwin ship" and turning into Creationists.
Anyone I might have heard of who has jumped the ship recently?

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,03:32   

Quote
It is also baffling to me how evolutionists cannot see evidence for a global flood.

Because, of course, there is no such evidence. One must defend ignorance of hydrology and geology vigorously to maintain the pretense. This is really fascinating. If the bible hadn't mentioned a flood, nobody looking at the evidence on the ground would ever have had even the slightest cause to suspect one.

Ah well, faith is believing what you know ain't so. "It's when creationists try to cram a flood into the actual observations that we get our key insight: evidence *does not matter*." I see no reason to change this observation. We're not looking at stupid here, we're looking at genuine organic brain damage. Since the only weapon science has (evidence) is utterly useless against this sort of damage, why bother arguing?

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,04:02   

Quote (afdave @ April 24 2006,07:47)
I wanted to see if there is anything new which might convince me that Macro-Evolution really happened, but there's apparently not ...

I wish we had a :rofl: smiley  :D  That quote is so precious

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,05:17   

Voice:

Yes, it highlights the qualitative difference between persuasion and conversion.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,06:18   

RE: "AFDave" ( = "Air Force Dave")

Interestingly, in the early days of Panda's Thumb, there was an obnoxious troll who called himself "Navy Davy". His "persona" on that occasion was the "open-minded evo-skeptic" - i.e. someone who had no particular reason to doubt evolution, but - as an objective outsider with "no dog in the fight" - thought that the case was far from proved, and that mainstream scientists were blinded by dogmatism.

It turns out it was one David Steele, who had previously made a name for himself as an internet troll, posing (?) as an "HIV-skeptic".  When confronted with this, he dissembled and prevaricated, and eventually disappeared.

What a jerk.

What do you think? AFDave, NavyDavy... weird coincidence or persistent troll?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,07:05   

Whoever he is, he is persistent and blinkered.  :)

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,07:57   

Quote
If the bible hadn't mentioned a flood, nobody looking at the evidence on the ground would ever have had even the slightest cause to suspect one.
Just to play devil's advocate, this isn't exactly true.  There are many, many independant flood stories in different cultures.  It's not just the Christian creationists that believe in a large flood.  And the reason is simple.  Almost every culture has come across a fossil of a seashell way up in the mountains somewhere.  Humans need answers to explain such puzzling phenomena.  Not knowing anything about geology, they do know that sea shells hang around bodies of water.  Conclusion: water must've been high to cover the mountians!  Hence, there must've been a big ol' flood at one point.  Everyone likes a good story.  Modern day creationists just prefer a good story over the cold hard facts.  There's something endearing about that.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,08:23   

Quote
Just to play devil's advocate, this isn't exactly true.

Yes, I suppose you're right. As I read it, the data were puzzling for a while. One the one hand, there were seashells on mountaintops, so the water must have got up there somehow. On the other hand, these shells were delicate items perfectly preserved, whereas floods invariably pulverize everything. Not an easy puzzle to solve, I admit.

Evidence of glaciation also has been confusing. Clearly glaciers have left behind the kinds of things floods do - moving large rocks long distances, causing water-type erosion, etc.

And of course, ancient peoples had a great deal of experience with floods - they lived in fertile flood plains, so floods were annual events and some of them were pretty serious. Given all this, it would be surprising if cultures worldwide did NOT have flood-oriented Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan tales.

During the early 1800s, geologists took Noah's Flood for granted, and "found" it wherever they looked -- except for those little details like the perfectly preserved shells. But over the course of 50-60 years, the sheer number of confounding details got too extensive and  pervasive to tune out anymore. An explanation more consistent with all known evidence needed to be developed.

And so, we're back to the response of people when confronted with evidence. Does it matter, or not?

  
Corkscrew



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,12:09   

Quote (afdave @ April 24 2006,07:47)
Thanks for the explanations ... I wanted to see if there is anything new which might convince me that Macro-Evolution really happened, but there's apparently not ...

Corkscrew had some very thoughtful answers and I was particularly interested in his understanding about whale evolution ... but what I found appears to me to be another case of wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists ... non-existent skeleton parts drawn in to make the skeleton look the way they want it to, etc.  Darwin predicted an enormous number of transitional fossils ... but 140 years later, we only have a handful of disputable examples.  In my opinion, it is too early to draw conclusions about Tiktaalik

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/almostwhale.asp

I have not studied the nylon-eating bacteria, but it sounds interesting.  I guess I should revise my terminology regarding 'beneficial mutations'.  It can be very ambiguous to determine what exactly is 'beneficial.'  How about this?  <i>No one has ever shown me a mutation which INCREASES the information in the organism.</i>  This is probably a less ambiguous statement.

I agree that evolutionists' observation of variation within the living world is quite valid and can be very predictive. Creationists also observe this variation, but we realize that there is no NEW information being added to genomes.  There is only LOSS of information, hence the phenomenon of "dead-end" species, such as cardinals.  I had an interesting dialog one time with an evolutionist about Chihuahaus and Great Danes.  He basically said you could breed back a pair of Chihuahuas to eventually get a "mutt" or even a Great Dane and was citing evolutionary theory to support this.  I'm curious to know if there are other evolutionists who believe this?  All my observation tells me that you have to have the Great Dane info in some "mutt" parents rather far back in time in order to breed a Great Dane.  Once you breed down to a Chihuahua, the Great Dane info is gone--artificially selected out.  This understanding of breeding is why I believe it is entirely possible that all "dog-type" animals, for example--dogs, coyotes, wolves, etc. came from one, genetically rich "dog-kind" pair.

I like your link to the Genetic algorithm, but again, this kind of thing is not "Evolution" in the sense that any new information is being added.  The computer program is just selecting EXISTING information, just like what happens in nature.

It is also baffling to me how evolutionists cannot see evidence for a global flood.  One huge piece of evidence to me is the Grand Canyon.  To me it has always seemed absurd to assume that the Colorado river carved the canyon over millions of years.  A much more plausible explanation to me is that the whole region was laid down by water over a short period of time--after all, it is fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock.  Then as the water subsided, the canyon was carved in what was still soft sediments, then subsequently hardened.  What is so convincing about this hypothesis is that Mt. Saint Helens showed us precisely how this happens.  We have a "mini-Grand Canyon' right there at Mt. Saint Helens and it happened in 1980--no speculation needed at all.  How can evolutionists deny this evidence?  Fossil sorting is also interesting:  what we have in the fossil record is exactly what one would expect to find if there was a global flood due to hydraulic sorting.  

I think the whole Creation/Evolution debate is a very intersting topic and I think it involves a lot of science, philosophy, human prejudice and other factors.  I agree that many pro-evolution people are open-minded.  I think explains why so many excellent scientists are jumping the "Darwin ship" and turning into Creationists.

Quote
Corkscrew had some very thoughtful answers and I was particularly interested in his understanding about whale evolution ... but what I found appears to me to be another case of wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists ... non-existent skeleton parts drawn in to make the skeleton look the way they want it to, etc.


I thought you might think that, which is why I carefully chose examples that referred to actual complete skeletons. To the best of my knowledge, none of the fossils I listed were mere "artists' impressions" - they were all either actual fossils or direct, unmodified drawings of the fossils. No parts were added or altered.

If you can see any linked pictures of which this isn't true, please point them out to me and I'll either find better images or retract my support for that fossil.

Quote
Darwin predicted an enormous number of transitional fossils ... but 140 years later, we only have a handful of disputable examples.


Well, technically speaking, according to Darwin every fossil is transitional. It'll take more time than I have at the moment to provide linkey support for this, but I'm given to understand that most of the major transitions are very thoroughly documented. The classic anecdote here is that palaeontologists working on the reptile/mammal transition actually spend hours arguing which of their fossils are reptile-like mammals and which are mammal-like reptiles. This makes no sense unless there's actually a continuum from one to the other.

Quote
I have not studied the nylon-eating bacteria, but it sounds interesting.  I guess I should revise my terminology regarding 'beneficial mutations'.  It can be very ambiguous to determine what exactly is 'beneficial.'  How about this?  <i>No one has ever shown me a mutation which INCREASES the information in the organism.</i>  This is probably a less ambiguous statement.


Now, this is an interesting point for me - in fact, it's actually the one that brought me to this debate in the first place. See, I'm a maths student, and one of my courses is Coding and Cryptography - basically it's Information Theory 101. And the interesting thing about information is that mutations will nearly always increase it. This of course depends on your definition, so I'll run through a couple:

Mathematical definition 1: Shannon information

Shannon information is a measure of the amount of information that a given communication could contain. Say you wander down to breakfast and grunt "good morning" at your wife. That's something you do very often, so it doesn't really tell your wife much about your state of mind.

Now say you wander down, take one look at her and run screaming from the room. Your wife now knows:
a) there's something very unusual happening
b) you're sleeping on the couch
The rarity of this behaviour on your part makes it a high-information communication.

Now, let's say that your behaviour spontaneously mutates - in other words, you pick a random action from your repertoire to perform. There's going to be a half chance that you pick the low-information grunt and a half chance that you pick the high-information scream. Comparing this to your usual behaviour (the grunt), it's easy to see that a random behaviour is going to be higher-information than a "normal" behaviour. This result transfers directly across to study of genetic sequences.

Mathematical definition 2: Kolmogorov complexity

Kolmogorov complexity is, broadly speaking, the length of the shortest program that can generate a given communication. So, for example, the Kolmogorov complexity of "AAAAAAAA" would be very low by comparison to that of "NBCJEDFJLEDLAN". It's fairly easy to see that, going by this definition, most random strings will be higher-information than most non-random strings, since the latter will generally display patterns that can be exploited to reduce the K-complexity.

Layman's definition 1: Data that means something

Since meaning is a purely subjective measure, this is something that is unlikely to be produced by an objective process. One would not expect nature to produce works of Shakespeare, for example. Fortunately for evolution, there's no information of this sort in the genetic code of living creatures. No really. What there is, however, is...

Layman's definition 2: Data that does something

To anyone who isn't a mathematician, this is probably the most interesting definition, and it's undeniable that living systems have it in spades. Fortunately, functionality is a fairly objective measure, so it's entirely possible for objective processes to produce it. In fact, it turns out that this is something evolution is perfectly capable of producing.

In particular, it's fairly hard to deny that information of this sort is produced by genetic algorithms. What's really interesting is the fact that GAs apparently often come up with solutions that humans would never in a million years have considered.

If you can come up with another definition that you believe can't be produced by evolution, I'll happily discuss it.

Quote
I had an interesting dialog one time with an evolutionist about Chihuahaus and Great Danes.  He basically said you could breed back a pair of Chihuahuas to eventually get a "mutt" or even a Great Dane and was citing evolutionary theory to support this.


Well, you could certainly get back something that was Great Dane shaped, although in other, less obvious ways it would probably differ from the original. I'm rather intrigued by your idea that breeding from a wolf to a Chihuahua is possible but breeding from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane isn't - are you suggesting that wild wolves originally had some kind of essence-of-Chihuahua in them alongside the essence-of-Great-Dane?

Quote
Fossil sorting is also interesting:  what we have in the fossil record is exactly what one would expect to find if there was a global flood due to hydraulic sorting.  


Not being a geologist I can't speak about the Grand Canyon stuff, but I already discussed problems with hydraulic sorting. Can you please explain roughly what criteria you would expect a flood to sort carcasses by, so we can compare it to the evidence?

Quote
I agree that many pro-evolution people are open-minded.  I think explains why so many excellent scientists are jumping the "Darwin ship" and turning into Creationists.


I'd note that creationists have been saying this for about the last hundred and fifty years, and yet the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists in relevant fields still support evolution. That suggests that the claim is factually inaccurate.

Just out of interest, could you give a few examples?

  
Corkscrew



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,12:23   

Regards the tree of life thing, this is the best example at present.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,12:46   

By the end of next year genome sequencing will be 100 times quicker and a helluva lot cheaper so that thing's going to grow pretty fast.

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,13:54   

Thanks, Corckscrew - that was most illuminating.  But you intended audience is deaf and blind to all that counter his narrow, flawed POV.

Dave, you mentioned "dog-kind."  I have yet to get a good, rigorous definition of "kind" as it relates to biological entities - do you have one?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,14:17   

Thats easy:
Quote
Kind: A group of animals with similar characteristics for which it isn't possible to imagine how they could share a common ancestor without reading about evolution. Y'know; dogs, horses and stuff.

Similar to
Quote
Macroevolution: Evolution that seems implausible based on a series of mutations. Unless someone who is knowlegable about evolution is present in which case it is evolution that has not directly been observed.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,02:36   

WHALE FRAUD (Is that like Mail Fraud?)

Corkscrew said ...
Quote
Back to the whale evolution. The transition described here looks like:
- Sinonyx
- Pakicetus
- Ambulocetus
- Rodhocetus
- Basilosaurus (note especially that it had land-animal-like feet)
- Dorudon


Sinonyx -- So this is the starting point on the road to a whale?


Pakicetus
Top left:Gingerich’s first reconstruction
Bottom left: what he had actually found
Top right: more complete skeleton
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction


Ambulocetus -- The bones in (B) were what was really found (bones in red were 15 feet ABOVE the others), but the drawing in (A) is what the public sees


Rodhocetus -- Other that your link to an artist's reconstruction, here is all I could find on this one ... Wikipedia says ...
Quote
Rodhocetus balochistanensis is in fact believed to demonstrate a direct evolutionary link to artiodactyls (modern examples of which are hippopotamuses and pigs). This has largely overturned previous fossil-based theories that whales were directly descended from mesonychids, though it matches studies of the genetic relations between whales and other animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodhocetus

Basilosaurus was fully aquatic, so hardly transitional between land mammals and whales. Also, Barbara Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, points out:
Quote
The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales.


Dorudon -- I was only able to find artist's RECONSTRUCTIONS of this fossil ... do you have any links to pictures of what was ACTUALLY found?

Sorry guys ... all this imaginitive artwork just isn't very convincing to me ... especially considering the other lines of evidence pointing to an Intelligent Creator.

Apparently it's not convincing to others either.  In spite of the virtual monopoly that evolution supporters have in schools, magazines, news media, encyclopedias, etc., the public is still not convinced ...

Quote
U.S. Majority Picks Creationism over Evolution
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseac…

Which of these views do you agree with the most? 1. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process; 2. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process; or 3. God created human beings in their present form.

Apr. 2006

God created humans in present form — 53%

Humans evolved, God guided the process — 23%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process — 17%

Source: CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 899 American adults, conducted from Apr. 6 to Apr. 9, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.


--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,02:55   

Quote
Comment #98294

Posted by ben on April 25, 2006 07:49 AM (e) | kill

    afdave:

   why do you still not have a maj ority of people that believe your theory?


Why don’t you have a majority of people who believe in your theory, i.e. that your christian god actually exists? Is your belief system really so poorly-supported by evidence and so poorly-taught that you can only convince 1/3 of people in the world that it has any validity at all?

It’s such a stupid question, afdave. Why don’t a majority of people know that gravity bends light? Why can’t even 1/2 of americans find Iraq on a map? Why do so many people believe in ghosts (48% according to this poll, vs. a 45% minority saying they don’t)?

Should we teach our children that gravity doesn’t bend light, that science can’t say for sure where Iraq is, and that ghosts are real? Who cares what polls say?

   
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,03:03   

Ahh, poll data.  The single most meaningless argument "against" evolution.  And that's saying something, considering the mounds and mounds of meaningless arguments against evolution.  My favorite way of looking at public opinion polls comes from the fine Penn and Teller production called "Bullshit!"

Imagine a rabbit.  It's cute, furry, I believe the one on the show is black and white.  Now, let's all vote on the sex of the rabbit.  It'll probably end up about a 50/50 split, as ignorance of the subject leads to people making decisions based on their own preconceived predjudices.  But even if there was a clean majority one way or the other, it wouldn't actually affect the sex of the rabbit.  85% of the people voting could say it looks like a butch rabbit, so thus must be male, and be wrong.  However, a public opinion poll about the gender of the rabbit doesn't actually affect the fact of the gender of the rabbit.

Public opinion polls that show the country being "against" evolution do nothing to change the simple fact of evolution.  They just go to show that a frighteningly large percent of the population is sadly ignorant of the facts, whether by fault of their education or are even willfully ignorant, and are thus bringing their own preconceived prejudices to the table.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,03:23   

lol also from PT:

Quote
Comment #98297

Posted by afdave on April 25, 2006 08:15 AM (e) | kill

Clarification for ben …

All my references to the Creationist majority are applicable to the USA which is where the poll referred to was taken …

This should have been clear in the original reference to the poll …

Duh, Ben, obviously statistics only count when they support my belief, I mean duh...Ben, you just don't think very carefully.

   
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,03:48   

Oh, and...

Quote
Dorudon -- I was only able to find artist's RECONSTRUCTIONS of this fossil ... do you have any links to pictures of what was ACTUALLY found?


Funny, took me very little search to find a link to this.  It's the University of Michigan paleontology site, showing the highlight of their collection: a quite complete Dorudon.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,03:49   

Quote (afdave @ April 25 2006,07:36)
Sorry guys ... all this imaginitive artwork just isn't very convincing to me ... especially considering the other lines of evidence pointing to an Intelligent Creator.

Ummm, what lines of evidence?  I have yet to see any.  Would you like to provide some?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,04:40   

So all I get is rotten tomatoes and eggs?

Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?  

It's a really simple question, guys ...

Come on, you can do it ... Steve Story?  Moses? Lenny?  Anyone?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,04:45   

Quote
Sorry guys ... all this imaginitive artwork just isn't very convincing to me ... especially considering the other lines of evidence pointing to an Intelligent Creator.

Firstly there have been several finds to create these reconstructions, for exapmle for Ambulocetus when you say all we found is what you have shown, you fail to include we also have this fossil:


You quote that these fossils could be ancestors on hippos and pigs, but this is because they share a common ancestor. Indeed molecular studies have shown that whales are more closely related to ungulates than they are to other mammals.

The geographic evidence of the fossils also fits (the land dwelling creatures were more isolated than their aquatic descendants), and dating of the fossils shows that they started becoming aquatic just after the large canivourus aquatic reptiles died out.

Modern whales have many vestigial trates including muscles for controling the outer ear, and whale embryos gain and loose many structures that their land dwelling ancestors would have had, including hind leg buds.

The envirmonments in which these creatures would have lived transistions from fully terrestrial to fully marine, and the fossils contain oxygen isotopes consistant with transitioning from drinking fresh water to drinking salt water.

A transitional fossil does not mean 'direct descendant of one species and driect ancestor of another', it means a fossil that shows transitional features between the two.

This is why we say the evidence points to evolution, becuase all the different evidence says the same thing, so you need more than 'some of the fossils were partially reconstructed' to prove creation.

I would love to see all the evidence pointing to a designer that isn't a negative argument from ignorance, but I have yet to be shown it. Perhaps you would be so kind.

Ps. you can get all this stuff from googling it's not like it's locked away in dusty journals.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,04:51   

Quote
It's a really simple question, guys

This is true, and the answer is equally simple. Superstition starts being taught MUCH younger than science. Even so, science is very much an acquired viewpoint, because it doesn't come easily to humans - science requires people to *admit error* and to *change their minds based on evidence*, something few people are willing to do.

And I notice we happen to have Exhibit A right here in this thread. By clear illustration, he answers his own question.

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,05:20   

You've gotten some very reasonable answers over in PT to that question (evolution is a very difficult concept to fully grasp, and represents some advance biology, combined with childhood religious indoctrination beginning much earlier than biological study and a willing ignorance among the far right), so what reason do we have to think you'll listen to similar answers over here?  And did you go look at the Dorudon skeleton you demanded?  Seriously, I've seen the likes of you before.  You demand answers, then you ignore the answers, then you demand them again.  Then, when people stop answering demands that you've repeated, you say "aha!  So you have no answer!"

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,05:24   

You understand, wrong answers aren't answers at all. Only right answers are answers. And the pattern follows the lawyer's dictum: Never ask a question if you don't already know the answer.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,05:43   

Quote
Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?  

Same reason your evangelical buddies can't give a definition of molecule, or explain why it's cold in the winter and hot in the summer.

   
ToSeek



Posts: 33
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,05:59   

Quote (afdave @ April 25 2006,09:40)
So all I get is rotten tomatoes and eggs?

Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?  

It's a really simple question, guys ...

Come on, you can do it ... Steve Story?  Moses? Lenny?  Anyone?

The "virtual monopoly" business is a creationist myth. High school and university teachers are intimidated into not teaching views that disagree with creationism by parents and the administrations. (See here if you don't believe me, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.)  Popular books abound on why evolution is wrong and creationism is right, while most scientist think it's too obvious to address.

It is embarrassing that most Americans - unlike citizens of most other countries - are creationists, but only in the same way that it's embarrassing that only about three-fourths of them know that the Earth goes around the Sun, and that most of them can name more Simpsons characters than they can First Amendment rights.

  
Corkscrew



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,07:17   

Huh, afdave may be right about a couple of my original links. I'd interpreted "reconstruction" as meaning only that the artists drew the bones in an anatomically-correct configuration rather than in exactly the configuration they were found, but on reflection I have no idea if this is correct. Can anyone with more knowledge confirm or refute this?

Afdave: I'd note that your comments about the ambulocetus skeleton are totally irrelevant since the one you discussed was considerably less complete than the one I actually linked to. It'd be good if you'd actually read my points before responding to them, rather than assuming that the AiG page has already covered the material - apart from anything else, this approach presupposes that there haven't been any recent palaeontological finds in the relevant areas.

I'd also prefer it if you left off the poll results. If your position is correct then they're irrelevant. If your position is incorrect then they're rubbing our noses in the fact that large numbers of our fellow human beings are credulous idiots. Either way, they come across as more snarky than helpful.

Any thoughts on my comments about information? I'd be interested to get some feedback on that, since it's something that seems to come up rather a lot.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,07:29   

Quote
Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?
I've generally found "afdave" eminently ignorable, but this really is amusing above and beyond the usual.

Quick quiz: where do Americans get more of their information: supermarket tabloids or the college bookstore?  Which of these is more friendly to the creationist perspective?

I suppose it's true, the "evolutionists" have a near-monopoly in the "intelligent and educated" segment of society. It's possible, however, that that suggests something other than bias and bigotry.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,08:03   

Quote
Any thoughts on my comments about information?
Well all the definitions you gave we can show mutations can produce. Thats why they have to invent their own definitions of information.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,14:15   

Quote (Russell @ April 25 2006,12:29)
I suppose it's true, the "evolutionists" have a near-monopoly in the "intelligent and educated" segment of society. It's possible, however, that that suggests something other than bias and bigotry.

What was it Mummert said?  "We are being attacked by the educated segment of society"??

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,15:06   

Indeed, that was the reference I had in mind:
Quote
"Christians are a lot more bold under Bush's leadership, he speaks what a lot of us believe," said [pastor and school parent Ray] Mummert.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said, adding that the school board's declaration is just a first step.

A truly wonderful quote destined to hound creationists for generations to come. Illustrating the principle that many a true word is spoken in stupidity.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,16:06   

Quote (Russell @ April 25 2006,20:06)
Indeed, that was the reference I had in mind:
Quote
"Christians are a lot more bold under Bush's leadership, he speaks what a lot of us believe," said [pastor and school parent Ray] Mummert.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said, adding that the school board's declaration is just a first step.

A truly wonderful quote destined to hound creationists for generations to come. Illustrating the principle that many a true word is spoken in stupidity.

Thank you - a quote for the ages that one  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,16:34   

Wouldn't a viable refutation of evolution (or at least its universality) require evidence of species of complex life arising without having recent nearby predecessors very similar to themselves?

To me the lack of evidence of anything of that sort is a major part of the evidence for the current theory.

Henry

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,00:44   

Supposed Whale Evolution  Hopefully I got it right ... I'm actually trying to give you a fair shake.



Corkscrew--

Thankyou for the information on supposed whale evolution.  While I agree with you that there are some similarities that could be construed from the evidence, the problem (not just for whales, but for human evolution and other supposed progressions) for me has always been that the evidence is just not conclusive enough, and certainly can never be proved enough to teach our kids that it is a fact.  It also can be argued just as easily that the similarities were designed because the Designer wanted them to have similar functions.  No one can "prove" either assertion.

While it is obvious that some of these creatures are similar in form, just as it is obvious that a gorilla is similar in form to a human, there is just no way to prove that one is "more evolved" or "an ancestor or descendant" of the other.  Keep in mind also that fossils that can be considered "transitional" are very few in number.

One glaring difficulty remains for both points of view -- Evolution and Creationism -- we cannot prove either one of them in the sense of the scientific method, i.e. you cannot put a Sinonyx in a lab and observe it evolving into a Blue Whale.  Similarly, I cannot go back in time and observe God creating the universe out of nothing in six days.

However ... and this is VITALLY important ...

You and I make extremely important life and death decisions on a daily basis WITHOUT formal scientific proof ... have you ever thought about that?  If you are like me, you got married to a girl that you are pretty sure is not a mass murderer ... but can you prove she is not?  Well, you could do a criminal background check, I guess, but I didn't on my wife and I don't think many guys do.  So what do you do?  You form a hypothesis that "this is a good girl worthy of marrying." Then you simply collect as much evidence as you can about her (dating) and you make a decision ... to marry her or not.  Driving across bridges is another good one.  I always wonder if those engineers that designed that thing were competent.  Can I prove that they had the proper credentials and knew what they were doing?  Maybe, but it would be a lot of trouble and I don't.  Have there been bridges that broke b/c of poor design?  Yes.  But I drive on it anyway ... going on "faith" if you will.

And on and on we could go with examples of how we operate our lives by putting our "faith" in something or someone that we cannot prove all the facts about.

This is how it is for me with God, and I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around.  Does it ultimately come down to faith?  Yes, but almost everything in life does too, so why should this be a surprise?  Evolutionists also exercise faith.  While their "Evolution Hypothesis" may have some support, no matter how much support they think it has, it ultimately comes down to faith also for reasons already mentioned.  Atheists also have "faith" that they will not burn in #### after they die.

So the debate to me really centers on how well your hypothesis is supported.  My hypothesis comes from a "holy book" --- the Bible.  I freely admit this and am not embarassed at all by it.  I hear that being criticized alot around here, but I can't see that it matters WHERE your hypothesis comes from.  What matters is "How well is your hypothesis supported by the evidence we find?"

In another post, I will outline the overwhelming  evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."

Stay Tuned!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,01:12   

Is it too soon to link to talk.origin's refutation of standard creationist claims, or do I have to wait for afdave to trot out all the standard old canards first?

I mean, the canards he's promising for his next post, not the standard "evolution requires as much faith as creationism" canard, which I believe is CA612.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,01:59   

Quote
Atheists also have "faith" that they will not burn in #### after they die.
Oh I don't have any sort of faith that I won't burn in #### for eternity. I just don't have any evidence of an evil supernatural entity. Only a fantastically evil being could allow an ordinary person such as myself to be tortured eternally. Not being aware of any evil being, I have no worry about such a thing.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,02:07   

there is just no way to prove that one is "more evolved" or "an ancestor or descendant" of the other.  Keep in mind also that fossils that can be considered "transitional" are very few in number.
Quote
While I agree with you that there are some similarities that could be construed from the evidence, the problem (not just for whales, but for human evolution and other supposed progressions) for me has always been that the evidence is just not conclusive enough, and certainly can never be proved enough to teach our kids that it is a fact.
We can't know that it's a fact with 100% certainty, but as I pointed out before when all the different evidence says the same thing its a pretty safe bet that its right.

Quote
It also can be argued just as easily that the similarities were designed because the Designer wanted them to have similar functions.  No one can "prove" either assertion.
But the point is that we understand much about the mechanisms of evolution, and they certainly are able to produce the morphological changes that we see in the whale lineage, same goes for humans. So it will take some positive proof to show that they were in fact created.

Quote
there is just no way to prove that one is "more evolved" or "an ancestor or descendant" of the other.  Keep in mind also that fossils that can be considered "transitional" are very few in number./QUOTE]a transitional fossil isn't supposed to be "an ancestor or descendant" or "more evolved". It is supposed to show characteristics of both.

[QUOTE]One glaring difficulty remains for both points of view -- Evolution and Creationism -- we cannot prove either one of them in the sense of the scientific method, i.e. you cannot put a Sinonyx in a lab and observe it evolving into a Blue Whale.
If you don't think evolution lends itself to the scientific method you either don't understand evolution or the scientific method. It does not require that things be directly observed. It is a matter of competing hypothesis and making predictions amongst other things. See here for more information.

Quote
Evolutionists also exercise faith.  While their "Evolution Hypothesis" may have some support, no matter how much support they think it has, it ultimately comes down to faith also for reasons already mentioned.
Quote
This is how it is for me with God, and I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around.
I disagree based on the evidence. I used to know a creationist, in the sense that she didn't believe in evolution and believed in a young earth. But she was a scientist and she knew that the evidence did not support her beliefs, no matter how much she wanted it to. Everyone sees the world through a lense but with the exception of creationists this is not thick enough to stop science from working.

Quote
In another post, I will outline the overwhelming  evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."
Before you do I would check talk.origins to see the evidence that we have already heard.

  
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,02:14   

Quote
Driving across bridges is another good one.  I always wonder if those engineers that designed that thing were competent.  Can I prove that they had the proper credentials and knew what they were doing?  Maybe, but it would be a lot of trouble and I don't.  Have there been bridges that broke b/c of poor design?  Yes.  But I drive on it anyway ... going on "faith" if you will.

I can see the bridge and observe the bridge's condition. If I wanted I could look up the previous inspection dates and engineering diagrams. And of course I can go and observe people crossing the bridge and make a judgment for myself on the safety of that bridge. I can also go out and stomp on the surface of the bridge to make sure that it is strong. Perhaps I could take smaples of the steel and concrete to analyse their strength. Show me something like that for God. Obviously we don't do this, but we could if we wanted. Because I drive over a bridge does not mean that I should worship your god.
I think a more appropriate analogy would be driving off a cliff expecting to make it to the other side smoothly because the road map (Road Bible?) says that there is a bridge there, even though you cannot clearly see a bridge.
Quote

This is how it is for me with God, and I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around.  Does it ultimately come down to faith?  Yes...

Stop right there. It is the best supported hypothesis around? Then you say that it is supported by faith. I actually think that is the opposite of support. You have faith because there is no support.

--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,03:28   

Steve Story said--
Quote
Not being aware of any evil being, I have no worry about such a thing.

Sort of like all those people in WW2 that didn't think Hitler was a threat?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,03:32   

Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,08:28)
Sort of like all those people in WW2 that didn't think Hitler was a threat?

Yes, it's EXACTLY like all of those people in WW2 who thought Hitler was a mythical creature from a fairy tale.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,03:53   

Chris Hyland said--
Quote
But the point is that we understand much about the mechanisms of evolution, and they certainly are able to produce the morphological changes that we see in the whale lineage, same goes for humans.

You are correct that "micro-evolution" which I prefer to call "Programmed Adaptability" can produce morphological changes such as long beaks/short beaks, dark skin/light skin, straight hair/curly hair, flat nose/pointed nose, fat body/thin body, hairy body/smooth body, etc. etc.  Indeed, my hypothesis --strongly supported by my observation -- is that God designed creatures with this ability to help them survive in varying environments [no space here to prove this, just hold the thought, OK].   But to my knowledge no one has ever observed a gorilla evolving the ability to speak French, German and English.  I've never seen a female chimpanzee evolve to the point where a red-blooded, male college student would say "hubba-hubba" and ask one out on a date [actually, I've known some college students that just might be desperate enough to ask out a chimp, but that is beside the point].  I don't know of a single case where someone has observed legs dissappearing off a whale's body or wings being formed from scales.  And yes, I can conceive of this possibility theoretically, which is what I think evolutionists do, but it just seems incredibly unlikely, and I don't know of anyone who has observed it, all of which is part of why I don't believe it.
Quote
Is it too soon to link to talk.origin's refutation of standard creationist claims, or do I have to wait for afdave to trot out all the standard old canards first?

I would prefer that you give me YOUR arguments in YOUR own words.  I am learning that you guys don't like me to refer you to AIG, and in the same way I don't like to just be shoved off to TalkOrigins.   :)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,04:28   

When I say 'understand' I don't mean 'have observed'. I don't expect to observe something occur that takes thousands or millions of years, unless someone discovers a way to speed up time. I am not talking about small 'traits' that people generally ascribe to particular alleles.

No one expects gorillas to evolve the ability to speak (insert planet of the apes joke here), but we have some good ideas how it happened, and can think of functional intermediates, for example some tribal languages that have a reduced number of vowel sounds would require a 'less evolved' larynx, and a language with just one less evolved still.

Quote
I don't know of a single case where someone has observed legs dissappearing off a whale's body or wings being formed from scales.
As I pointed out in a previous post whale embryos start to develop legs and then loose them. I assume you mean feathers evolving from scales, in which case evolutionary scenarios have been proposed, which fit in directly with recently found fossil intermediates.

Quote
I don't know of anyone who has observed it, all of which is part of why I don't believe it.
I will explain the difference again, we can concieve of how these things can be done by evolution. It does not require the generation of entirely novel genes (ie not duplications), it is mostly to do with the change in expression of genes during development. So large changes such as uses of limbs etc, we can now understand how evolution could have accomplished them. I am pretty sure that no one has observed God creating these things either.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,04:35   

Quote
I would prefer that you give me YOUR arguments in YOUR own words.  I am learning that you guys don't like me to refer you to AIG, and in the same way I don't like to just be shoved off to TalkOrigins.
And I would prefer that motorists invent their own wheels rather than sponging off the work of anonymous prehistoric inventors.

Hey, if AiG states your case, I have no problem with your linking to it. It saves me the trouble of finding out you don't have anything new to say. The TalkOrigins site is a great repository of well stated, well documented information.

You'll notice, too, this key difference between the two sources. The information on TO is continuous with the rest of science: what you might call consilient with the fabric of observations and theory you find in current university textbooks, professional journals, academic conferences, across all scientific disciplines. The AiG information is pretty much the opposite: you have to carefully avoid current research and entire disciplines in order not to see the obvious contradictions.

Sure! Go ahead and cite AiG, if that's your best case. Just don't be all hurt when everyone laughs.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,04:42   

Quote
But to my knowledge no one has ever observed a gorilla evolving the ability to speak French, German and English.  I've never seen a female chimpanzee evolve to the point where a red-blooded, male college student would say "hubba-hubba" and ask one out on a date

Buried in here is the ever-underlying presumption that evolution is the morphing of some existing organism into another existing organism. In this case, afdave is complaining that gorillas haven't evolved the human ability to speak, or that chimpanzees haven't evolved human sexual cues. But humans are NOT the "evolutionary model" which gorillas and chimps have so far failed to achieve.

Creationists have difficulty with more than the slow rate of evolution (few clearly new species have evolved since humans have even existed at all; that's MUCH too short a time to see any extensive biological change). They also seem unable to comprehend that all lifeforms that have ever existed (including all those existing today) are evolving into something never seen before, entirely novel. They NEVER evolve into one another.

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,05:11   

Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,09:53)
I would prefer that you give me YOUR arguments in YOUR own words.  I am learning that you guys don't like me to refer you to AIG, and in the same way I don't like to just be shoved off to TalkOrigins.   :)

To me this says you want us to argue with our hands tied behind our backs by not using established research and sources.  But that's not the way science works, and evolution is a science.  Science is built on the research and findings of those who have gone before.  If you're going to challenge us about the evolution of whales but then say that you don't want to be linked anywhere, well, what are we supposed to do?  Each and every one who wishes to refute you has to what...go dig up for him or her self a complete evolutionary history of the whale?

And can we trust that your promised arguments that will scientifically prove creationism are yours and yours alone, and that you aren't getting any outside help?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,05:45   

Quote
When I say 'understand' I don't mean 'have observed'. I don't expect to observe something occur that takes thousands or millions of years,

Precisely ... DING DING DING.  I think we are finally getting on the same page here ... I have NOT observed "God creating it" and you have NOT observed "Evolution creating it" -- i.e. big morphological changes like scales to wings, new hands where there were no hands, etc.

So ... all I am asking is why can't we agree to just teach the school children something like this ...

"Explaining the origin of life has been attempted by scientists, theologians and philosophers.  The majority of scientists in universities around the world believe life developed from a common ancestor by natural processes over millions of years ... blah, blah, blah.  However, a minority of scientists, a fair number of theologians and philosophers and about half the public believes that life was specially created by a supernatural agent such as the Christian God, the Hindu [whatever--not up on my Hindu deities], the Islamic Allah, etc.  There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both naturalistic and super-naturalistic views, but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side, since the origin of life has never been directly observed.  It is ultimately a matter of personal belief."

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,05:48   

Quote (Flint @ April 26 2006,09:42)
Quote
But to my knowledge no one has ever observed a gorilla evolving the ability to speak French, German and English.  I've never seen a female chimpanzee evolve to the point where a red-blooded, male college student would say "hubba-hubba" and ask one out on a date

Buried in here is the ever-underlying presumption that evolution is the morphing of some existing organism into another existing organism. In this case, afdave is complaining that gorillas haven't evolved the human ability to speak, or that chimpanzees haven't evolved human sexual cues. But humans are NOT the "evolutionary model" which gorillas and chimps have so far failed to achieve.

Creationists have difficulty with more than the slow rate of evolution (few clearly new species have evolved since humans have even existed at all; that's MUCH too short a time to see any extensive biological change). They also seem unable to comprehend that all lifeforms that have ever existed (including all those existing today) are evolving into something never seen before, entirely novel. They NEVER evolve into one another.

The reason for that is that creationists cannot escape their way of thinking, even when they "try". For them, Humans are the pinnacle of creation, sitting on the throne of life. We are perfect in structure and ability, made in the image of our, er, Designer, representing His ultimate and most priceless product. IF evolution were true, shouldn't all living things "aspire" to gain enough XPs to reach our level, so to speak?

Um, sorry about the lame RPG analogy, but I think it shows clearly how creationists must perceive the evolutionary process. In all their supposed humility, they are too arrogant to drop the notion that everything in life has rulers and servants, with themselves on the appropriate side. It's too deep inside their subconcious.

Pathetic, really.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,05:58   

OK, fine, Faid, put the chimps at the top of the heap ... or the mosquitos for all I care ...

The logic works anyway ...

Nice try though!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,06:01   

Quote
"The majority of scientists in universities around the world believe the Pyramids were created by the ancient Egyptians as tombs for their Pharaohs, using the means and knowledge available at the time... blah, blah, blah.  However, a minority of scientists, a fair number of writers and researchers and a substantial portion of the public believes that the Pyramids were created by aliens -from Mars, Venus, the Goa 'Ould [whatever--not up on my Sci-Fi series], Alpha Centaurians, etc.  There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial views, but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side, since the construction of the Pyramids has never been directly observed.  It is ultimately a matter of personal belief."


Aaaah... What an interesting world this would be, if only afdave was even remotely right...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,06:05   

Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,10:58)
OK, fine, Faid, put the chimps at the top of the heap ... or the mosquitos for all I care ...

The logic works anyway ...

Nice try though!

So, life on Earth is a "heap", and it has a "top".

Thanks for making my point clearer, afd.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,06:07   

Yeah, and it would be a pretty groovy world as well with Faid's idea of the food chain order ...

Maybe we could then elect chimps to public office ...

[Yes, I know some would say we did in 2000 ... and I would reply that we did in 1992 ... OK ... OK ... back to the topic]

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,06:27   

Whaaa?

My idea of the "food chain order"?

Food chain? That's what you think evolution is all about- animals getting on top of the "food chain"?

Oh man, and you wanted us to explain evolution to you in 5 sentences?

Tell you what: Next time you go swimming, if you happen to see a white shark, tell him he's got your vote for public office and maybe he'll let you go.
After all, sharks in public office are quite common...

Keep it up, man, it gets better with each of your posts.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,07:04   

AFDave, as has been said, you are spouting boilerplate. There is nothing here but stale rhetoric. However, a couple of points need to be made as often and as forcefully as possible.
Quote
There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both naturalistic and super-naturalistic views,

It's all the same evidence. The difference is that science looks at the evidence in its totality, integrates it with the larger totality of everything that is known, and tries to draw the conclusion that makes the best fit. Creationism proceeds from the conclusion, and cherry-picks anomolous or misconstrued results out of the evidence in order to support that conclusion for the benefit of the credulous.
Creationists want to have 'their own evidence,' but science does not, and could not, proceed on such a basis. The upshot is that a young earth is flatly contradicted by ALL of science.
Quote
but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side,

This is trivially true, as science is not in the business of 'proving' anything.
Quote
since the origin of life has never been directly observed.

ALL observations are mediated to some degree. You're harping on this point as if it weren't true of all science. Whether the observation is a fossil of a fifty-million year dead creature, or the track made by a particle that died a nanosecond after the result was recorded, all obswervations are indirect, and concern past phenomena. If you like, Dave, you can try to argue that the degree to which evolutionary observations are separated in time from the events in question is terribly significant, but you cannot get away with construing it as a difference in kind from any other scientific observation, in any other field.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,07:09   

I will say again, science can deal with historical processes and can test hypothesis based predictions we can make from those processes.

Quote
"Explaining the origin of life has been attempted by scientists, theologians and philosophers.  The majority of scientists in universities around the world believe life developed from a common ancestor by natural processes over millions of years ... blah, blah, blah.  However, a minority of scientists, a fair number of theologians and philosophers and about half the public believes that life was specially created by a supernatural agent such as the Christian God, the Hindu [whatever--not up on my Hindu deities], the Islamic Allah, etc.  There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both naturalistic and super-naturalistic views, but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side, since the origin of life has never been directly observed.  It is ultimately a matter of personal belief."


Firstly the origin of life is not taught in schools. What the public believes is irrelevant to a science class, although maybe not a philosophy of science class, same with theologians and philosophers. I have not seen any evidence to support the supernatural side, and masses of evidence to support the natural side, and like Ken Ham says, we all use the same evidence. To teach this statement would be dishonest, I would prefer:

"The vast majority of scientists believe that life on earth has evolved from one or more common ancestors over the course of billions of years. Although there are a small minority who doubt this view the masses of evidence collected in the past 150 years since the theory was first proposed support it. Although events that occured in the past cannot be proved with 100% accuracy there is no other theory that fits the data and makes predictions better than, and no evidence yet discovered that contradicts evolution. While there are questions regarding the specific mechanisms involved, there is no controvesy among scientists as to whether evolution occurred."

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,08:11   

As often as it has been pointed out, it's still interesting that even the most religion-addled creationist lives 99+% of their lives by drawing probabilistic conclusions from evidence and acting accordingly. If this were not the case, they couldn't function even to the point of swallowing food.

So what we have is narrowly constrained territories of reflexive denial, where the normal process is simply not permitted to be considered. Territories where predefined absolutes are simply beyond anything resembling question, analysis, or reason.

For the terminally creationist, evolution is one of those territories. It can't be true because it IS NOT TRUE. Period. Evidence and the implications of evidence are powerless to cross the border into this territory.

And so it's amusing to watch people deploy evidence and reason against positions evidence and reason played no part in cementing. These are the wrong weapons. The way out of these black holes isn't through persuasion, but through conversion.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:02   

Flint-- It's not a black hole ... it's the light of truth finally being turned on again ... one of your buddies on the main PT blog was lamenting that there were something like 3 conversions from Evolution to Creationism for every 1 the other direction ...

There's a reason for that ...

People are starting not only to see the falsity of blind secularism, but they are also beginning to see its bad fruits.  The 20th century in many ways was a grand experiment in secularism in science and in many other areas and it failed miserably.  Why do you think all these mega-churches are springing up everywhere?  I mean 20,000 people going to ONE CHURCH in a single city!!  These people have heard the Carl Sagans and the Richard Dawkins' and the Stephen Hawkings of the world spout their arrogant, empty atheist tripe and they are just not buying it (Stephen Hawking's own wife didn't buy it).  And its good for YOUR political freedom and mine that they are not.  We've already seen the principles of the "Evolution Religion" implemented in several countries and it was not pretty.  Just think for a moment if people like Faid were rewriting our constitution or making laws ... he thinks the idea of humans sitting on the throne of life is misguided.  Think of the implications of that!

You all are right about one thing ... academia is almost a complete monolith, at least in the area of what you call Science and I call Evolutionary Dogma.  And a such, there is probably no repairing it--replacement is probably required.

But that's OK.

It remains a historical fact that it was BL Creationists (BL=Biblical Literalist) who INVENTED the universities which you and I benefit from today, it was BL Creationists (Newton included) who founded most of the major branches of modern science which you and I also benefit from.  It was BL Creationists who founded Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, and many others to study and proclaim the Truth of Scripture and of Science.

And it will be the BL Creationists who RE-invent both the universities and the disciplines studied within their walls if and when the current ones become unsalvageable.  Not saying we are there yet, but listening to some of you here makes me think it may not be far off.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:11   

Quote
20th century in many ways was a grand experiment in secularism in science and in many other areas and it failed miserably.
Wow. That's right up there with
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture"

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:23   

dave:

Science, to work at all, requires people to be able to admit error and change their minds. For this reason, I think those who can draw conclusions from evidence rather than vice versa will forever be in the tiny minority. Those in the black hole you so enjoy, surrounded by warm fuzzy ignorance, will of course continue to feast on the fruits of science while biting the hand that feeds them that fruit.

So those who value knowledge (and actually know what it is) may be employing the wrong strategy here. Trying to break through the nearly-impermeable barriers of ignorance you gloat about and penetrate all the way to the brains of every student is perhaps philosophically misinformed - it treats all citizens as potential scientists, when in reality very few can ever qualify.

So perhaps we should have two "tracks" in public school, one for those who wish to learn, and one for those who think they already know all they need to. The latter group can drop out as young as possible and attend the mega-church of their choice - which are designed by, and built of materials invented by, those former few who actually learned something.

Cyril Kornbluth suggested something similar long ago, of course.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:24   

Oxford university was founded over 800 years ago. I do not blame those people for assuming that the bible was scientifically accurate, there was not enough evidence to the contrary. Do you see the difference in positions here, it always happens in these kinds of arguments, just look at the thread with Shi for an example. Eventually you see that the evidence does not support your views, so you have to claim atheist conspircay and make sweeping claims about the evils of secularism and how only religion can sort it all out. Even Richard Dawkins has never said that evolution is true because there is no god. We teach evolution because it fits the evidence and makes predictions that help us understand life on earth and cure diseases. If you have any evidence that it is entirely based on secularism I suggest you present it.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:42   

:02-->
Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,16:02)
Just think for a moment if people like Faid were rewriting our constitution or making laws ... he thinks the idea of humans sitting on the throne of life is misguided.  Think of the implications of that!

Oh, stop it, afd. People will think I've deliberately hired you to make my point clearer with every post you make.

Is it really that hard to realize that there is no "Throne of Life" for anyone to sit, humans, or chimps, or mosquitoes - or the worms that will devour us when we die? Do you really believe that we have a divine right -sorry, a Designer-derived right- of absolute rule over all life because we're the "best"? That all living things were meant by right to serve us, the Designer's favorite species? And you say my views have "implications"?
How many years of indoctrination does it take to develop this selective disengaging of the brain?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:43   

Yes.  Please.  We're all waiting and anxious for the evidence that you've been promising us.  You seem to have plenty of time to build strawmen versions of Faid to knock down.  Surely that requires new effort, whereas I'm sure you already have all your evidence that's going to turn the scientific world on its ears.

Though...though why are you going to tell it to us?  Shouldn't you be rushing to the press?  To the nobel committee?  You can disprove 150 years of biological science, and you're going to waste it on us?  I guess we should be honored.

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,12:13   

afdave,
Since your statements seem to be indicating that you are a creationist, would you describe yourself as a young Earth or old Earth creationist?

   
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,13:08   

It seems to me we're taking the wrong tack with Dave (and most other creationists, too).

Let's agree on a couple things:
1. Biological entities do change over long periods of time (evolution happens).
2. The theory of evolution is a well-tested, predictive framework that describes how biological things change over time.

et us all assume, for the sake of argument, that evolution is false.  Dave, what is your testable, predictive framework that describes how biological things change over time that accounts for ALL the evidences that the theory of evolution does, only better?


As for your religious rantings, may I kindly suggest you go read Evil Bible for a while.  In fact, feel free to sign up there and post on the forums.

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,13:32   

Double post - two separate thoughts deserved two separate posts. . . .

All this talk of not personally witnessing evolution (or the pyramids being built) reminds me of a good analogy.

A good friend's house was broken into one night while he was out of town.  He lives a ways out in the country and therefore has no neighbors who could see anything.  The police came out and scoured the house for clues, and found a fingerprint and a shoe print that didn't belong to him.  The fingerprint was run through AFID and a match was found.  Searching the suspect's house turned up a shoe that matched the shoe print, and one of my missing articles.  The suspect was arrested and convicted based only on the evidence.

Dave, according to your, um, logic, the perp should have been let go: no one was there to personally witness him/her commit the crime, so we cannot be certain the person in fact is guilty.  Please explain why.

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,14:02   

Quote (UnMark @ April 26 2006,18:32)
A good friend's house was broken into one night ....and one of my missing articles.  

Either you keep stuff at your friends house or you have an interesting way of referring to yourself. :)

   
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,14:56   

Blech.  I started writing first person, but decided to switch at the end to skip the antisympathy "this is just a story" stuff.  I guess I missed a pronoun in my reread. . . .  I hope it didn't detract too much from the message.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,17:05   

Quote
Dave, according to your, um, logic, the perp should have been let go: no one was there to personally witness him/her commit the crime, so we cannot be certain the person in fact is guilty.  Please explain why.

Hmmm ... where did I say that?  No, I agree the perp is guilty ... we have good evidence.  And in the same way, we also have good evidence for the existence of the God described in the Christian Bible even though we cannot see Him or "prove" He is there.  

You also have evidence that leads you to believe that all life derived from a common ancestor over millions of years even though you didn't watch it happen.

Where we differ is that I believe you have come to a conclusion from the evidence which is not as well supported as my conclusion is.  

I'll elaborate tomorrow morning as promised!  It's been fun!  See you then!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,18:13   

Dave, you said that you don't believe in evolution because no one was around to witness it.  (We'll ignore the several obvious cases of speciation that have actually happened while scientists WERE watching.)  Using this philosophy, since no one saw the person break into my home, the forensic evidence cannot be conclusively used to determine the accused's guilt.

I look forward to your evidence for God's existence.  My searching has turned up exactly none, and I'd like to at least know why.  Since you're willingly putting your beliefs up for scientific review, let me ask you a question: if God is omnipotent, can He create a better God?

Parting thought: God hates people

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,19:06   

...and can He microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it?

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,07:10   

I just posted "AF Dave's God Hypothesis"  as a new topic ... check it out ...

This post, and a fairly recent picture is also at my recently revived blog site airdave.blogspot.com ...

I welcome your comments!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,08:44   

Quote
one of your buddies on the main PT blog was lamenting that there were something like 3 conversions from Evolution to Creationism for every 1 the other direction ...

Love to see some documentation on this.  You are on a debating website.  Don't pull statistics out of your hat.
Quote

People are starting not only to see the falsity of blind secularism, but they are also beginning to see its bad fruits.  The 20th century in many ways was a grand experiment in secularism in science and in many other areas and it failed miserably.  Why do you think all these mega-churches are springing up everywhere?
Breathtaking.  The MegaChurch seen as proof of the fall of Eviloution and science.  What does NASCAR and pork rinds prove then?
Quote
These people have heard the Carl Sagans and the Richard Dawkins' and the Stephen Hawkings of the world spout their arrogant, empty atheist tripe
You are making the mistake of catogorizing confidence in well researched science you don't understand as arrogance.  Don't blame science for not talking slowly enough!  Blame your biology teachers for that.
Quote
We've already seen the principles of the "Evolution Religion" implemented in several countries and it was not pretty.
Yes, here in the USA.  And we have the vaccines to prove it.  Not like in theocracies. Read Flint's excellent post. (Quite right Flint!;)
Quote
Just think for a moment if people like Faid were rewriting our constitution or making laws ... he thinks the idea of humans sitting on the throne of life is misguided.  Think of the implications of that!

Yeah.  He might do something outrageous like taking a stand against torture.  BAD FAID, NO donut for YOU.
Quote
You all are right about one thing ... academia is almost a complete monolith, at least in the area of what you call Science
 Yes, despit the fact that the country is turning to God, the best educated and argueably the brightest minds still belive in their testable theory.  Says volumes, I think.  They stick by their guns and tell the hard truth to the ignorant.  This is not true of the creationists trying to sneak the bible into schools as ID.  I remember the perjury that went on in the Kitzmiller trial.  Lying for Jesus. Ignoring Proverbs 6:16-19 "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
Link to perjury by Allan Bonsell.
Quote

And it will be the BL Creationists who RE-invent both the universities and the disciplines studied within their walls if and when the current ones become unsalvageable.

Well perhaps.  And after that, we will have a renaissance.  Maybe the church will condem scientists again.  But in the end, religion will have to admit that the scientists were right.
Is there any chance that evolution could be explained to you in a manner that you might belive it? Because if not, you are wasting time as a troll.  A closed mind, howling at the intelectual elites.  In the meantime, you are still welcome to vaccines.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,16:30   

Calm down, Seven Popes, we're not planning on condemning scientists ... we're just planning on putting a little balance back into academia ... you know, like Rush Limbaugh balances the libs in politics?

And can I be an intellectual elite also if I can spell "intellectual" and "categorizing" correctly?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,16:47   

What exactly do you mean by balance? Most of the scientists I work with are religious. I have also worked with a biblical literalist but she would at least admit that the scientific evidence does not support her beliefs and that is the point here.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,17:14   

Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,10:58)
OK, fine, Faid, put the chimps at the top of the heap ... or the mosquitos for all I care ...

The logic works anyway ...

Dave, there is no top of the heap.

This is one of the many places where Creationists just go completely off the rails.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,01:10   

Eric, care to follow me in my "chimps for public office" campaign?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,01:18   

Hey Seven Popes ... here's your documentation you asked for ...
Quote
Comment #98068
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 23, 2006 12:06 PM (e) (This is on the 'Of Storks and Babies' Thread on the main PT blog)

What if a few of the “already-converted” start to think a little more deeply about the human condition and, as a result, start to open their minds a bit?

The costs outweigh the benefits.

As I’ve noted, in 20-plus years of anti-creationist organizing, I can count on the fingers of one hand the sum total of all the creationists I’ve ever seen be “converted”.

And indeed, for every one that gives up ID/creationism, there are three or four more ready to take his place. It just doesn’t matter how many ID/creationists we convert —- that simply will not weaken or cripple their movement. No political movement in history has ever been beaten by converting all its members to another view.

We can only beat them as a political movement, by out-ORGANIZING them.


Quote
Dave, there is no top of the heap.

Wow ... that's TWO people now who think there is no 'top of the heap.'  My mind just WHIRLS with fun possibilities for debating this topic ... maybe soon!

Quote
What exactly do you mean by balance?

What I mean by 'balance' is simply that there IS an alternative for explaining origins (besides evolution) that is very plausible to at least half the public.  To me this requires that universities at least allow students to HEAR some of the more common alternatives, such as ID and Creationism.  I see this is happening at Cornell and this is a good start.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,01:25   

You realize you've completely misread that post, don't you?  The good Rev Dr wasn't saying that for every one person converted to the side of reason three more get converted towards Creationism.  He's saying for every one who embraces reason, three more who are already on the side of Creationism show up to take that person's place.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,02:04   

Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,06:18)
Quote
Dave, there is no top of the heap.

Wow ... that's TWO people now who think there is no 'top of the heap.'  My mind just WHIRLS with fun possibilities for debating this topic ...

...Four more years?    :D



To be honest, I was a little surprised at first... I didn't know there were actually any people who thought the process of evolution was a struggle to be crowned "King of All Life".


...But then I remembered you're a YEC.

Whenever you're ready, head-in-the-clouds-dave: Let the fun begin!

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,02:26   

Quote (thurdl01 @ April 28 2006,06:25)
You realize you've completely misread that post, don't you?  The good Rev Dr wasn't saying that for every one person converted to the side of reason three more get converted towards Creationism.  He's saying for every one who embraces reason, three more who are already on the side of Creationism show up to take that person's place.

Seconded.

Although I'm sure Lenny would have a laugh at being quoted as an infallible source.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,05:12   

Lenny's not infallible, just assumed to be a good "sample" of majority PT thought ... and I like his title ... Oh, and I forgot ... where should I send my interpretations of certain posts to have them receive the "official, approved PT interpretation"? :-)

Faid said ...
Quote
To be honest, I was a little surprised at first... I didn't know there were actually any people who thought the process of evolution was a struggle to be crowned "King of All Life".

I don't know of anyone like that either.  I don't think this.  I think humans were CREATED as the "rulers" over all other non-human life.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,05:14   

Quote
I think humans were CREATED as the "rulers" over all other non-human life.

We seem to have nailed the heart of the problem here. Clearly, we have two totally different, mutually exclusive and incompatible conceptions of what the word "think" actually refers to. For some of us, it's a process. For others, it's the total absence of that very process.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,05:28   

Quote (Faid @ April 28 2006,06:10)
Eric, care to follow me in my "chimps for public office" campaign?

I don't know; the last chimp we elected didn't work out so well…

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,07:12   

You're right ... Clinton was a disaster ...

Hey Flint, if you want some good thinking, go look at  my new thread "AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis" where I posted my Testable Predictions for Point 1

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,07:17   

Wait ... let me be more specific, Flint, if you want to get that process you were talking about re-started in your own head, go over to my new thread ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,07:28   

Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,12:12)
You're right ... Clinton was a disaster ...

I said the "last chimp," not the second-to-last chimp.

Given the relative state of the union in both administrations, I'm flabberghasted that you'd confuse the two.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,08:17   

Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,11:12)
Lenny's not infallible, just assumed to be a good "sample" of majority PT thought ... and I like his title ... Oh, and I forgot ... where should I send my interpretations of certain posts to have them receive the "official, approved PT interpretation"? :-)

You make it sound like I'm trying to apply some kind of spin on the statement, but I'm not.  It's just simple reading comprehension.  The good Rev Dr did not say

"And indeed, for every one that gives up ID/creationism, there are three or four more who give up on evolution."

He said

"And indeed, for every one that gives up ID/creationism, there are three or four more ready to take his place."

And the two statements are not equal.  "Ready" implies a pre existance, not a conversion.  This isn't about official interpretations or trying to get PT's approval on things, but I have so little doubt that you've misread what the good Rev Dr said that I have no hesitation to call you on it, even without his official take on it.

Just, ya know, get some reading comprehension skills, that's all you need in this instance.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,11:54   

Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,05:44)
 Atheists also have "faith" that they will not burn in #### after they die.

Your ignorance on most subjects is indeed profound, but that little tidbit simply made me laugh :-)

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,15:44   

Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,10:12)
Faid said ...
Quote
To be honest, I was a little surprised at first... I didn't know there were actually any people who thought the process of evolution was a struggle to be crowned "King of All Life".

I don't know of anyone like that either.  I don't think this.  I think humans were CREATED as the "rulers" over all other non-human life.

Precisely. And that's why you can't even begin to understand how evolution works, and think it's illogical: You won't stop thinking in terms of masters and servants. That was my point from the beginning.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,16:23   

Well, Corkscrew had some fairly convincing arguments on this thread ... and we had a good little dialog ...

I'm glad to hear any you might want to put forward ... and I do actually agree with your point about debating ME, not some PhD that was converted to AIGism ...

I would be interested in seeing how YOU would put forward a basic hypothesis for explaining the universe ... people here accuse me of all kinds of logic and parsimony errors and so on, so it would be interesting to see the shoe on the other foot and see how YOU do would do it ...

Cheers!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,16:52   

What you really need to do, Afdave, is read some insightful literature on the Bible, such as Judah Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF, available on Amazon. You will find it to be an eye-openning enlightening experience.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,17:02   

Thanks.  I'll check it out.

Here's a question for people with er ... more of an Evolutionary mindset ...

How many cultures around the world practice a 7 day week and why?  

I honestly have not studied this, but would like to know ... Of course I know why Western Society does, but I'm curious about other cultures ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,18:52   

[quote=afdave,April 29 2006,22:02][/quote]
Quote
How many cultures around the world practice a 7 day week and why?


Most cultures have seperate cultural calenders.  The 7-day week is thought to have originated in ancient Rome and was then spread worldwide by the British Empire.  There are thoughts that it is linked to ancient Astrology.

The 7-day week has been adopted worldwide primarily for business and snychronisation reasons.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,23:39   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,22:02)
Thanks.  I'll check it out.

Here's a question for people with er ... more of an Evolutionary mindset ...

How many cultures around the world practice a 7 day week and why?  

I honestly have not studied this, but would like to know ... Of course I know why Western Society does, but I'm curious about other cultures ...

Sheesh.

Sure, dave. You have not studied this at all. You just thought you'd suddenly drop this genuine question that's been puzzling you all this time in the middle of an evolution debate, however irrelevant it may seem. Riiight.
Anyway, I'll bite:

Any standard google search should provide you with a multitude of sites concerning the days of the week, if you really wanted to know... Anyway, from the first page: Here's a small summary of the reasons a seven-day week originated in the  early middle-eastern civilizations and also why the weeks of other, culturally separate civilizations that measured time, like the Mayans, are completely different (although equally arbitrary).

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,23:51   

Yes.  I do Google searches about 40 times a day ... but I wanted to know what sources YOU would refer me to ... I've never figured out how to make Google do that for me ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,23:57   

So, you already knew the answers, you just wanted to know what answers we would point you to? And why is that, if I may ask?

Anyway, I hope BBC was to your liking.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,00:47   

One of the reasons I am here at PT is to try and understand how people think who have a different view of life than me ... it is interesting even if I don't agree

Yes, BBC gave me some new information I had not heard before ... as I said, I'm familiar with the Jewish, Roman, Western society reasons for the 7 day week, but not other cultures ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,01:16   

what I don't get is why anyone is giving this afdave turd the time of day, let alone actually arguing with him.  he's clearly not here to learn anything, doesn't have anything to teach anyone else, and doesn't contribute anything but a bunch of irrelevant non-sequiturs, unfunny jokey asides, and empty promises that he might eventually participate in a real debate about any of the issues he pretends to think are in question. why bother?  at least with idiots like Ghost of Paley you get the illusion of an actual discussion about issues this board exists to explore; afdave isn 't even pretending to discuss anything, he just aspires to be a provocative #######.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,01:56   

Quote (afdave @ April 30 2006,05:47)
One of the reasons I am here at PT is to try and understand how people think who have a different view of life than me ... it is interesting even if I don't agree

Yes, BBC gave me some new information I had not heard before ... as I said, I'm familiar with the Jewish, Roman, Western society reasons for the 7 day week, but not other cultures ...

Sorry, I think I should explain why I was a bit snappy:
In forums like this, we often have somebody appear, say that he's new in the evolution/creation debate, and has no real opinion... Then he posts some (usually quite peculiar) question, that he says he would really like to understand and that he hopes we can help him.
Many of us patiently try to answer his question, and explain some basic consepts of evolution to him.
Then he starts to argue, and we see that he is not a sincere person at all: He is another apologetic trying to pass as some neutral inquiring individual, and he tries to catch us with our guard down and twist and manipulate our arguments to what he likes.
Now, of course I know you are not one of those: You were honest and declared your beliefs from the beginning, while they belong to the "Liars for Jesus" variety.
I just think it's important to understand why some of us might have a knee-jerk reaction to someone posting a seemingly irrelevant question out of the blue, saying they are actually looking for an answer- even if his intentions are honest.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,01:34   

Yes.  I understand  there are a lot of "Liars and Scheisters for Jesus" in the world and I try very hard not to be one of them.  I am very sincere about what I believe and I think it is the most rational position, amazing as that may sound to modern scientific ears.  

But I am also very sincere that IF a person from the "Evolution Camp" was to offer a very convincing argument for the fine-tuning of the cosmos, the amazing biological machines, etc., etc., I would adopt that belief and become an Atheist.  My problem is that so far, despite the mass of literature advocating the postion, none of it has been very convincing to me.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,02:35   

Quote
But I am also very sincere that IF a person from the "Evolution Camp" was to offer a very convincing argument for the fine-tuning of the cosmos
Thats more a question for someone form the cosmology campl don't you think. Don't confuse evolution with atheism, it says nothing about the origin of the universe or whether or not some kind of God exists.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:13   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,06:34)
 But I am also very sincere that IF a person from the "Evolution Camp" was to offer a very convincing argument for the fine-tuning of the cosmos, the amazing biological machines, etc., etc., I would adopt that belief and become an Atheist.  

Why?  You seem under the terribly mistaken and totally confused and irrational belief that someone who believes in evolution cannot believe in God.  And quite honestly, I don't think God would be very ompressed with that attitude.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:41   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,06:34)
But I am also very sincere that IF a person from the "Evolution Camp" was to offer a very convincing argument for the fine-tuning of the cosmos, the amazing biological machines, etc., etc., I would adopt that belief and become an Atheist.  My problem is that so far, despite the mass of literature advocating the postion, none of it has been very convincing to me.

I believe you are being sincere to us, dave. I'm just not sure that you are being sincere to yourself when you say that.

Try to conduct an "experiment" on yourself and the way you think: You previously thought (and correct me if I'm wrong, which is quite possible) that the fact all these cultures have a seven-day week is a good argument for it's divine origin.
Now that you were pointed to all the historical evidence that show the concept of a seven day week is of human devise, has your belief in its divine roots been questioned in your mind, even in the slightest?
Can you think of any argument, or proof, empirical data, or even supernatural revelation, that would do that to any aspect of your beliefs?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:47   

Quote
what I don't get is why anyone is giving this afdave turd the time of day, let alone actually arguing with him.  he's clearly not here to learn anything, doesn't have anything to teach anyone else, and doesn't contribute anything but a bunch of irrelevant non-sequiturs, unfunny jokey asides, and empty promises that he might eventually participate in a real debate about any of the issues he pretends to think are in question. why bother?


Comedy value, and since the regular trolls have been a bit silent.

  
TCE



Posts: 3
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,06:53   

:00-->
Quote (afdave @ April 19 2006,06:00)
I didn't say "prove" ... obviously, this would require outside sources ... I said I would like to HEAR your theory in your own words and the 5 top reasons WHY you believe it

To those who have been polite enough to accomodate my request, thanks!  Believe it or not, it is quite rare to find unless you specifically ask.

BTW- does anyone know of a good online chart or tree showing current evolutionary understanding of how life developed which covers it all, from single-celled organism to humans, preferably from a well-recognized source?


BTW - does anyone know of a good online chart or tree showing current biblical understanding of how life developed which covers it all, from Adam and Eve to this generation, complete with each family name, preferably from a well-recognized source?

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,07:27   

Quote
BTW - does anyone know of a good online chart or tree showing current biblical understanding...

There are probably as many of these as there are religious sects - well over 10,000. Your error lies in the misuse of the word "understanding." Anyone who understood anything wouldn't bother with any such exercise.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,15:20   

Quote (Faid @ April 28 2006,07:04)
I didn't know there were actually any people who thought the process of evolution was a struggle to be crowned "King of All Life".

That's why the  bacteria beat us to the title; "King of all Life," because you didn't even know you were  playing -- and even the creationists who thought we were playing got the rules wrong.

Next time -- PAY ATTENTION!

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,16:41   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,22:02)
Thanks.  I'll check it out.

Here's a question for people with er ... more of an Evolutionary mindset ...

How many cultures around the world practice a 7 day week and why?  

I honestly have not studied this, but would like to know ... Of course I know why Western Society does, but I'm curious about other cultures ...

Dave would it surprise you to know that the seven day week occurs because there are seven planets visible to the naked eye.  The ancients associated a planet with each day of the week.  If you spoke any romance language (French, Spanish, Italien) this would be much more obvious to you.  The seven day week predated the abrahamic tradition which borrowed the concept from pagan babylon.
Google:  days of the week named after planets

Edit:  Ok so I didn't read far enough before posting.  Aardvark and Faid already hit this.

PS Dave, the key to a good google search is using more relevant words than just one or two.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:21   

Well, well ... the old 'Prove Evolution to AFD' thread came back from the dead ...

Don't tell Wesley!  He thinks I have too many balls in the air already!

Yes.  I knew about the planet thing.  I actually speak quite a bit of Spanish and Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).

I'm not sure which is the older tradition ... the planet thing or the 'God made the world in seven days' thing.  Nice item for study some time though.

I've pretty much got Google down pat ... sometimes I just like to hear what links you guys refer me to, but thanks for the tip!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:26   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,22:21)
Well, well ... the old 'Prove Evolution to AFD' thread came back from the dead ...

Don't tell Wesley!  He thinks I have too many balls in the air already!

Yes.  I knew about the planet thing.  I actually speak quite a bit of Spanish and Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).

I'm not sure which is the older tradition ... the planet thing or the 'God made the world in seven days' thing.  Nice item for study some time though.

I've pretty much got Google down pat ... sometimes I just like to hear what links you guys refer me to, but thanks for the tip!

Uh, Dave?  If you knew how to google, you'd have found out that Portuguese is not Spanish and French mixed.  
Quote
Portuguese developed in the Western Iberian Peninsula from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists starting in the 3rd century BC. The language began to diverge from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, and started to be used in written documents around the 9th century. By the 15th century it had become a mature language with a rich literature. In all aspects — phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax — Portuguese is essentially the result of an organic evolution of Vulgar Latin, with relatively minor influences from other languages.
from a source that even you can probably find.

Idiot.

And from a historical point of view, the Babylonians (who developed the seven day week) predate the Jewish scriptures by a thousand years or so.

Do try to learn something from all that 'googling' you do, won't you?  Thanks.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:31   

####, you beat me to it.  I was kinda hoping he would expound on the history of the portuguese language for us.

oh well.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:35   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 18 2006,22:31)
####, you beat me to it.  I was kinda hoping he would expound on the history of the portuguese language for us.

oh well.

My apologies, sir.  'twas a moment of weekness on my part....

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,18:27   

meh, no worries.

I'm actually hoping Dave will entertain my request to show us his thinking on other issues anyway.

Dave - take a gander at the discussion between Steve and I over on the other thread for background.

once you have looked at that:

could you link to somewhere where you have threads or written discussion documenting your thoughts in an area where you have some expertise?

you said you had an engineering degree.  Is there somewhere you have discussed a topic in engineering where your knowledge base is more detailed than on the topic of ToE?

you could show us you actually DO have the capacity for rational argument, at least with topics you have familiarity with.

humor me?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,00:26   

Quote
Uh, Dave?  If you knew how to google, you'd have found out that Portuguese is not Spanish and French mixed.   Quote  
Portuguese developed in the Western Iberian Peninsula from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists starting in the 3rd century BC. The language began to diverge from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, and started to be used in written documents around the 9th century. By the 15th century it had become a mature language with a rich literature. In all aspects — phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax — Portuguese is essentially the result of an organic evolution of Vulgar Latin, with relatively minor influences from other languages.
from a source that even you can probably find.

Idiot.


Oh really?  How much money do you want to risk that I'm wrong?  Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?  

(You need a Paypal account to be eligible)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,00:57   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,05:26)
Quote
Uh, Dave?  If you knew how to google, you'd have found out that Portuguese is not Spanish and French mixed.   Quote  
Portuguese developed in the Western Iberian Peninsula from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists starting in the 3rd century BC. The language began to diverge from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, and started to be used in written documents around the 9th century. By the 15th century it had become a mature language with a rich literature. In all aspects — phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax — Portuguese is essentially the result of an organic evolution of Vulgar Latin, with relatively minor influences from other languages.
from a source that even you can probably find.

Idiot.


Oh really?  How much money do you want to risk that I'm wrong?  Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?

I don't think either side is completely wrong -- but I'm not willing to bet.

Spanish and Portuguese are certainly very close relatives (relative to any other languages) but you probably can't really set a year for the split, as Dave does by saying it happened in 1143 AD.

When it is said that Portuguese developed from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists and diverged from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire ... well, check to see if that doesn't also describe Spanish -- if not also most other European languages.

You think defining when species finally split apart is hard when you've got ring species and jackasses? I'm sure defining language species is even harder.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,02:24   

Quote (Faid @ May 01 2006,08:41)
Try to conduct an "experiment" on yourself and the way you think: You previously thought (and correct me if I'm wrong, which is quite possible) that the fact all these cultures have a seven-day week is a good argument for it's divine origin.
Now that you were pointed to all the historical evidence that show the concept of a seven day week is of human devise, has your belief in its divine roots been questioned in your mind, even in the slightest?
Can you think of any argument, or proof, empirical data, or even supernatural revelation, that would do that to any aspect of your beliefs?

Quote
I'm not sure which is the older tradition ... the planet thing or the 'God made the world in seven days' thing.  Nice item for study some time though.


Well, it seems my old question was finally answered. Thanks Dave.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,03:13   

Dave, this was your statement:
Quote
Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).


As I pointed out in my citation, you are blatantly, embarrassingly, painfully wrong.

But like most fundies, your ego doesn't permit you to admit that you could ever be wrong.  So you lie about it by claiming something different:
Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.


So now you are lying about what you said because you're not man enough to admit to being mistaken.

You're hilarious Dave.  Dumb, but hilarious.  You're not related to Dave Scot "Springer-Spaniel", are you?

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,03:26   

Oh, and Dave, when you wrote "googling", perhaps you meant "goggling"?  It would explain why you got the break-out of Portugal wrong.
Quote
Portugal traces its national origin to 24 June 1128 with the Battle of São Mamede. Afonso proclaimed himself first Prince of Portugal and in 1139 the first King of Portugal. By 1143, with the assistance of a representant of the Holy See at the conference of Zamora, Portugal was formally recognized as independent, with the prince recognized as Dux Portucalensis. In 1179, Afonso I was declared, by the Pope, as king. After the Battle of São Mamede, the first capital of Portugal was Guimarães, from which the first king ruled. Later, when Portugal was already officially independent, he ruled from Coimbra.
also from Wikipedia.  Henry was already dead.

Admitting that you made a stupid statement is quite easy Dave; and it would demonstrate that you have some shred of intellectual integrity.

But if you really wish to continue to dig this particular grave for yourself, you go right ahead.

Oh, and remember: the seven day week preceeds the Bible by a thousand years or so.  And remember the Jews went into exile in... Babylon - where that week was invented.

It's fairly clear what a rational person would conclude from that.  Let's see what you conclude, shall we?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,03:37   

Rilke--

You keep saying I'm wrong, but you haven't put your money where your mouth is.  Just tell me how much money it's going to be ...

$500 says I can prove my statement (my later, more specific statement).  Are you willing to put up $500 and prove me wrong?

You know the wager ... it's as clear as a bell ...

Now are you going to back up your claim?  Or are you going to retract it and apologize?  Or shall I embarrass you publicly in front of all your friends?

Your choice, sweetie.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,04:02   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,05:26)
Oh really?  How much money do you want to risk that I'm wrong?  Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?  

(You need a Paypal account to be eligible)

That depends.  Are we allowed to use the same "arguments" and "logic" to establish the complete and utter independence of the Portuguese and French languages as you use in the apes/humans thread?

After all, while French and Portuguese share many, many letter combinations, I can show you that the word "idiot", common to both languages, is also common to German and English. Since no one in his right mind would argue that these languages are related to French and Portuguese, it is obvious that any and all shared letter combinations (and word meanings, grammar, etc.) could arise independently in each language, and there is absolutely no reason to infer common descent ("common design" theory is just as good!;).

When do I get my money?

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,04:07   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,08:37)
Rilke--

You keep saying I'm wrong, but you haven't put your money where your mouth is.  Just tell me how much money it's going to be ...

$500 says I can prove my statement (my later, more specific statement).  Are you willing to put up $500 and prove me wrong?

You know the wager ... it's as clear as a bell ...

Now are you going to back up your claim?  Or are you going to retract it and apologize?  Or shall I embarrass you publicly in front of all your friends?

Your choice, sweetie.

Embarass me?  When you're the one who made the bone-headed statement?

To paraphrase out local village idiot: what planet are you on, my child?

Besides, you haven't addressed the fact that you're changing your story again.

Why should I take your money when you can't even tell the truth about what you've said?  No statement you've made to date can be considered reliable.

Admit it: you're just a sixteen-year old who can't get a date.  :D

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,04:17   

Hmm.

Quote
Main article: History of Portuguese
Portuguese developed in the Western Iberian Peninsula from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists starting in the 3rd century BC. The language began to diverge from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, and started to be used in written documents around the 9th century. By the 15th century it had become a mature language with a rich literature. In all aspects — phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax — Portuguese is essentially the result of an organic evolution of Vulgar Latin, with relatively minor influences from other languages.


...Oh, what do I care. Fine Dave, Wikipedia is wrong (won't be the first time) and you're right (that, however)...
So, how 'bout proving that "young earth" story now?

incorygible:   :D  :D  :D

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,04:40   

Rilke--

Here's my statement again ...  
Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.


In short, Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French, which is what I said at first.

Are you going to challenge me or not?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,05:41   

Um... Dave...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Portuguese_language

http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/literatura/eng/LINGUA.HTM

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Portuguese/Portuguese.html

http://www.linguaportuguesa.ufrn.br/en_2.php

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html

...There doesn't seem to be much dispute over this issue.
Unless you know something the rest of the world does not.

BTW, I think that challenging people on their views in internet debates with money bets is kinda lame.
Even Dembski just wagered a bottle of scotch (not that he ever delivered).
Just FYI  :(

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,05:57   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,09:40)
Rilke--

Here's my statement again ...  
Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.


In short, Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French, which is what I said at first.

Are you going to challenge me or not?

Are you repeating your factually incorrect statement for some reason, Dave?  Argument ad nauseum, perhaps?

You should save your money for your goggling habit; you would lose it.  is that what guys do?  Assuage their loss of manhood by offering money?  Tacky.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,06:04   

I really should take your money, but I know you need the pocket change:
Quote
1137   Moors attack Leiria and Dom Afonso Henriques fails to conquer Lisbon from Moors
1139 26th July - Battle of Ourique - Dom Afonso Henriques defeats on the Almoravids army led by Ali ibn Yusuf and four other Emirs - Dom Henriques Afonso declares himself King of Portugal and its independence from the Kingdom of León and Castile
1139 1st November - Dom Afonso Henriques (Afonso I), crowned King of Portugal in Bragança (1139 - 1185) - Reign of House of Burgundy
1140 The Knights "Hospitalier" receive lands and privileges from Dom Afonso Henriques
1140 Tournament and Armistice of Arcos de Valdevez - Dom Afonso Henriques takes possession of southern Galicia which causes Don Alfonso VII to invade Portugal. After a joust between the Knights the Portuguese win and are granted part of southern Galicia
1142 Leiria receives town rights and privileges from Dom Afonso Henriques
1143 Treaty of Zamora - Don Alfonso VII of Castile and León recognises the Kingdom of Portugal and both Kings agree to a peace period
1143 Afonso I declares his allegiance with a payment of money to Pope Innocent II and places his kingdom under the protection of Saint Peter and the Holy See
1144 The Muridun (Disciples) led by Abul-Qasim Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Quasi rebel in the Algarve against power of Seville - Ibn al-Mundhir takes Silves with the support of the Governor of Beja, Sidray ibn Wazir. Ibn al-Mubndhir and Sidray ibn Wazir take Monchique castle - and with only a further 20 men they take by surprise the castle of Mértola - the Taifas of Mértola and Silves return to independence from Seville
1144 The Order of Cistercians is installed at Tarouca
1145 Moor army retakes Leiria
1145 Taifa of Badajoz becomes independent and conquers the Taifa of Mértola
1146 Taifa of Mértola in the Alentejo regains its independence from Taifa of Badajoz
1146 Marriage of Dom Afonso Henriques with Dona Mafalda of Savoy
1147 March - Dom Afonso Henriques captures Óbidos, Santarém, Tomar and Torres Novas from Moors
1147 Crusader Fleet on route to the Holy Land arrives in Porto and are convinced by Bishop of Porto to sail onto Lisbon to assist Dom Afonso Henriques
1147 October - Capture from Moors of town of Lisbon with assistance from Gilbert of Hastings and the Crusaders. Gilbert appointed Bishop of Lisbon
1147 Dom Afonso Henriques orders construction of Church and Monastery of São Vicente de Fora
1147 Dom Afonso Henriques captures Almada, Palmela and Sintra from Moors
1149 New Berber Dynasty of the Almohades conquers north Africa and invades Iberian Peninsular
Hm. No Henry in there, Dave.

Here's the thing: a real man would simply admit error, and we could move on.  But you can't do that, can you?  Your fundie-ego won't let you admit that you made a goof; inerrancy is your stock in trade.

But just think of the intellectual integrity you'd display if you were to do so!  From 0 to 0.000005 in only a single statement!

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,06:33   

Quote (Faid @ a couple posts up, a few minutes ago)
BTW, I think that challenging people on their views in internet debates with money bets is kinda lame.

Especially for a self proclaimed Christian.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,08:44   

Quote
Portugal traces its national origin to 24 June 1128 with the Battle of São Mamede. Afonso proclaimed himself first Prince of Portugal and in 1139 the first King of Portugal. By 1143, with the assistance of a representant of the Holy See at the conference of Zamora, Portugal was formally recognized as independent, with the prince recognized as Dux Portucalensis. In 1179, Afonso I was declared, by the Pope, as king. After the Battle of São Mamede, the first capital of Portugal was Guimarães, from which the first king ruled. Later, when Portugal was already officially independent, he ruled from Coimbra.


Rilke--  Check to see who Afonso's father was.  You'll find in was Henry of Burgundy, a French nobleman who helped fight the Muslims.

Now, since everybody is whining on your behalf, I'll lower the wager.  You tell me what you are willing to risk to prove you superiority and my idiocy.

I wouldn't hold your feet to the fire, Rilke, but you were pretty rash and blatant and bold.  I'll give you a hint ... Sometimes you get what you pay for on Wikipedia.

If you want to keep being a jerk, I'm going to shine a bigger and bigger spotlight on you ... otherwise, I'll drop it and we'll move on.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,08:50   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,13:44)
Rilke--  Check to see who Afonso's father was.  You'll find in was Henry of Burgundy, a French nobleman who helped fight the Muslims.

I don't know anything about the history of Portugal, and hardly anything about linguistics, but I do know this: Dave's original claim was that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish. Arguing about who ruled Portugal when, and where that person was originally from, advances Dave's argument not a bit.

If you're going to have an argument about linguistics, have an argument about linguistics, not about medieval European history.

And in the meantime, how are you doing with the Theobald article, Dave?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,08:57   

My reference book agrees with Rilkes Grandaughter.  Its "The Pimlico encycolpaedia of the Middle Ages", published in 1999.  

What it also says about the formation of Portugal is that the Northern part of what we now knwo as POrtugal was first reffered to by that name in the mid 800's, when it had its own governor.  In the eearly 1000's Ferdidnand the first of Castile and Leon took control, and then his Kingdom was divided amongst his children after his death.  So, in the early 1100's, feuding was going on, ldeaing to Alfonso seizing the throne from his mother in 1128.
Now, even if some Henry bloke was Alfonsos dad, that has nothing whatsoever to do with Daves claimed date of 1143, since by that time Alfonso was in charge, and that date was when Spain recognised Portugal as a country in its own right.

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:06   

Just a suggestion, RGD -- better make dafve specify what he means by 'mixture'.
On the typical meaning of the word, his claim is false on the face of it -- Portugese is not a 'mixture' of French and English, any more than English is a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, French and Celtic.
And that was, after all, his specific claim.
Almost as ludicrous as his claims that an entity "outside" of space and time can nonetheless be a causal agent, or that a singular intelligence is possible, or that an intelligence without corporeality is possible.
Or that YEC makes sense and is plausible.
Or that the Bible has anything to do with morality in any positive sense.
The list is longer than he is...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:07   

Quote (ericmurphy @ May 19 2006,13:50)
[quote=afdave,May 19 2006,13:44]

If you're going to have an argument about linguistics, have an argument about linguistics, not about medieval European history.

I'm sure we'd like to, but so far Dave hasnt produced any arguments, just a bald statement.  

It seems that Henry of Burgundy was dead in 1112:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%2C_Count_of_Portugal

Now, what was Daves statement again?

Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:15   

Quote
Oh really?  How much money do you want to risk that I'm wrong?  Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?
AFDave, I have a Paypal account, and I will bet you $1000 that Portugal did not break away in 1143 under the control of Henry of Burgundy.

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:22   

Davey-dog. You are an idiot. Define Spanish. Be careful, that's a trick question. Next Define spanish around the time of song of roland.  

I'll take your bet. But the stakes are different. If I win, I get to write a post on your blog, if you win, you get to write a post for my blog. and one more thing, please answer some age of the earth questions.


Just because I think you are stupid, I am not going to do any preliminary research.

And I am making some assumptions about your claim:

1) the portuguese language substantially changed beginning in the year 1143.

2) The Spanish you are referring to is Castilian

3) The french language and the Castillian language are the major components of modern Portuguese.

4) the dialect of Portuguese you are referring to is the one spoken in Lisbon.

5) That you are making an all or nothing claim similar to  your others (there are no gray areas)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:35   

While I have no immediate interest in Portuguese history, this little diversion does serve the purpose - who was it? - someone wanted to see the nature of afdave's discussion style on some subject other than evolution, as a kind of test as to whether he had a mental "blind spot" on that one subject, but was functional elsewhere. I think the answer's in.

From where I sit, afdave has made no attempt to support his original claim: that Portuguese is "a mixture of Spanish and French". While his contention about Henry of Burgundy does have some connection with reality, the specifics are wildly wrong.

So, what do we learn from this?

I see a lot of parallels between the two lines of argument - "shared errors", if you will - suggesting that, in fact, it's not just an evolutionary blind spot, but a pervasive flaw in reasoning tools.

Overconfidence
Reluctance to consider alternative views
Reluctance to acknowledge superior expertise
Inability to focus
Inability to define central question
Inability to acknowledge error and self-correct

Oh - and as BWE notes - typological thinking in the areas of biology and language

All characteristic of both discussions. If I were a career counselor, I would say this guy should not go into science.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:39   

I'd worry about a career involving dangerous equipment.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,10:30   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,09:40)
In short, Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French, which is what I said at first.

Are you going to challenge me or not?

My girlfriend is a linguist and so I have a good batch of langauge books on hand. One of them, The World's Major Languages edited by Bernard Comrie, has a chapter on Portuguese.

 
Quote
Portuguese, the national language of Portugal and Brazil, belongs to the Romance Language group. It is descended from the Vulgar Latin of the estern Iberian Peninsula (the regions of Gallaecia and Lusitania of the Roman Empire), as is Galician, often wrongly considered a dialect of Spanish.

It goes into the history of Portugal a bit, and then returns to the langauge's origins.
 
Quote
For several centuries after the independence of Portugal, the divergence of Portuguese and Galician was slight enough for them to be considered variants of the same language. Galician-Portuguese was generally preferred to Castilian as a medium for lyric poetry until the middle of the fourteenth century. Portuguese first appears as the language of legal documents at the beginning of the thirteenth century, coexisting with Latin throughout that century and finally replacing it during the reign of D. Dinis (1279-1325).


Hope this helps.

Edit: Further reading shows that it actually has a lot of influences from the Moors, which Arabized the language a bit.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,10:43   

Quote (Drew Headley @ May 19 2006,15:30)
Edit: Further reading shows that it actually has a lot of influences from the Moors, which Arabized the language a bit.

And nothing about French, I take it?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,10:47   

I have not seen French mentioned once in the chapter so far.

Edit: Just read through the syntax and lexicon sections. It is a very odd language the preserves a lot of pre-Roman Celtic and post-Roman German mixed with Arabic. No mention of French influence.

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,10:54   

But, clearly, it appears (if only to Dave) to be a mixture of French and Spanish.  And as we've seen in every one of his posts, that's really all the evidence Dave needs.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,11:20   

I've said before that I don't know anything about Portuguese history, and precious little about linguistics. But I do speak a little French (very little, and with an outrageous accent, you silly English knnnnnnnnniggits! ), and I used to work with a lot of Brazilians and your occasional Cape Verdean, who spoke Portuguese.

In my experience, Portuguese sounds quite a bit like Spanish, and nothing at all like French. So if "appearing to resemble" a mixture of Spanish and French does it for Dave in terms of proof, I'd have to say he's still wrong, even by his own standards.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,11:34   

Oh, and Dave—how are we doing with the Theobald?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,11:40   

In all the links I posted above (and they're much more than the inexact and flawed Wikipedia) there's not a single mention of French influence in Portuguese save the occasional borrowing of a word or two. They all say the same thing: That it originates from vulgar latin, and evolved (hah!;) parallel to Spanish. In fact, the last link claims that it's far closer to Latin (along with Italian, of course) than most other Romance languages.
Dave, if you have different data and evidence, why not share it? We're actually curious about this.
Unless you're still after our money, and looking to raise the stakes...  ???


<edit: even some sites for tourists say the same thing!!!1>

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,11:50   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,13:44)
Quote
Portugal traces its national origin to 24 June 1128 with the Battle of São Mamede. Afonso proclaimed himself first Prince of Portugal and in 1139 the first King of Portugal. By 1143, with the assistance of a representant of the Holy See at the conference of Zamora, Portugal was formally recognized as independent, with the prince recognized as Dux Portucalensis. In 1179, Afonso I was declared, by the Pope, as king. After the Battle of São Mamede, the first capital of Portugal was Guimarães, from which the first king ruled. Later, when Portugal was already officially independent, he ruled from Coimbra.


Rilke--  Check to see who Afonso's father was.  You'll find in was Henry of Burgundy, a French nobleman who helped fight the Muslims.

Now, since everybody is whining on your behalf, I'll lower the wager.  You tell me what you are willing to risk to prove you superiority and my idiocy.

I wouldn't hold your feet to the fire, Rilke, but you were pretty rash and blatant and bold.  I'll give you a hint ... Sometimes you get what you pay for on Wikipedia.

If you want to keep being a jerk, I'm going to shine a bigger and bigger spotlight on you ... otherwise, I'll drop it and we'll move on.

Now Dave, lets be exact here.  You said several things:
Quote
Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).
We can see from every single resource that you were lying.  Or fabricating nonsense.

When challenged on that particular piece of fatuous nonsense, you changed your story completely to
Quote
Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.
 But alas!  Once again we find that you were lying or fabricating: Henry was already dead by 1143.

Dave, you are the stupidest, clumsiest, most egotistical liar I've seen in years.  You don't know a single thing about Portuguese, and you're too vain to admit that you were completely wrong.

So let's see....

David makes a factually incorrect statement.

When caught, he changes the statement and lies.

When caught at that, he blusters and tries to bet his way out with more lies.

Dave - [i]this is flagrantly unChristian behavior.
 How can you call yourself a Christian when you're a liar, and stupid, and ignorant.  (Well, wait a minute, you could certainly be a Christian and the last two of those.  :D )

How can you do it, Dave?  How can you be a Christian and be so dishonest?

Idiot.  :p

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,11:53   

To the other posters: wow!  What an incredible yutz you've got here.  Amazing.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,12:06   

Rilke,

Darnit. You took some of my thunder. How am I ever going to get dave to take part in a real debate if you spoil it for me?

(P.S. there is a french influence, but Davey-dog has his history messed up)

Davey-dog, you are an idiot. I rest my case.
But I am still having fun making fun of you.

And for anyone who harbored a doubt that Davey-dog was as fantastically stupid as he appears,...Well, I will continue to provide evidence to the contrary :)

OK Davey-dog, how come the Appalachians are low and the Himalayas are high?

Please tell me that you can prove that god made them that way.

By the way, forget what these other guys say, you are probably right on the portuguese thing. I am afraid that I will lose the bet I so foolishly made and you will be writing a post for my blog.

Anything I forgot? Oh yeah, you are an idiot.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,12:10   

BWE, my heartfelt apologies.  Go ahead and challenge Dave.

Hey, Dave!  If I'm right about the Portuguese thing (your original claim, mind you) then you have to have a one-on-one debate with BWE.

Actually, since you were wrong about your second claim as well, I guess you lose twice.  Debates all around!

I guess all that "goggling" really pays off, eh what?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,12:14   

Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ May 19 2006,16:53)
To the other posters: wow!  What an incredible yutz you've got here.  Amazing.

I can't wait to see his "refutation" of radiometric dating.

But I think I'm going to have to. Long wait for a train don't come, I'm thinking.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,12:23   

OK, Dave-bashing aside, now I'm really curious.
The only French influence I can find is supposed to occur in the 18th century, creating the difference in syntax between Portugal and the colonies:

http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm

???

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,12:23   

Whats a "yutz"?  It sounds faintly disturbing.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,12:29   

Quote (guthrie @ May 19 2006,17:23)
Whats a "yutz"?  It sounds faintly disturbing.

I think it's basically Yiddish for "idiot."

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,13:04   

Quote (Faid @ May 19 2006,17:23)
OK, Dave-bashing aside, now I'm really curious.
The only French influence I can find is supposed to occur in the 18th century, creating the difference in syntax between Portugal and the colonies:

http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm

???

Yes.  Unfortunately, that still doesn't make it a mixture of French and Spanish.

Dave will, of course, find some way to twist his own words (and others) to try and avoid looking like an idiot, rather than displaying intellectual integrity and admittibg he was mistaken.  Any bets on that?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,13:45   

Ah, this is just so sweet. To recap, AFDave said he'd bet anybody that
Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.


Shortly afterward we find out that by 1143, Portuguese was already a language, and Henry of Burgundy was long dead.

At this point I have to chastise all of you mean AtBCers. He's already badly beaten, and you jerks are running up the score. Shame on you.

;-)

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,14:26   

He keeps coming back. Haven't you ever seen a 3 stooges episode?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,14:30   

With Davetard and AFDave &c it's like we're amateur martial arts enthusiasts, and overweight smokers with bad eyesight keep running up and challenging us. Sure, we've got some skills, but under these circumstances we get to feel like Chuck Norris.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,20:03   

as to Dave's "wager"  did i miss something or did anyone else immediately think

Hovind.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear....nge.htm

No matter what is wagered, Dave will always claim to have won the wager, because he initially set himself up as the arbiter and the "decider" (pardon the pun).

Dave's entire worldview literally depends at this point on him being "right" about everything, or it collapses under its own weight.

Dave- you are in a very dangerous state of mind right now.  I highly suggest you take a look at what happens to folks juggling your type of worldview.

(hint: they go off the deep end)

seek medical treatment.

seriously.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,20:13   

@faid, who said:
Quote
Well, it seems my old question was finally answered. Thanks Dave.


it was?

unless your question really was, "will Dave give a non-response to even the simplest questions"

then I can't see how his answer addresses your qeustion.

seems all he did was say:

It's too hard for me to think about right now, maybe my strained brain will be able to think about it later.

do you see an answer there I don't?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,06:22   

Is it too soon to wonder if the silence of the dave signals a long-overdue moment of reflection on the possibility he might be wrong?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,07:50   

I think I might have proved my point. Wow. Easier than I thought. And I didn't even have to trot out a single shred of evidence.

That, perhaps, is what AF Davey-dog was hoping to accomplish. Maybe fundies see the intelligent. educated segment of the population consistently doing that and they figure that's how debate works.

I was hoping for more of a challenge than that. Maybe Salvador.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,10:40   

Quote
Is it too soon to wonder if the silence of the dave signals a long-overdue moment of reflection on the possibility he might be wrong?


yes.  far too soon.
I think you might be waiting for an independent event to signal such.

something like...

He11 freezing over?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:32   

Well, well, well ... It was good I went to the lake yesterday and didn't get to do any posting yet because I see a lot more people climbed onto Rilke's branch that I'm about to saw off ...

And I see Rilke is not willing to back up her outrageous claims of intellectual superiority with any money at all.

I do see that Steve has come up with his own little wager of $1000.

Let me deal with Steve's little deal first.  I won't bet you on that because you are correct that Henry was dead long before 1143.  I composed my sentence ambiguously ... it should have read "Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control.  The break away was begun by a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy" --  little more specific.

Again, what we are doing here, though is answering a claim by Rilke that I am an idiot for thinking Portuguese is a mix of Spanish and French.  There will be several lessons learned here.  One will be that I have met many people like Rilke on these threads who are very arrogant about their supposed intellectual superiority and at the same time are quite vehement about attacking the supposed lack of intelligence they see in YECs like me.

OK ... brace yourselves ... the branch is coming down ... everybody got your body padding on?

This from Rilke's source of choice (Wikipedia) ... I guess she just didn't read far enough ...

 
Quote
Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages.Portuguese and French


Of course if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  [Oh ... by the way ... I guess I'd better fill you in that Burgundy is in France ... small detail].  Anyway, Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone.

Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese.

Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average Joe (or Rilke).  I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.

And if you think and are honest (I'm finding this to be a slightly scarce combo here), instead of just shoot your mouth off about how all YECs are stupid idiots, you can see how Wikipedia would make a statement like ...

phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. (by the way, Catalan the language of Andorra -- just below France on the map)

RRRRRRR ... CREEEEK ... (noise of branch breaking) ... (whistling sound as branch accelerates toward ground) ... (screams of terror) ... WUMP! (branch loaded with arrogant evolutionists hits ground)

OK.  So now you have a choice.  You can get up, brush yourself off, wipe the egg off your face and go back to trying to make reasonable arguments in favor of evolution, which is what I would recommend if you want to help the "Evolution Cause"

OR ...

You can somehow try to weasel out of the fact that you've been had.  

Either choice you make, I'm going to take this thread back to it's intended content and expand it a bit.  I will pretty much abandon the Ape Thread now as it has served its purpose.  I have successfully shown that there is nothing more than flimsy evidence which could be construed as positive support for Common Descent of Apes and Humans, although there is excellent evidence for common ancestry within the Apes as well as within all the other originally created kinds.

(And while you are all at church tomorrow, you can confess all your arrogance and unkind words)

(Oh ... don't forget to thank Rilke for leading you into this mess!;)

(Rilke--you probably knew about this little detail in Wikipedia, but just withheld it, right?  Very honest of you)

(Oh ... BTW ... Faid-- you and some others have put words into my mouth about the 7 day week thing and I see you think I'm mistaken about that too ... would you like to pursue this further?  Maybe take a softer approach so that you don't fall so hard?)

Have a nice evening!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:36   

So Davey-dog, Are you taking my wager? That is pretty darning evidence you've got there. I really wish I could retract my bet but, unfortunately, I already made it. I agree that Rilke was a little simplistic. It will be a hard debate, but I will do my best. So?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:39   

So when you said the guy was living in 1143, and it turns out he'd been dead 31 years, you were being 'ambiguous'? Lemme help you with some definitions

Quote
  am·big·u·ous  
adj.

  1. Open to more than one interpretation: an ambiguous reply.
  2. Doubtful or uncertain: “The theatrical status of her frequently derided but constantly revived plays remained ambiguous” (Frank Rich).


Quote
  wrong (rông)
adj.

  1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
  2.
        1. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
        2. Unfair; unjust.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:40   

Dave, I'm no etymologist (neither are you, obviously), but isn't assuming one language as derivative of another based on phonetic similarity kinda like assuming oranges are derived from lemons because they are both round?

think about it for a second.

when you say "portugeuse is a combination of french and spanish", you literally are saying that there is no distinct portugeuse language outside of these other two.

Is that what you really think?

I doubt many portugeuse linguisticians would agree with that statment.

would you say american english is a combination of french, german, spanish and UK english?

or is it really that culture influences all language to a greater or lesser extent, and so words are adopted into everybody's language that reflects this?

just for ONCE in your existence on ATBC, use your brain and work this out.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:47   

Quote
will pretty much abandon the Ape Thread now as it has served its purpose.  I have successfully shown that there is nothing more than flimsy evidence which could be construed as positive support for Common Descent of Apes and Humans, although there is excellent evidence for common ancestry within the Apes as well as within all the other originally created kinds.


I do hereby rest my case that what you have in fact shown is a complete inability to rationally parse any argument whatsoever, and even to recognize that fact.

I again ask you to provide evidence that you can form logical, evidence based, rational argumentation on any subject you have a more relevant background in.

engineering, perhaps?  didn't you say you had an engineering degree?

care to show us anyplace on the web where we can examine your ability to rationally parse arguments in engineering?

Quote
(And while you are all at church tomorrow, you can confess all your arrogance and unkind words)


there's that projection again.

Dave, I should have gotten your comments on the parallels drawn by this simple comic which perchance even your addled brain might grasp:


  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,13:49   

Quote
So when you said the guy was living in 1143, and it turns out he'd been dead 31 years, you were being 'ambiguous'? Lemme help you with some definitions


That's not what I said, Steve.  Lemme help you with some reading comprehension ...

I made an ambiguous statement, the detail of which that you are highliting doesn't matter a whit for my argument, and you know it.  But go ahead and dodge the bullet if you want to.  I've come to expect this kind of thing ...

Let's how creative other people can be in dodging the bullet.  Toejam's weighed in ... others?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,13:53   

I don't dodge rubber bullets, dave.

wait, let me correct that.

I don't dodge nerf bullets, dave.

there, that's better.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,13:56   

Quote
Oh really?  How much money do you want to risk that I'm wrong?  Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.
Not ambiguous. Wrong.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,13:59   

Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.
I'm not about to get into a hair-splitting contest over what  "essentially the same language" means, when we're talking about a family of Romance languages/dialects in the process of, yes, evolving. There is nothing "ambiguous", though, about your contention that Henry of Burgundy was alive and kicking in 1143.

Getting back to the earlier point, though, you apparently contend that:  
Quote
phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French.
is equivalent to  
Quote
Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).
... and you think it's "arrogant" to think otherwise?

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one. But you have a nice time in church tomorrow regaling your fellow fundies with tales of how you showed those infidels!

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,14:01   

Quote

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.
LOL

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,14:04   

could you provide a caption Steve?  I don't recognize the reference.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,14:07   

That's because you're a philistine, and haven't seen the most important film of our time.




   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,14:23   

Quote
... and you think it's "arrogant" to think otherwise?
I didn't say it's arrogant to think otherwise.

I said it's arrogant to call people idiots when you don't know what you are talking about, which is what Rilke did.

You might want to review her litany ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,14:25   

well, i certainly recognize the second picture.  

Does it count if i say I've seen that movie half a dozen times?

forgive me if my memory of every scene isn't perfect.  My memory rarely is any more.

oh, and can i have my stapler back?

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,14:27   

Quote (afdave @ May 20 2006,19:23)
I said it's arrogant to call people idiots when you don't know what you are talking about, which is what Rilke did.

Well, the pot just called the kettle black.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,14:28   

Quote
BOB SLYDELL
Here's a peculiar one. Milton Waddams.

DOM
Who's he?

BOB
You know, squirrely looking guy, mumbles a lot.

DOM
Oh.

BOB SLYDELL
We can't find a record of him being a current employee here.

BOB PORTER
I looked into it more deeply and I found what happened was he got layed
off about five years ago and no one ever told him about it. But through
a glitch in Payroll, he still gets a paycheck. I went ahead and fixed
the glitch.

BILL
Great.

DOM
So, um, Milton has been let go.

BOB SLYDELL
Just a second there, Professor. We, uh, we fixed the glitch. So he
won't be receiving a paycheck anymore. So it'll just work itself out
naturally.

BOB PORTER
We always like to avoid confrontation whenever possible. The problem is
solved from here on, then.

They laugh.

BOB SLYDELL
Uh, we should move on to a Peter Gibbons. I had a chance to meet this
young man and boy does he have Straight to Upper Management written all
over him.

BILL
Ooh, uh, yeah. I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with
you there. Yeah. Uh, he's been real flaky lately and I'm not sure that
he's the caliber person you want for upper management. He's been having
some problems with his TPS reports.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,14:29   

put away your nerf gun, Dave.  You're killin' us.

I'm bleeding foam blood.

Yup, Dave gives definition to a new term:

the Nerf Driveby.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,15:43   

Quote
But you have a nice time in church tomorrow regaling your fellow fundies with tales of how you showed those infidels!

I don't think you or anyone else is an 'infidel.'

I'm sure you're all good people.

I just disagree with you over Origins ... that's all.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,15:49   

that's ALL?

Dave pulls out his Nerf AK47...

Look, Dave.  It's obvious you just don't get it.

You don't just disagree, you project, you deny, and you rationalize based on that, but you don't actually debate.

Norm's right in one sense, you DO act like you come from a different planet, where rational argument is apparently based on nothing more than perception without observable evidence.

again, i say to you; you ARE suffering a form of psychological malady, and you do both yourself and your children serious harm by attempting to maintain it without treatment, or even recognition.

When your kids grow up, they'll have the same problems as you do, unless you recognize your own mental blockages and allow them to move beyond you.

having taught at the college level, I can truthfully say I've seen what happens to kids of folks like yourself on many occassions; trying to deal with the non-reality you impose on them when they get to college causes them no end of grief.

Is that really what you want for your kids, Dave?

Again, this has nothing to do with your religion.  It has everything to do with how you project the worldview you created around it onto your kids.  Really, not ALL xians, or even most, think like you do.  Take Ken Miller for one example, Wesley Elseberry for another, and there are many more here in the same boat.  They have no problems accepting the mountains of evidence for ToE, and no problems utlizing the same evidence in order to further our knowledge.

Don't hold your kids, or those around you, hostage to your maladies, Dave.  Let them move beyond your messed-up head.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,16:12   

Steve Story said ...
Quote
Not ambiguous. Wrong.


**gasp**  can't let this Creo have a victory  **sigh**

**oooohh my head** gotta find somethin' he screwed up

( @#$%&*@%$#  I think I broke my leg when he cut off that branch $%#&^*%$# )

** ooooh *** lemme see if I can split some hairs and nail him on something .... anything!!!!!!  ****eeeeoooh***

(Somebody help me!!!;)

Hey BWE ... thanks for offering to pay up when you lost a bet ...  no need to really pay up though

Oh ... and you can call me an idiot anytime you want to because at least you're funny while you do it ...

Hey Toejam ... I remember something about you promising to become a Creo if you saw me win an argument on an unrelated topic ...

Come on, baby ... pay up!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,16:18   

Quote
Hey Toejam ... I remember something about you promising to become a Creo if you saw me win an argument on an unrelated topic ...


not even close to anything i ever said.

really, put away your nerf gun dave.  you're scaring the cat.

Please tell us you were lying about having kids?

as to your wanting a victory... i already asked you to point me to a debate where you had some background knowledge to begin with, like someplace you debated a topic on electrical engineering, say.  Apparently, you can't even show us any time or place where there is some record of you having argued anything in a rational fashion, based on you actually having some knowledge of the subject material yourself.

you want a victory?  show us one.  anywhere.



I have a new proposition:

as far as i can tell, the evidence is that kids of folks whose mind works like Dave's are far more messed up as adults than adopted kids of gay parents.

I say we make it illegal for creos to marry.  It definetly sullied the institution of marriage, and the results are definetly a drag on society at large.

It's like letting serial killers marry and assuming their kids won't grow up the same way.

whaddya think, Dave?  time for a divorce?  You already divorced yourself from reality at some point.  Why not keep up the trend?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,16:28   

Quote
Please tell us you were lying about having kids?
Got 5 already ... planning on 5 more ... I'm telling you ... we're taking over the Planet ...







(just kidding about the 5 more)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,16:32   

that's way more scary than any attempt at argument you have made so far.

I'm not kidding.  

Let them move beyond you.

You'll be doing them a grand favor.

the best you possibly could.  Better than giving them anything else they could possibly ask for from you.

You'll give them a chance to see the world through open eyes, rather than closed ones.

...and no, it's not us whose eyes are closed, Dave.

ask anybody you know who doesn't think like you do to examine your "debate" here and judge whose eyes are open to the evidence, and whose are not.

really.  You're nuts.  It's OK, many of us are, but don't inflict it on your kids.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,17:08   

Atheists like myself prefer our christians to be YECs like Dave. Because if any of his kids is oriented towards science, the kid will probably, in his late teens, realize his dad's notions w/r/t science are loony-tunes, and that kid will ask himself, "If dad's so utterly wrong about that, and he was motivated by the bible..." and the blinders will fall off.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,17:19   

In the meantime, the kids are exposed for years to the kind of thinking processes Dave exhibits so profusely here.

I don't share your optimism that a lot of kids can simply shrug off years of exposure to this crap (and the fact that the numbers of folks who think like Dave hasn't actually changed much in over 20 years in the US also supports this - see the data in that Nat. Geo article from Nov. 2005).

In fact, while a few do, a lot simply don't, or only are able to partially in my experience, and that limits how well they can do in fields like science, where crtical thinking and logic are extremely important.

If Dave feels fine with limiting his kids roles, there's no law stopping him, but it still pains that there will be another 5 kids having to deal with what essentially is no better than the mindset of an alcoholic.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,17:20   

Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2006,19:07)
That's because you're a philistine, and haven't seen the most important film of our time.




"PC load letter? What the fuck does that mean?"

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,17:25   

Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man, two chicks at the same time, man.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: #### straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money.
Peter Gibbons: Well, not all chicks.
Lawrence: Well the kind of chicks that'd double up on a dude like me do.
Peter Gibbons: Good point.
Lawrence: Well what about you now? what would you do?
Peter Gibbons: Besides two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Well yeah.
Peter Gibbons: Nothing.
Lawrence: Nothing, huh?
Peter Gibbons: I'd relax, I would sit on my ass all day, I would do nothing.
Lawrence: Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do shit.


--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,17:26   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,22:19)
I don't share your optimism that a lot of kids can simply shrug off years of exposure to this crap ...

I grew up in a similar environment:
http://www.textfiles.com/occult/notcrst1.txt
http://www.textfiles.com/occult/notcrst2.txt

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,17:33   

Quote
Hey Toejam ... I remember something about you promising to become a Creo if you saw me win an argument on an unrelated topic ...
Did I miss something? Did afdave win an argument on something? Did he, in fact, prove that Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French? Or that Henry of Burgundy peeled Portugal off the Spanish in 1143? Or perhaps that there is an argument to be made whereby "common design" could explain the Vitamin C story? What did I miss?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,17:38   

Interesting.  still reading it, but had a couple of questions, if you don't mind?

How old were you when you wrote this?

What were you doing (in your life) when you wrote this?

How close are the ideas presented to what your ideas are now?


just curious.

thanks

and Russel -

you didn't miss a thing but more incorrect assumptions, presumptions, and projection from Dave.

so, IOW, you missed nothing.

I'm sure it will all get repeated tommorrow.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,17:40   

Perhaps it was his assertion, on one of these threads, that the U.S.A. was founded on the christian bible (IIRC).

By the way, afdave, it's perfectly all right to consider me an infidel. I believe it's technically accurate.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,17:44   

Quote
Perhaps it was his assertion, on one of these threads, that the U.S.A. was founded on the christian bible (IIRC).


I must have missed that one, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he had.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,17:49   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,22:44)
Quote
Perhaps it was his assertion, on one of these threads, that the U.S.A. was founded on the christian bible (IIRC).


I must have missed that one, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he had.

I think it's quite cunning of our Founding Fathers to have based this country on Biblical principles without once ever mentioning 'Jesus', 'Christianity', or 'the bible' in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

Some day Dave will have to explain to me why they 'forgot' to mention those things.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:01   

Quote
Hey BWE ... thanks for offering to pay up when you lost a bet ...  no need to really pay up though

Oh ... and you can call me an idiot anytime you want to because at least you're funny while you do it ...


I'll pay up gladly. Once I lose. Unless I am mistaken, I haven't offered anything to the debate yet. My question was. Are you taking me up on my revised bet?

Buddy, I don't mind losing but I like to play first.

And, as far as I can tell, you did, in a very small way, set a trap for people who were only too willing to believe you were an idiot in all you say. My hypothesis is that they are still right. Now, about that bet?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:05   

The first commandment says you shall not have any other gods before you. The first amendment says you can have before you whatever god you want. I'll stick with that product of the Enlightenment, the first amendment, over that product of middle eastern primitives, the first commandment.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:07   

Quote
Buddy, I don't mind losing but I like to play first.


so would the rest of us, but Dave's rules don't make enough sense to even get started, and he won't accept the rules the rest of humanity uses.

Maybe a good game of dodgeball would suit him better?

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:20   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,22:38)
How old were you when you wrote this?

Over a decade younger than I  am today.

Quote
What were you doing (in your life) when you wrote this?


Either typing on a computer keyboard or carving something into stone, I  forget.

Quote
How close are the ideas presented to what your ideas are now?


I don't think Arrius Piso wrote the New Testament any more. (wasn't all that convinced back then.)

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:21   

i'll take it the questions aren't welcome.

fair enough.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:36   

Quote (afdave @ May 20 2006,17:32)
And I see Rilke is not willing to back up her outrageous claims of intellectual superiority with any money at all.

I do see that Steve has come up with his own little wager of $1000.

Dave, if you think "Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French" means that Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French, you know even less about linguistics than I do. Phonetic resemblance has nothing to do whatsoever with whether a language is derived from another language. English is closer to French phonetically than German is; that doesn't mean English is more closely related to French than it is to German.

I still think you're gonna lose this bet.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:37   

OK, so here is the deal. Davey-dog is an idiot. He has proven over and over and over that he is an idiot. He finally thinks he has a piece of information that he can defend. I think he is so stupid that he can't even defend a defendable position so I challenged him to back up what he says. He won't do it for the fundy-creo crap because, as most people know, it can't be defended. But I think he is so bone headed that he can't even brush his teeth let alone explain an idea when he is offered a counter argument. In fact, I am so sure that I offered to take him up on his bet.

The stakes are different because I don't want his money nor do I want to spend mine. But the winner still gets something good: a chance to post a creationist post on my blog or the chance to post an FSMist type post on his blog.

He seems pretty sure of himself so he probably knows a lot about the subject. I only have a passing interest so I figure it's equal. Idiot Davey-dog with info to start with and me having to look it up. One thing I am fairly confident of is that he will admit defeat in this subject if he loses or know when he has won if he wins. He may be dumber than his ideas about creationism but he isn't so attached to this.

And, Sir T, I too am examining a pathology. And what's good in it for me is that I don't care about the results. It's still funny. And fun.

Now, where did my sheep go?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:42   

ahhh, that explains it.

Davey thought I was you.

Dave said:

Quote
Hey Toejam ... I remember something about you promising to become a Creo if you saw me win an argument on an unrelated topic ...


still not exactly what you offered, but close enough for Dave to confuse not only what you said, but who actually said it.

yikes.

pathology, indeed.

good luck

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:46   

Quote (afdave @ May 20 2006,21:12)
**gasp**  can't let this Creo have a victory  **sigh**

You're joking, right?

It's pretty clear at this point that Portuguese is not a mixture of French and Spanish, which is what you originally claimed. You've presented no evidence whatsoever that Portuguese is somehow a combination of the two (even in the sense that English is a Germanic tongue into which Latin grammar has been shoehorned). No one would claim that English is a mixture of Germanic and French, despite the huge number of French cognates in English.

How do you get a "victory" out of a statement that Portuguese is "phonetically closer to French than Spanish"? The fact that a language is pronounced in a similar fashion to another language says nothing about their relationship to each other.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:53   

Quote
How do you get a "victory" out of a statement that Portuguese is "phonetically closer to French than Spanish"?


answer your own question.

How does one get a "victory" out of being totally incorrect?

only one way i can think of.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:55   

Ericmurphy,

Um, I could make as good of an argument that English is a mix of germanic and french as I can that Portuguese is not what Davey-dumbo says it is. Typically, the history of a language is classified by the surviving writing. After William, most writing (that was'nt in Latin) from England, was in French for a longish period. I believe that the first written government document that showed a hybridization was around 1300. That's a lot of french.

Arden?

Uh-Oh. Dave, It looks like you have me over a barrel here. Just don't be too mean in what you write in your post if I lose, OK?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,19:04   

Quote (BWE @ May 20 2006,23:55)
Ericmurphy,

Um, I could make as good of an argument that English is a mix of germanic and french as I can that Portuguese is not what Davey-dumbo says it is. Typically, the history of a language is classified by the surviving writing.

You might be able to, but I don't think any linguist would agree with you that English is a romance language, like  French, Spanish, Italian, and yes, Portuguese. English is definitely a Germanic tongue.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,19:15   

Quote (ericmurphy @ May 21 2006,00:04)
   
Quote (BWE @ May 20 2006,23:55)
Ericmurphy,

Um, I could make as good of an argument that English is a mix of germanic and french as I can that Portuguese is not what Davey-dumbo says it is. Typically, the history of a language is classified by the surviving writing.

You might be able to, but I don't think any linguist would agree with you that English is a romance language, like  French, Spanish, Italian, and yes, Portuguese. English is definitely a Germanic tongue.

English is a Germanic language. Period. Its grammar and core lexicon are Germanic. Granted, after the Norman invasions it acquired a huge amount of French vocabulary, but that does not make it a Romance language. It makes it a Germanic language with a big French influence. Not the same thing.

(And Portuguese doesn't even have that.)

To say that English is Romance, one would have to say that Japanese is both Chinese and English, since Japanese has a huge number of loans from both those languages. No one would want to make either statement.

The question of whether English is a 'mix' of Germanic and French is somewhat more interesting. I don't think most linguists would go so far as to say that English is a mixed language, since fundamentally, the grammar of English owes very little to French. And, as I said, most of the core everyday vocab of English is still Germanic.

The influence of French on English is much bigger than that of French on Portuguese, and yet phonetically French and English are very different. This shows that impressionistic phonetic 'similarities' really count for very little.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,19:18   

Quote
English is a Germanic language. Period.


I knew there was some reason I studied German.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,19:46   

@norman:

finished.

I found this line of particular interest in the current discussion:

Quote
The believer can no longer imagine, comfortably, a world view without his faith, his illusions.  The
emotion attached to these religious ideas is stronger than the emotion attached to the concepts and ideas in a more rational mind.


yup.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,19:55   

I guess that would have been my basic argument. That, although the language of the countryside prevailed, it was drastically changed by the addition of the french. Read Chaucer then read Shakespeare, one right after another and you'll see what I mean. But, yes, English is Germanic in most syntax.

The language itself is something I know very little about. That holds for french and portuguese too. The history of western europe however, I picked up osmotically from my father who was a European History professor for 40 years and wrote 6 or 8 books on the period from roughly 1000 to Henry the Navigator. Honestly, I have never read the books. I also only took one european history course in college where my only recollection is writing a paper on the education system under charlemaigne and one that was a comparison of the Burgundian codes to Roman law. and that was 30 years ago.

The point I guess is that, although you could win if we had to debate linguistics. Davey has a fightin chance.

If I had a linguistics question, I'd ask you. Funny, but that's because I understand what being an expert is. That's why I would go to a bunch of folks here for info. Or other experts.

Davey-dog on the other hand is too stupid to pour his own water but he thinks his wife is crazy for telling him that the flat part of the cup goes on the bottom.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,00:14   

Eric ... don't make yourself look ridiculous like Rilke did ... you're one of the guys here whose intellect I respect ...

shake it off, my friend ...

It's not that bad ... you just lost a stupid little side argument that doesn't even matter in the big scheme of things ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,00:40   

Alright, I have some questions on Evolution ...

(since this is supposed to be an "Evolution" thread)

You guys say there is no such thing as "upward evolution," right?  And I think I've heard someone say that the bacteria are winning.

So presumably, a million years from now, there might be only bacteria ... no mammals, right?

My question is ... why didn't the bacteria win before mammals appeared?  Weren't they evolving just as rapidly early in earth history as they are now?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,00:54   

Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,05:40)
So presumably, a million years from now, there might be only bacteria ... no mammals, right?

My question is ... why didn't the bacteria win before mammals appeared?  Weren't they evolving just as rapidly early in earth history as they are now?


EDIT: oops, I misunderstood 'from now'.

A million years ago, humans were walking in Africa, so I don't see any reason why bacteria should take over the world that fast. They've been coexisting with other life forms for billions of years.


Also, evolution is not only a matter of who wins and who loses. You know, ecosystems...
Each one of your cells is like an ecosystem where bacteria (mitochondria) cooperate with your chromosomes.

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,02:59   

Abandoning your lingusitcs discussion? That's a shame; your pathetic efforts are really comical.

Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,05:40)
You guys say there is no such thing as "upward evolution," right?  And I think I've heard someone say that the bacteria are winning.

"Winning" does not necessarily mean "eradicating all other life forms", and almost certainly doesn't mean that here.  In this case it probably means something like "there are more individual bacteria than any other organism" or "all the bacteria weigh more than any other group of organisms", both of which are true.

Quote
So presumably, a million years from now, there might be only bacteria ... no mammals, right?

A million years isn't all that long.  But there could be only bacteria, but it's incredibly unlikely; about as likely as it is that we're seriously wrong about the age of the Earth.

Quote
My question is ... why didn't the bacteria win before mammals appeared?  Weren't they evolving just as rapidly early in earth history as they are now?

In the senses listed above, they did win long before mammals appeared, and long before dinosaurs appeared. The reason why bacteria have not eradicated all other living organisms is that bacteria, successful as they are, cannot and do not fill all possible ecological niches.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,03:15   

Quote

So presumably, a million years from now, there might be only bacteria ... no mammals, right?

My question is ... why didn't the bacteria win before mammals appeared?  Weren't they evolving just as rapidly early in earth history as they are now?
Dave, the comic book you learned evolution from--was it even in English?

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,03:17   

Quote
Eric ...you just lost a stupid little side argument that doesn't even matter in the big scheme of things ...
There it is again... what did I miss? What did Eric contend that davey proved wrong?

I suspect another instance of the Cordova Cockstrut here.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,03:36   

Quote (JonF @ May 21 2006,07:59)
"Winning" does not necessarily mean "eradicating all other life forms", and almost certainly doesn't mean that here.  In this case it probably means something like "there are more individual bacteria than any other organism" or "all the bacteria weigh more than any other group of organisms", both of which are true.

mmm. I'm not sure. I recently heard that viruses represent the majority of biomass in oceans. But you may not consider viruses as true organisms, after all.

Anyway, the notion of 'victory' doesn't mean squat in science.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,03:50   

Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,05:40)
You guys say there is no such thing as "upward evolution," right?

That would be because there is no real "up" in evolution. There is no priviledged direction in search space. Define what you think "upward" means in terms of evolution?

Are we talking more complex, smarter, bigger, faster, more adaptable?

Quote
... I've heard someone say that the bacteria are winning.


That depends on what race you think is being run.

Quote
So presumably, a million years from now, there might be only bacteria ... no mammals, right?


If we get hit by a comet, then we humans and most mammals and lizards and fish could go extinct, but bacteria would probably survive and evolve again into more complex creatures over another billion years.... well, if the roaches don't beat them to it.

Quote
... why didn't the bacteria win before mammals appeared?  Weren't they evolving just as rapidly early in earth history as they are now?


What do you mean by "win" ?

You have a really wrong idea about how this all works. Do you think some single type of life form has to take over and beat every other?

That doesn't happen because all the different life forms live in different niches. It's all part of one ecology where things become dependent on other things. Right now there are more bacterial cells in your body than there are human cells, you couldn't live without them and they can't live without you.

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,05:00   

Quote (normdoering @ May 21 2006,08:50)
You have a really wrong idea about how this all works. Do you think some single type of life form has to take over and beat every other?

That doesn't happen because all the different life forms live in different niches. It's all part of one ecology where things become dependent on other things. Right now there are more bacterial cells in your body than there are human cells, you couldn't live without them and they can't live without you.

AFDave's hopelessly stuck in that "And God hath given Dominion over all living things to Man" meme.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,05:54   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2006,08:15)
Quote

So presumably, a million years from now, there might be only bacteria ... no mammals, right?

My question is ... why didn't the bacteria win before mammals appeared?  Weren't they evolving just as rapidly early in earth history as they are now?
Dave, the comic book you learned evolution from--was it even in English?

It was probably in a mix of French and Spanish.  :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:21   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2006,08:15)
Dave, the comic book you learned evolution from--was it even in English?

Chick tracts are written in English, so the answer is presumably 'yes'.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:23   

Quote (Bing @ May 21 2006,11:21)
Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2006,08:15)
Dave, the comic book you learned evolution from--was it even in English?

Chick tracts are written in English, so the answer is presumably 'yes'.

Sad to say, I once found some Spanish-language Jack Chick tracts on a bus bench, so all bets are off.  :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:27   

OOOOO speaking of that...

Hey Dave! Go and read this

Big Daddy?

and tell us what you think.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:32   

I especially love that painting on the wall. I want that for my living room. The banana's a nice touch.


   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:39   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2006,11:32)
I especially love that painting on the wall. I want that for my living room. The banana's a nice touch.


I want a t-shirt with that gorilla on it. With the banana. And the 'OUR FATHER' caption.

Has anyone else ever noticed that in Jack Chick tracts, the evil professors always look Jewish, and the noble Christians who save the day always look Nordic? Leni Riefenstahl couldn't have asked for better.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:45   

I think everyone has noticed that. :-)

Supposedly there were some tracts he no longer publishes which were more explicit about nonwhites.

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:56   

Jesus Davey-dog,

What am I, chopped liver? I offerred to debate you on your stupid liguistic problem and you declare victory before your opening salvos. You present what you think is evidence but refuse to critically examine it. Like you do with your God BS.

You have got to do something about your cranial rectal impaction problem. You didn't win idiot. Not yet anyway.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,07:05   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2006,11:45)
I think everyone has noticed that. :-)

Supposedly there were some tracts he no longer publishes which were more explicit about nonwhites.

Are those now 'collector's items'?  :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,07:13   

i'd love to see them, but I haven't found them, only an allusion to them. And they might not exist, as early as the 1970s chick hired a black guy to draw some of his tracts. Maybe his racism was subconscious. More than anything, it's the catholics Chick hates. That's what he spends about half his time on.

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,07:20   

Here it is again Dave.

http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/literatura/eng/LINGUA.HTM

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Portuguese/Portuguese.html

http://www.linguaportuguesa.ufrn.br/en_2.php

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html

http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,07:26   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2006,11:27)
OOOOO speaking of that...

Hey Dave! Go and read this

Big Daddy?

and tell us what you think.

I like Apes, Lies and Mrs. Henn too!

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,08:20   

I can never let a Chick mention pass without pointing to this.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,08:24   

Thanks Bing,
I especially like the line at the end:
Quote
If you believe in evolution intead of Jesus, you'll end up in he!l


1/2 Davey, it's a good thing you believe in jesus instead of evolution. That way you won't end up in hel1 ... uh oh. Dumbsh1t Dave, Am I going to hel1? Will you tell me how to avoid it without having to lie to myself? I don't believe goddy, er, daddy, er, god wants me to lie to myself and others for some pathetic throwback to a time when god was the only good explanation we had.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,08:42   

Quote (BWE @ May 21 2006,13:24)
Thanks Bing,
I especially like the line at the end:
   
Quote
If you believe in evolution intead of Jesus, you'll end up in he!l



"Evolution instead of Jesus".

Wow.

Chick is good, I'll give him that. Goebbels could have learned from this man.

Cuz we all know the opposite of evolution is Jesus, and it's logically impossible for anyone to believe in both (or neither).

Also, has anyone noticed how Chick seems to make heavy use of randomly boldfacing inappropriate words? For example:

 
Quote
If you believe in evolution intead of Jesus, you'll end up in he!l


I mean, WHY is 'you' boldfaced TWICE there?

This seems to be a chronic issue in Chick's work. Maybe whatever's fucked up his brain has slightly scrambled his ability to write properly.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,08:54   

hahhahahahahahaha BWE.
Love the steet names where the the Temples are, surely gdo's *exclusive* houses of worship would be at more uplifting addresses e.g. cnr Gethsemane and Gardin , I picture  Gothic Revival American Church Architecture rather than this Bauhaus-style The imposing Martin Luther Memorial Church in Mariendorf but then I digress

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,09:10   

You know what I can't help wondering: in all these transformations (Galician/Latin/Spanish/Portuguese... or Germanic/Chaucerian-English/Modern-English...) what was the role of the Tower of Babel?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,09:25   

No new information has been added to languages since the original "language kinds" were created by G at Babel, right? Just bad mutations and loss of information.

/cough cough choke

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,09:40   

Russell Just glossing over the Tower of Babel myth I immediately thought of the fight  over and the crossed purposefulnesses of the building of the replacements for the twin towers. Different agendas, corporate power vs people power, differing visions, no agreement yet. In other words a huge project and everyone talking past each other and not understanding and perhaps not wanting to understand the other, each claiming to have a legitimate and final authority. It doesn't stretch the imagination too much to think that such a project in the ancient world claimed a kingdom or two's treasuries with competing architect priests and imported workers building a proto pyramid or ziggurat for ...ah the usual reasons....the glory of priests and kings. Not forgetting the obvious conclusion that it is a convienient way to explain away the development of various languages.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:02   

Quote (Russell @ May 21 2006,14:10)
You know what I can't help wondering: in all these transformations (Galician/Latin/Spanish/Portuguese... or Germanic/Chaucerian-English/Modern-English...) what was the role of the Tower of Babel?

Well, I assume that AFDave is completely convinced that the Tower of Babel 'incident' happened, about 5,000 years ago I'd guess. Since that would predate the breakup of Latin into the Romance languages (it would predate the breakup of most of Indo-European), he'd probably testily reply that it has no relevance to his present forays into Romance linguistics.

Quote
No new information has been added to languages since the original "language kinds" were created by G at Babel, right? Just bad mutations and loss of information.


Maybe Dave concedes linguistic microevolution but not linguistic macroevolution?  :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:40   

Quote
I recently heard that viruses represent the majority of biomass in oceans.


Really?  I always thought it was nematodes.

Can you dig up the reference for that, Jean?

sounds like yet another bit of my knowledge may have become outdated.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:42   

Quote


Really?  I always thought it was nematodes.


That's cause you're a nematard. You been here four hour. You go now. -dt

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:44   

one of these days, Steve, you should just make a post over on the UD thread that simply consists of all the made up DT "ban lines".

some funny stuff there.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:54   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 21 2006,15:40)
Quote
I recently heard that viruses represent the majority of biomass in oceans.


Really?  I always thought it was nematodes.

Can you dig up the reference for that, Jean?

sounds like yet another bit of my knowledge may have become outdated.

Science 12 May 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5775, pp. 870 - 872
DOI: 10.1126/science.312.5775.870


Did DNA Come From Viruses?
Carl Zimmer

Quote
A growing number of scientists hope to get rid of that question mark. They recognize that a full account of the evolution of life must include viruses. Not only are they unimaginably abundant--most of the biomass in the ocean is made up of viruses--but they are also extraordinarily diverse genetically, in part because they can acquire genes from their hosts.

I don't have the original article where they estimated the total biomass of 'oceanic' viruses.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,14:41   

Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,05:14)
Eric ... don't make yourself look ridiculous like Rilke did ... you're one of the guys here whose intellect I respect ...

shake it off, my friend ...

It's not that bad ... you just lost a stupid little side argument that doesn't even matter in the big scheme of things ...

Dave, I've already said I know jack about Portuguese history, and not much more about linguistics. But so far, based on what people who do seem to know what they're talking about are saying, I'm going to make a judgment call and say you don't know what you're talking about.

Working for a law firm, I've read a lot of witness testimony in my time. A lot of it was by expert witnesses. Doubtless, all those experts knew more, in their particular area of expertise, than I do. But you read enough of these guys, and you develop a sense of who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. Based on my experience in separating out the bullshit from the real learnin,' I'm saying you don't actually know what you're talking about, and so far the evidence you've cited in support of your position doesn't actually support it. When someone cites historical evidence in support of what is actually a linguistic argument, but no linguistic evidence, it's pretty clear that they're kind of losing the argument.

Now, it may be that you're actually right that French + Spanish = Portuguese. But you're not even close to having established any such thing.  I haven't lost any bets, because I haven't made any bets. But anyone who pays you anything under the impression that you've "won" is a sucker. As far as I can tell, you haven't "won" anything.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,14:51   

STJ there are a couple of new names here for you
Hugo Now
Gene Theives

Hugo Steelgenes walks into a futuristic brain bar and orders a beer and a young ....


this could could be fun.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,14:53   

Quote (k.e @ May 21 2006,19:51)
STJ there are a couple of new names here for you
Hugo Now
Gene Theives

Hugo Steelgenes walks into a futuristic brain bar and orders a beer and a young ....


this could could be fun.

Um, I think you posted this on the wrong thread...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,15:01   

Metachatter-Yeah Arden I was going to do that but the inpiration came from posts directed to STJ on this thread.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,15:39   

Quote
I don't have the original article where they estimated the total biomass of 'oceanic' viruses.


thanks jean, it's a start.

You probably wouldn't be surprised how often the biomass question arises in discussions with students.

It does surprise me tho, that this factoid is not referenced in the paper you quote from.  It should have been.

KE - I'll get back to that later, if you don't mind.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,15:53   

continuing....a young not unattractive female of the opposite sexual pesausion sitting at the otherwise emty seaside bar on that cold spring morning is deeply engrossed in a hardcover book. Hugo looks over and smiles"interesting book?" she frowns and holds it up so he can read the cover. "The Selfish Gene" he reads as she stares directly into his eyes. He raises his eybrows and introduces himself "I'm Hugo, I'm an ithycologist" this momentarily disarms her frown, but before she can say anything the door bursts open, "Is there an ithycologist here?" a distraught call comes from someone who seems to have just run up from the beach........

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,15:57   

bah cut and paste no work
thats ichthyologist

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,17:01   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2006,08:15)
 
Quote

So presumably, a million years from now, there might be only bacteria ... no mammals, right?

My question is ... why didn't the bacteria win before mammals appeared?  Weren't they evolving just as rapidly early in earth history as they are now?
Dave, the comic book you learned evolution from--was it even in English?

[snark]That comic probably had Chick somewhere in the title.  Doh![/snark]

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,17:05   

Quote (Bing @ May 21 2006,11:21)
Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2006,08:15)
Dave, the comic book you learned evolution from--was it even in English?

Chick tracts are written in English, so the answer is presumably 'yes'.

D@mn, I really must learn to read all the way to the end of a thread before posting.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,17:13   

a distraught call comes from someone who seems to have just run up from the beach........

after bursting through the door and regaining his composure, the man, who just happened to be named Victor, quickly informed Hugo that he just saw a giant tentacle come from the ocean, grab several beachgoers, and then disappear beneath the waves.

"Great Scott!  That sounds like an Architeuthis attack!  I've never heard of one this close to land before.  But then, I'm just an ichthyologist, I don't normally study cephalopod behavior.  Perhaps we should try to locate someone more familiar with squids before we begin our investigation?"

...and so, having completely forgotten the attractive woman who had been eyeing him previously (biologists can be like that whenever an interesting fish tale arises), Hugo and Victor set off to examine the scene of the apparent giant-squid attack, and see if there were any cephalopod experts hanging about on the beach....

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,18:12   

An old codger no one noticed before sitting in the corner smoking a pipe and drinkning neat schapps, struggled to his foot, his other was a wooden leg. "Arrrgh.." he calls "shes back...to give me my other leg"
Hugo and Victor look at each other in astonishment, "you mean that giant squid was here before?" they both said at once.
The old man looked at them wide eyed, "What the #### are you talking about? Katy my nurse, shes at the bar with me new leg".....

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,03:49   

Been studying.  Let's see if Dave came up with anything.
Quote
Let me deal with Steve's little deal first.  I won't bet you on that because you are correct that Henry was dead long before 1143.  I composed my sentence ambiguously ... it should have read "Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control.  The break away was begun by a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy" --  little more specific.
Sorry, Dave, you lied, pure and simple.  This isn't ambiguous:
Quote
Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.
This is factually wrong.  It is incorrect.  It is a statement written by a moron so that morons will have something to read in the morning.

In fact, you just admitted that you were wrong!  But your ego (typical fundie) won't let you admit that, so you attempt to claim 'ambiguity'.

Since I predicted that you would be unable to acknowledge that you made a stupid statement, I win.

Dave, we realize that you're a fool; we realize that you're ignorant of history, linguistics, philosophy, theology, science, etc.  We understand that, and we pity you - really we do.  It must be #### to be so illiterate that you can't even write a simple statement about history without botching it completely.

But don't you think you could show a little Christian integrity?  By not lying?  By admitting error?  By not making yourself look any stupider than you already have?

Quote
Again, what we are doing here, though is answering a claim by Rilke that I am an idiot for thinking Portuguese is a mix of Spanish and French.
And indeed, you are an idiot for claiming that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'  There are no other possibilities here: you are wrong.

Quote
There will be several lessons learned here.
Are you planning to learn from any of them?  I doubt it, since that would require you to actually both and understand one of our posts.  Your track record isn't very good so far, I'm afraid.

Quote
One will be that I have met many people like Rilke on these threads who are very arrogant about their supposed intellectual superiority and at the same time are quite vehement about attacking the supposed lack of intelligence they see in YECs like me.
Aha!  Once again we see that the problem here is poor Dave's ego.  Wound his vanity by pointing out that he's an idiot and he reacts like a cat that's had it's tail stepped on.

Dave, such vanity is blatantly unChristian.  You should not let your ego get in the way of actual knowledge.  That would be stupid.

Quote
This from Rilke's source of choice (Wikipedia): Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages.Portuguese and French
Interesting.  Nothing in there about Portuguese being a 'mixture of French and Spanish.'

Dave, when you cite something in your support, you really should cite that something that actually supports you.  Otherwise you simply come across as illiterate and illogical.  Do try harder next time, won't you?  I forgive you this time, since you're clearly young and inexperienced with discussion and argument, but if you want to debate with adults you're going to need to practice.


Quote
Of course if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.
Of course.  That's what history books are for, Dave.  Perhaps you should try reading one?
Quote
What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  [Oh ... by the way ... I guess I'd better fill you in that Burgundy is in France ... small detail].
Ok, so far we've established that Burgundians helped dear old Alfonso VI.  What, precisely, does this have to do with 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Quote
Anyway, Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone.
Well, for snails, perhaps.  The rest of us have gotten bored waiting for you to make a point.  Unfortunately, nothing you have regurgitated so far establishes 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'.

Quote
Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese.
Dave, I wouldn't suggest math as a career choice.  I'll hope you're not an engineer, because only a moron would make such a claim.

You have stated that 'Burgundians were involved during a formative period of Portuguese politics.'  This does NOT establish that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'.

In order to establish that fact, you'd have to deal with linguistic history.

Quote
Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average Joe (or Rilke).
Which does not give you any understanding of the linguistics or linguistic history of these tongues.  After all, any moron can be taught language.  But it takes some actual intelligence to understand it.
Quote
I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.

Ah, so you have now tried two different arguments:

1) there were Burgundians in Portugal during a formative period.

2) I, Dave, personally think these languages sound mixed.  That, of course, is based on the fact that you're not the one who speaks all three - you just listen to them.

Neither of these arguments establishes that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Quote
And if you think and are honest (I'm finding this to be a slightly scarce combo here),
You do have a problem with lying and blatant dishonesty of the intellectual kind, it's true.
Quote
instead of just shoot your mouth off about how all YECs are stupid idiots,
I haven't.  I have pointed out that you, Dave, are

1) ignorant of history
2) ignorant of science
3) ignorant of theology
4) ignorant of logic
5) ignorant of debate
6) ignorant of manners

and

7) not terribly bright.

That hardly applies to all YECs.  Just you.  Otherwise I'd be generalizeing.

Quote
you can see how Wikipedia would make a statement like ...


phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. (by the way, Catalan the language of Andorra -- just below France on the map)[/quote] So?  In what fashion does that establish that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Answer: it doesn't, of course.  Can you demonstrate that Portuguese possesses a mixture of French and Spanish grammar?  A mixture of French and Spanish vocabulary?  A mixture of French and Spanish pronunciation?

Apparently not.

Quote
Either choice you make, I'm going to take this thread back to it's intended content and expand it a bit.  I will pretty much abandon the Ape Thread now as it has served its purpose.  I have successfully shown that there is nothing more than flimsy evidence which could be construed as positive support for Common Descent of Apes and Humans, although there is excellent evidence for common ancestry within the Apes as well as within all the other originally created kinds.
I see.  Choosing to run away?  How Christian.  How brave.

Quote
(Rilke--you probably knew about this little detail in Wikipedia, but just withheld it, right?  Very honest of you)
Not at all.  I presumed you might have the intelligence to read it yourself... and understand it.  Apparently, I was wrong.

Let's sum up, shall we?

Dave claimed, 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Dave has tried to support this by stating that:

1) Burgundians were involved in early Portugese history.

2) Portuguese has phonetic similarities to Catalan and French.

3) Dave thinks that Portuguese sounds like Spanish and French mixed.

What are we to make of this?  

1) Having Burgundians present doesn't mean that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)' - especially since neither of these two languages existed in anything like their present form at the time.  More importantly, the historical fact of the presence of Burgundians doesn't demonstrate anything about the linguistic history of the language.

2) Catalan.  Well, the amusing part here is that Catalan is not French.  From our ever reliable source, Wikipedia (I use it primarily because Dave seems to trust it):
Quote
Ethnologue, its specific classification is a member of the East Iberian branch of the Ibero-Romance branch of the Gallo-Iberian branch of the Western sub complex of the Italo-Western complex of the Romance group of the Italic branch of the Indo-European language family. It shares many features with both Spanish and French, and is the language nearest to Occitan, and is often thought of as a sort of "transitory" language between the Iberian and Gallic languages when comparing the modern descendants of Latin.


So claiming, as Dave did, that the Wikipedia quote concerning the Catalan pronunciation was meaningless.

More importantly, the statement that Portuguese is phoenetically similar to French does nothing to establish the truth of 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)' unless Dave also demonstrates that Portuguese is ALSO PHOENETICALLY SIMILAR TO SPANISH.'

Which he has, of course, not done.

Finally, (3) - Dave's personal opinion that the language sounds that way.  Not actual evidence, Dave - just your personal opinion.

And your personal opinion, as established by your unfortunate ignorance noted above, has been determined to be worthless.


Finally summary:

1) Dave made a blatantly incorrect statement.

2) When called on it, rather than demonstrate any intellectual integrity by admitting his mistake, he stated something quite different (ignoring his original error).

3) When called on the fact that his [i]different
statement was also wrong, he denied it and offered money to salve his ego.

4) Finally brought to bay, he offered various clippings and his personal opinion to try to establish that his second statement was still correct.

5) But his clippings do not establish the truth of his original statement; and his personal opinion is valueless.

Dave, it is unChristian to lie; and disappointing to see you show so little intellectual integrity.

You are, I'm sorry to say, a moron.

But I appreciate that you're not very good at this 'debate' thing, and we'd like to help you learn more.

The first thing to learn is to admit your mistakes and errors, and not commit sins in covering them up.

Christ would like that.  I understand he's your hero; you could do worse than try to emulate him.

If there is anything else we can do to help, you just let us know.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:28   

Rilke--  You crashed and burned, and even your friends cannot defend you on this one.  What better expert do you need than your friend, Arden Chatfield who has a PhD in linguistics?  Here is what he said ...
Quote
Another point: the only way Portuguese could be a mixture of Spanish and French would be if French had the opportunity to influence Portuguese in a big way.


And I responded with ...
Quote

Uh ... er ... a big influence, huh ... like maybe thousands of French knights coming over to help Alfonso VI, maybe?  Did you even read my post?  Here's the part you might have missed ...

Of course if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  [Oh ... by the way ... I guess I'd better fill you in that Burgundy is in France ... small detail].  Anyway, Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone.

Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese.

Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average Joe (or Rilke).  I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.


It doesn't take a PhD in linguistics to see this, Arden.  

If you want to argue something new, go start a new thread on Martin Luther, or the Catholic church, or Hitler or something else fun.


So Rilke ... Arden (the Linguistics PhD) says "Another point: the only way Portuguese could be a mixture of Spanish and French would be if French had the opportunity to influence Portuguese in a big way.

And the "opportunity to influence Portuguese in a big way" is so obvious from history that only a liar would miss it.

Face it, Rilke, you called me an idiot for a statement I made and now you look so ridiculous that even your friends are changing the subject.

But keep on flailing if you want to.  I'm going back to more productive arguments.

It's OK.  It's not like I disproved the ToE or something.  This was only a stupid little side issue anyway.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:42   

Gee, Dave, you ignored MY response to you, and now you're somehow claiming MY words proved YOUR argument? Aren't you Christian types supposed to NOT LIE?

Dave, you haven't proved anything. Some French people in Portugal does not prove that Portuguese is a 'mix of French and Spanish'. I asked you for evidence that this was the case and you produced nothing. Real evidence would be French grammatical elements found in Portuguese and not Spanish. Didn't happen.

Your vague impressions of what Portuguese sounds like does not prove anything. People with actual training in linguistics agree that the phonetic developments separating Portuguese from Spanish are INDEPENDENT of French. At most, Portuguese acquired some French loanwords in the 18th century and later (after the Brazilian/European Portuguese split! ) that every other western European language has.  If you think that is evidence that Portuguese is a mix of Spanish and French, then it also means that English is a mix of French, Latin, Spanish, Greek, etc. No linguist would say that, because borrowings do not make a mixed language.

So basically, you're wrong, Dave. We know you came here to missionize, but you're giving people here a dismal impression of Christians as  ignorant, dishonest, irrational, and arrogant.

And please do not claim that my words prove your argument. There are times when knowledge IS more important than attitude, Dave.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:44   

So Daveey, does this mean you are taking my bet?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:44   

Quote
I'm going back to more productive arguments.
Good good. Perhaps it would be productive if you could list your main problems with the theory of evolution and then we could help. This seems to be what your other post is leading to anyway, but we might as well get it over and done with.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:50   

Ah, the Cordova Cockstrut continues. I don't personally know Rilke's Granddaughter, so I can't call myself a friend. But I and several others have pointed out that you haven't presented a single piece of evidence that there's any significant French in Portuguese. Faid, in fact, just listed several what-look-like fairly authoritative articles on the language that would surely have mentioned it, if it were real. So when you say RGD is all alone in challenging you, what the fork are you talking about?

Now my curiosity is piqued. You claimed  
Quote
if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights
I would have no reason to doubt this. It still doesn't prove your point about the language, and Arden Chatfield only allowed that a massive French influence would be necessary, not sufficient to leave a significant linguistic footprint. But, again, I would have no reason to doubt it, except for the fact that you stated it, and you have an unbroken record for being wrong. So I'm going to check it out, and report back. See you then!

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:55   

Quote
Gee, Dave, you ignored MY response to you, and now you're somehow claiming MY words proved YOUR argument?


Your response was irrelevant.  And yes, YOUR words showed the validity of my argument.

Thanks for the help!

(Oh, and if you think Christians are not tough in their speech sometimes, go read the New Testament and see how tough Jesus spoke to the Pharisees. This is a common misconception that Christians are somehow supposed to be Casper Milktoast or something.  Or how about the founders of this country? ... you want talk about some tough talking Christians!;)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:00   

So Davey, are you a\taking my bet? You do know that the founders weren't exactly christian right?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:02   

Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,09:55)
Quote
Gee, Dave, you ignored MY response to you, and now you're somehow claiming MY words proved YOUR argument?


Your response was irrelevant.  And yes, YOUR words showed the validity of my argument.

Thanks for the help!

(Oh, and if you think Christians are not tough in their speech sometimes, go read the New Testament and see how tough Jesus spoke to the Pharisees. This is a common misconception that Christians are somehow supposed to be Casper Milktoast or something.  Or how about the founders of this country? ... you want talk about some tough talking Christians!;)

So here we have Dave's response when backed into a corner and losing -- declare all counterarguments 'irrelevant'  and declare victory. This is the same way he's 'proved' Noah's Flood and a Young Earth.

Dave, if my counterarguments are 'irrelevant', why do all the experts disagree with you ONCE AGAIN? Does their superior level of knowledge make them LESS qualified to make judgements on these things?

Seriously, Dave -- when Christians act like this, it makes a dismal impression.

I'm not saying Christians aren't supposed to be tough -- but what I am saying is that they're not supposed to be liars. You, uh, haven't done well in that regard.

I bet Dave isn't showing this site to his wife and kids anymore.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:10   

Quote (Russell @ May 22 2006,09:50)
Now my curiosity is piqued. You claimed    
Quote
if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights
I would have no reason to doubt this. It still doesn't prove your point about the language, and Arden Chatfield only allowed that a massive French influence would be necessary, not sufficient to leave a significant linguistic footprint. But, again, I would have no reason to doubt it, except for the fact that you stated it, and you have an unbroken record for being wrong. So I'm going to check it out, and report back. See you then!

Correct, it is a necessary condition to a massive French influence on Portuguese, but not sufficient. A large no. of foreign language speakers moving into a country is not usually sufficient to change the host language at all. It's quite common for this sort of thing to happen without the language changing. For example, there are a huge number of Spanish speakers in the American southwest, and aside from some Spanish loanwords, English as spoken there is basically unaffected by it. Dave hasn't shown the necessary massive, continued bilingualism necessary here. And in a way, it doesn't matter, since what's important is what the languages are like, and the Portuguese language does not show anything more than minor French influence.

Dave's refusal to admit a mistake here is remarkable. His own ego seems to be much more important to him than representing Christians in a favorable light.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:21   

1/2-a-Dave, if you had another brain it would be lonely.

Are you taking my bet?

You are aware that the founders of this country weren't exactly christian, right? You just made that statement because you're not quite as smart as bait, right?

Tell me again why the Appalachians are low and smooth while the himalayas are high and craggy? And, I need a blueprint for your brain; I'm trying to build an idiot.

You don't know my old professor do you? He was conducting some experiments in Artificial Stupidity and the results sound a lot like you.

Are you taking my bet?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:24   

[deja vu]

Hey Dave, did you check my links yet? You must have, since you asked for them...

So, I take it you saw how everyone agrees that:
-Portuguese has it's origins directly in Vulgar Latin
-Is, in fact, the closest language to Latin after Italian
-It was formed gradually (as Galician-Portuguese) during the early Middle Ages and on to the Arab occupation, separately -and spoken in a different location- than Castillian (that would lead to Spanish)
-Galician-Portuguese (not Spanish, and certainly NOT
French) became the official Language of the newfound kingdom
-Galician and Portuguese later diverged, and Portuguese began to resemble more its modern form
-The FIRST substantial French influence to the language came in the 18th century, leading to al the differences between, say, Portuguese and Brazilian.


Well, now that you've read all that (and I'm sure you have) I suppose you can start proving why all these people are totally wrong, and the European history of Languages has to be rewritten, right?

[/deja vu]

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:36   

Quote (Faid @ May 22 2006,10:24)
[deja vu]

Hey Dave, did you check my links yet? You must have, since you asked for them...

So, I take it you saw how everyone agrees that:
-Portuguese has it's origins directly in Vulgar Latin
-Is, in fact, the closest language to Latin after Italian
-It was formed gradually (as Galician-Portuguese) during the early Middle Ages and on to the Arab occupation, separately -and spoken in a different location- than Castillian (that would lead to Spanish)
-Galician-Portuguese (not Spanish, and certainly NOT
French) became the official Language of the newfound kingdom
-Galician and Portuguese later diverged, and Portuguese began to resemble more its modern form
-The FIRST substantial French influence to the language came in the 18th century, leading to al the differences between, say, Portuguese and Brazilian.


Well, now that you've read all that (and I'm sure you have) I suppose you can start proving why all these people are totally wrong, and the European history of Languages has to be rewritten, right?

[/deja vu]

Slightly off track, the Brazilian versus European Portuguese thing here is interesting. A couple websites have stated that most French loanwords in Portuguese are in European Portuguese but not Brazilian Portuguese. This is like saying that a big foreign influence was present in British English but not American English. Given that European and Brazilian Portuguese are still unquestionably mutually intelligible, and the same language, this indicates that in real linguistic terms the French influence on Portuguese is actually quite recent and rather superficial. Certainly nowhere near enough for Portuguese to be a 'mix' of Spanish and French.

Actually, there are ways in which Brazilian Portuguese is both more conservative and less conservative than European Portuguese. Brazilian does retain some elements of pronunciation that European Portuguese once had but has since lost. But this is normal. The same holds true of American versus British English, in that there are archaisms in American English that British English lost, as well.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:42   

And certainly not responsible for the creation of the language from Spanish...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:48   

comment redacted because it was a response to a months-old post I erroneously thought was fresh.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:50   

Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,09:28)
Rilke--  You crashed and burned, and even your friends cannot defend you on this one.  What better expert do you need than your friend, Arden Chatfield who has a PhD in linguistics?  Here is what he said ...

Sorry, Dave. It's not Rilke who crashed and burned. As she pointed out to you, nothing you've said has established that Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French.  Mr. Chatfield's statement doesn't help you, because French "influence" in Portugal is a necessary, but hardly sufficient, precondition for Portuguese to be a "mixture" of French and Spanish.

And just so Dave knows, folks: let's take a little poll. Who here believes that Dave has established the truth of his original assertion: that Portuguese is "Spanish and French mixed"?

Then we can put this one to bed.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:55   

Quote (Faid @ May 22 2006,10:42)
And certainly not responsible for the creation of the language from Spanish...

Correct. Spanish and Portuguese apparently started to diverge noticeably around the 12th century. The Portuguese didn't colonize Brazil til around 600 years after that, I think, by which time Portuguese was definitely a well defined language.

It's also a big mistake to think of Portuguese just diverging from Spanish and Spanish staying the same all that time. The whole time Portuguese was becoming Portuguese, Spanish was also undergoing its own important changes as well. From what I gather, Portuguese is actually MORE conservative than Spanish in terms of grammar and morphology. To say that Portuguese is descended from Spanish is exactly the same as saying humans are descended from chimpanzees. In fact, Portuguese and Spanish are both descended from Proto-Iberian Romance, which was not the same as any language spoken now.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:12   

Darnit darnit darnit darnit. You are giving away the farm. THere is still the off off off off chance that the only man to push IQ into negative integers would allow me to write a post on his blog.

But this is facinating. All of 1/2-a-dave's posts are now language lessons.

OK, I assume doofus won't take my bet. I also may be giving him too much credit (can you imagine?)

Judging by his dates, I have to guess that, if he were to trot out evidence (which he indeed might not have been going to), it would have been the Auto de Partilhas. As far as I know, this is the first document written in what could be called vernacular portuguese. I think it comes from 1150-80?? ish. I assume his argument would have traced the vocabulary to it's "French" origins. I bet I could trace it to it's "Latin" origins more convincingly. Also, I would have forced definitions of French and Spanish that I believe would have confused and confounded our man with too many yards between his goalposts. I was hoping to do that part too. Also, either way, I win.

Also, as was mentioned earlier, Despite the Norman invasion, English maintained it's basic syntax and borrowed essentially just vocabulary from the french invaders. However, the French words we got are a little closer to latin than modern french maybe. Arden?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:28   

What's most amusing about Dave at the moment is the fact that he's struggling so badly making an argument: the accuracy of his original statement having been swiftly and thoroughly shown to be non-existent.

Let's consider: what would it take to show that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish?

Option 1) A linguistic history of the language showing that it had developed from these two other tongues.

Unfortunately option 1 is eliminated because these languages did not exist when Portuguese developed.

Option 2) Show, by linguistic analysis, that Portuguese is comprised of an admixture of French and Spanish vocabulary; French and Spanish grammar; and French and Spanish pronunciation.

Unfortunately, option 2 is eliminated because Dave can't actually show those things.

Now Dave, we realize that you can continue to make yourself look like a fool by persisting in your inability to admit that your first statement was idiotically wrong; your second statement a cover-up AND idiotically wrong; and your continuing statements a cover-up, irrelevant, AND idiotically wrong.

Or you can demonstrate some intellectual credibility and Christian ethics by admitting that you were mistaken, that you lied, and that you're ignorant.

Feel free to start any time.  

Remember - we are trying to help you.  I know that arguments and discussion with adults can be trying and hard, but if you just persevere and do your homework, you'll be ready for it!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:28   

Quote

Also, as was mentioned earlier, Despite the Norman invasion, English maintained it's basic syntax and borrowed essentially just vocabulary from the french invaders. However, the French words we got are a little closer to latin than modern french maybe.


Right, by far most of the big French influence on English was lexical, and most of it took place 600-800 years ago. Some of the French words English borrowed look more like Old French rather than modern French. A good example is that when most of these French words entered English, French still kept old Latin 'st'. So English has French loanwords like 'beast' and 'feast', with 'st', while French subsequently deleted 's' before 't', which is why modern French now has 'bete' and 'fete' (sorry, I don't know how to make the accents work).

English is also very grammatically simplified compared to most of Germanic, but the current consensus is that the grammatical simplification English underwent was not due to the Norman invasions, but was in fact the result of the NORSE invasions a couple centuries before that, when large numbers of Norse speakers invaded eastern England. That invasion also left a large layer of (Norse) loanwords, including some very basic words like 'they' and 'egg'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,07:08   

Quote
And just so Dave knows, folks: let's take a little poll. Who here believes that Dave has established the truth of his original assertion: that Portuguese is "Spanish and French mixed"?
I suppose that, given the way this is worded, one could take lack of response as a vote against dave. But I'll make it explicit: I, for one, don't believe he has even begun to establish it.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,07:12   

I haven't seen AFDave be right about anything. And I think he's lost some confidence lately, from being shown to be so wrong, so frequently.

   
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,07:29   

Quote (Russell @ May 22 2006,12:08)
Quote
And just so Dave knows, folks: let's take a little poll. Who here believes that Dave has established the truth of his original assertion: that Portuguese is "Spanish and French mixed"?
I suppose that, given the way this is worded, one could take lack of response as a vote against dave. But I'll make it explicit: I, for one, don't believe he has even begun to establish it.

I think all languages are constantly mixed.

We english speakers use a lot of latin in science and academics -- for example: ad absurdum, a phrase that describes afdave's arguments is basically latin. As is and does ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

Aficionado is Spanish and angst is German.

That's just a tiny tip  off the iceberg.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,07:41   

Quote (normdoering @ May 22 2006,12:29)
 
Quote (Russell @ May 22 2006,12:08)
 
Quote
And just so Dave knows, folks: let's take a little poll. Who here believes that Dave has established the truth of his original assertion: that Portuguese is "Spanish and French mixed"?
I suppose that, given the way this is worded, one could take lack of response as a vote against dave. But I'll make it explicit: I, for one, don't believe he has even begun to establish it.

I think all languages are constantly mixed.

We english speakers use a lot of latin in science and academics -- for example: ad absurdum, a phrase that describes afdave's arguments is basically latin. As is and does ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

Aficionado is Spanish and angst is German.

That's just a tiny tip  off the iceberg.

Well sure, probably every language in the world has loanwords. Some have lots more than others. Japanese and English are especially uninhibited about borrowing words from other languages. But it's a matter of degree. There is a whole spectrum of possible influence one language can have on another, from just words, to pronunciation, to morphology, to syntax. The degree of 'mixing' between English and French could have gone a lot further, in that it didn't go much past borrowed words. That is, it didn't have much of an influence on English grammar.

There actually IS a linguistic concept of a 'mixed language', and when one sees one of those, you see huge influences in grammar, word order, pronunciation -- influences seeping through at all levels. A good example of this is Vietnamese, which is actually an Austroasiatic language, and thus related to Khmer, but it underwent such a massive influence from neighboring (unrelated) language families like Tai and Chinese that it quit looking much at all like an Austroasiatic language, acquiring tone and making all its words monosyllabic. In fact, its Austroasiatic affinity was hidden for decades because of this, and was only discovered in the middle of the 20th century. That's much closer to being a 'mixed language', and there are other languages that are even better examples.

But I agree, no language is 'pure' or exists in a vacuum.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,08:05   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 22 2006,12:41)
But I agree, no language is 'pure' or exists in a vacuum.

A little fact that let afdave try to move the goal posts on you guys.

I suggest you drop the whole language argument and next time nail down the goal posts so he can't move them. For example, before we argue about kinds we have to get afdave to clearly define them... to nail down  where creationisms predictive goal posts are.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,08:14   

Yes Dave, we'd like to hear your thoughts about 'kinds'. Are kinds and species the same?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,08:43   

Quote (jeannot @ May 22 2006,13:14)
Yes Dave, we'd like to hear your thoughts about 'kinds'. Are kinds and species the same?

I predict that "kinds" will end up being somewhere between species and kingdoms (because, like, where else would they be?).

I also predict they won't be in the same place for all organisms. Bacteria will be one "kind" (covering an entire superclade), but humans (a species) will be another "kind."

Bunnies, kittens, and bluejays will also, of course, be individual "kinds."

But my final prediction is that there will be no rhyme or reason, taxonomically, to how Dave divides organisms up into "kinds."

(I'm also really interested to see where Dave puts penisworms into his classification scheme. Just because, well, it will be humorous on a totally sophomoric level.)

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:00   

Quote (normdoering @ May 22 2006,13:05)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 22 2006,12:41)
But I agree, no language is 'pure' or exists in a vacuum.

A little fact that let afdave try to move the goal posts on you guys.

I suggest you drop the whole language argument and next time nail down the goal posts so he can't move them. For example, before we argue about kinds we have to get afdave to clearly define them... to nail down  where creationisms predictive goal posts are.

But as with most fundies, his 'arguments' are simply not sufficiently coherent to 'pin down'; they are just a mush of cut-n-paste goo from fundie sources. Nothing to get a handle on, because no real content.  ;)

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,16:24   

Well, well, well.
How revealing 1/2 a D 'claims victory' shades of MP's Black Knight there is no finer example of a deluded mind denying facts, reason and honesty.
The other observation I have is the methodology employed by 1/2 a D vs the 'crew'.

It would seem that everyone except D/2 did some basic research and did not overstep their own ability. How in this day with so much information available on line, one could honestly make such a mistake lead me to conclude that D/2 is more mendacious than ignorant.

Considering we are graced with the presence of a PhD in linguistics whose knowledge, skills, professionalism and yes one could reasonably conclude proven honesty in the field of linguistics due to his qualifications; I for one would not be rushing to claim 'victory' over a foolish statement based on listening to kitchen conversations with my family and friends and one tiny snippet of European history.

It's clear to me D/2  has not the faintest knowledge of the history of language development and does not seem to have studied first hand any Romance Language.
I studied Latin and French at high school for 3 years and would not rush to make any such claims.

However, I would claim that one can not truly understand ones own language without studying another related language. The structure of my mother tongue, English was completely opaque until I found that Latin and French use different object,subject,verb structures masculine and feminine forms, verb conjugation, just to name the trivial differences. Seeing the Latin root word and it's French and English cousins and the subtle shift in meanings, in the raw if you like, help with forming a more sophisticated world view of history and cultural imperatives.
Particularly with regard to understanding what a world view actually is.

As someone once said “We know water was discovered by someone or something but we can be very sure it wasn't a fish”.

1/2 a D is literally swimming in ignorance, that is, a lack of even a basic education in western culture and I would argue an impotence in acquiring any useful knowledge simply because he lacks the ability to critically examine any information regardless of its sources.

Why? Fundamentalism does not test the truth you are told what to think, just take orders and execute like a good soldier, no critical thinking needed or desired, in fact it is crushed and removed from the adherent WHEN THEY ARE CHILREN by professional lying liars.

The scientific method and its test for truth (Darwinism) is Fundamentalism's enemy and is thus the enemy of education,knowledge,truth, honesty and mankind's collected wisdom.

1/2 a Dave is just Fundy cannon fodder, he's had his brains turned to mush.

He is incapable of telling himself what is true and what is not, because he believes a lie is true.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,17:07   

Shhh. He's logged in. He'll hear you.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,17:14   

Quote (BWE @ May 22 2006,22:07)
Shhh. He's logged in. He'll hear you.

I doubt it.  He's too dumb to notice.

But I do think that 2nd Lt. Dave is the funniest poster we've got.  Funnier that Carol.  Funnier that Larry.  Funnier than... well, that guy who's crazy about boneless things.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,18:26   

wow.

Although I can reasonably predict he won't be, Dave should be proud of that.

I don't think he (can) grasp how many have come before him, and just how idiotic they all have been.

To be labeled "funniest" is quite a compliment.  Really.

Now if he knew the definition of self-deprecating humor, it would truly be funny, rather than pathetic and sad.

For example, gawp CAN be funny, and he occasionally sees that.

Dave is incapable of being funny intentionally, and can't begin to see why we think his responses are humorous anyway.

oh well, the show must go on.

Ohhh Daveyyyyy!

5 minutes to curtain Mr. Dave, 5 minutes...

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:02   

Stagefright. He's logged on a few times I've noticed. The cat is out of the bag now. He's frustrated that the portuguese thing went south when he thought it was north.
Is thaty the tubes?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:07   

Quote
I bet Dave isn't showing this site to his wife and kids anymore.


I find this curious - I just looked at AFDave's blog airdave.blogspot.com and he has removed his AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis entry along with all the associated critical comments.  That's one way to hide the embarrassment I guess.  Do we have another Dave Springer-Spaniel the mad deleter on our hands?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:08   

The wind does seem to have gone out of his sails a bit. But GoP's really in a slump. Everytime he shows up we ask him for some geocentrism or scale-free networks, maybe that has something to do with it. A reminder of his failures.

edit: some of his failures. he's promised many things he's failed to deliver.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:14   

having tried to follow this from the beginning, of the discussion, I've come to the conclusion that this is the same circular reasoning on both sides.  Is anybody out there really interested in the development and diversity of life or is it just more fun to try to prove each other wrong?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:16   

Dave looks down on us from 30000 feet in his jet-trainer and says...

"I welcome your comments, but get ready to be challenged! "

ROFLMAO!

the only challenge is in keeping your own sanity while you observe the total lack of his own.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:20   

Quote
I've come to the conclusion that this is the same circular reasoning on both sides.


I can tell just from the tone of your post I'm going to regret bothering to ask, but...

could you point out exactly where you see circular reasoning on BOTH sides?

or are you just farting your 2 cents?

here, let me help you:

what you see on DAVE'S side is not only circular argument and reasoning, but rampant ignorance, and hardcore projection and denial.

what you see on our side that you misinterpret as circular, is the fact that we have to repeat ourselves a dozen times or more before Dave can apparently parse even a few words of what we are trying to show him.

see?  not circular, just patient.

You don't need to go farther than the first few pages on any of Dave's threads to see the answers to his drivel are already there.

The rest is us just excercising our wit, or our skulls by banging them on ridiculous pyschological walls Dave has built around himself.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:25   

The arguements pro and con for evolution are well known and many have been around for over a hundred years.  On the other side ID offers no alterative.  ID says God did it!  Yeah, so how does that help me in the lab, the classroom, in life?  It doesn't its just a feelgood.  On the other hand, there are some serious questions in biochemistry and molecular biology that need to be addressed and not avoid just so we present a unified front to the ID crowd.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:28   

so stop preaching and start asking.

what are your questions?

oh, and i suggest you start a new topic to address them.

as you may have noticed, this thread has become a bit long in the tooth.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:30   

Quote
Dave's Personal Testimony

Dave grew up in a Christian home, the youngest son of a Bible Translator for a native tribe in northern Brazil. He was saved at an early age and memorized hundreds of Bible verses as a kid thanks to the Bible Memory Association which included memory booklets, a reward system and camps.

Dave received an Electrical Engineering degree in 1986 and became an Air Force pilot the same year. During his Air Force years, he wrote thought-provoking Christian articles and flyers for distribution to co-workers. In 1996, Dave left the Air Force to go into business in the Kansas City area. In 2003, Dave sold his telecommunications business where he served as President/COO/CFO to a public company based in Leawood, Kansas.

Dave is married to the former [ name removed by me ] of Dallas, Texas and has five children - [names removed by me] Dave's four oldest children have been participants in the AWANA Bible Memory Program and have also attended Kids 4 Truth Clubs since inception. Dave has a unique vantage point with kids in BOTH programs at the same time. Dave's primary interest in Kids 4 Truth is in the power of the web for its ability to deliver THE TRUTH in a dynamic multi-media format. Dave currently serves his church, Tri-City Ministries, as a deacon, 3rd grade boys Sunday School teacher, baseball coach, Urban LIFE pianist, and volunteer pilot.


emphasis mine.

Human face on a strange man. I wonder what his AF buddies thought of his writing?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:31   

Circular in the sense that ID trys to disprove evolution to no avail, and evolutionists try to disprove ID for no purpose, there is no threat and it justs wastes time that could be applied to real work.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:33   

I wonder what his AF buddies thought of the obvious cult he had been indoctrinated into as a kid???

did I ever tell you how much i HATE missionaries?

single most destructive occupation on the face of the earth.

aside:

Quote
there is no threat and it justs wastes time that could be applied to real work.


multiple things wrong with that statment.

1.  If we are here, we have time to waste.  All my work is done at the moment.  anybody else taking off time from research or work to post here?  no?  didn't think so.

2.  Standard response:  what we do here helps lurkers who haven't seen the various positions argued ad nauseum, and we often post useful information, not just for lurkers, but for each other as well.  I learn new stuff here almost every day, and I AM a scientist.  there's quite a diverse group with a lot of expertise that you just won't find on very many forums.

so... did you actually have questions?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:37   

Did you ever read "The Poisonwood Bible" by Barbara Kingsolver?

Utterly amazing book but it does leave you a bit sick.
Highly recommend it though.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:39   

i'll add it to the list, if you tell me it has a happy ending

;)

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:41   

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of a happy ending. Yeah I suppose so.

Have you ever read anything by her? She is maybe in the top 10 american authors.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,19:59   

I've forgotten 10 times the number of books i remember.  

you know you gotta read too much shit in this profession anyway.  I have an entire garage full of periodical reprints alone!  I've finally managed to donate the other garage full of texts and books i was toting about for decades.

so, to answer your question, probably, but I'm sure I've all but forgotten which ones and when.

Heck, these days it's great if I can remember most of a book i just read last week.  Most of the info. just gets absorbed into the "gestalt" along with the rest.  specific memory was always a weak spot with me.  Ask me how a theory works and how and when it is best applied? no problem.  ask me who was the originator of the theory?
thank god for google.

In case your wondering, I studied a bit of anthropology (and California history) as an undergrad, and most of my opinions of missionaries came from direct observations of their impact on culture and environment.  Not pretty.

I have a totally different view of missions when i visit them than most folks do.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,20:04   

Quote
I wonder what his AF buddies thought of the obvious cult he had been indoctrinated into as a kid???


From my first hand experiences with military pilots (who all tend to be intelligent self-assured free-thinkers)

A few probably politely listened to him.
A few more probably just ignored him.
Most probably told him in no uncertain terms to take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut.

How about it AFDave - is that breakdown basically accurate?

When you started preaching to them about their sins, how many of your fellow aviators told you to f*ck off?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,20:08   

i picture many juvenile practical jokes being pulled on our davey...

got a few ideas of what they might have been, OA?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,20:09   

Poisonwood bible is about a missionary's family in africa.

Fiction.

Quite sickening but incredible.

Yeah I know, I read too much.
Way too much.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,20:15   

told from whose perspective?  the missionaries or their victims, er, i mean "students"...?

It starts to sound familiar... did they make a flick out of that story about 10 years ago?

Edit:

nvmn, i went and looked it up.  it does sound like a great tale.

kind of a more modern "Lord Jim"

and no, looking at the list, i can't recall ever having read any of her books before.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,20:27   

Quote (skeptic @ May 23 2006,00:14)
having tried to follow this from the beginning, of the discussion, I've come to the conclusion that this is the same circular reasoning on both sides.  Is anybody out there really interested in the development and diversity of life or is it just more fun to try to prove each other wrong?

At this point it's more fun just to prove Dave, once again, wrong.

The problem, Mr. Skeptic, is that Dave has shown himself to be incapable of evaluating evidence. So far, he has proffered none of his own, and even when he's been presented essentially unassailable proof of an assertion (e.g. that the broken GULO gene in humans and chimps is conclusive evidence of common ancestry), he either ignores it or seemingly deliberately misconstrues it.

If you want a flavor of how delusional Mr. Air Force is, read some of the posts regarding his French + Spanish = Protuguese assertion.

At this point, it's way more fun to poke fun at Dave than it is to try to engage him in rational debate.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,20:54   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 22 2006,05:55)
Quote (Faid @ May 22 2006,10:42)
And certainly not responsible for the creation of the language from Spanish...

Correct. Spanish and Portuguese apparently started to diverge noticeably around the 12th century. The Portuguese didn't colonize Brazil til around 600 years after that, I think, by which time Portuguese was definitely a well defined language.

It's also a big mistake to think of Portuguese just diverging from Spanish and Spanish staying the same all that time. The whole time Portuguese was becoming Portuguese, Spanish was also undergoing its own important changes as well. From what I gather, Portuguese is actually MORE conservative than Spanish in terms of grammar and morphology. To say that Portuguese is descended from Spanish is exactly the same as saying humans are descended from chimpanzees. In fact, Portuguese and Spanish are both descended from Proto-Iberian Romance, which was not the same as any language spoken now.

All the lurkers (well, me, at least) are laughing. Dave's ability to call black white over the language issue highlights his complete lack of credibility.

The analogies between language spread and development as memic, as a metaphor for evolutionary processes, as hinted at here, could be developed, thus combining the issues of language and evolution, reducing the amount of verbiage required to address? (refute, demolish, bury?) AFDave's assertions.

Personally, I think the point that he has nothing of value to offer has been made, not least by his own posts, and I don't see any need to waste more time on him.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,21:03   

hey, don't look at me.  I gave up on his ability to even understand an evidentiary argument after his very first post.

At this point, I'm more interested in seeing if there is anything practical that would result from disecting his brain.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,21:06   

I'm trying right now. Ive put all his posts from one thread into one text file and I am posting them on a new post. Takes a bit though.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,21:27   

Done, I lost the formatting though. I shoulda seen it coming but I guess I was busy.

I must say, I was surprised. His other threads he get's more upset toward the end but his logic is absolutely consistent.

It isn't the same when I read it that way.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,21:53   

Quote (skeptic @ May 23 2006,00:31)
Circular in the sense that ID trys to disprove evolution to no avail, and evolutionists try to disprove ID for no purpose, there is no threat and it justs wastes time that could be applied to real work.

We dont try and disprove ID, mostly we just point out where its supporters are wrong, since we cannot conclusively prove that there is no intelligent designer.

As for the threat, it is a threat to proper science education, since it is part of an anti-science mindset, and as such threatens a great deal of work and life in the USA.  Sure, if nobody though evolution was correct, a lot of science would still get done, but as the unifying principle behind much of biology, people would be unable to see the big picture.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,22:37   

BWE which thread did d/2 delete and is it on your conglomerated thread?
I wouldn't mind finding out what crack in his reality wall let in the cold light of day.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,01:26   

Dave, here's yet another nifty link- and from this site, not some stinkin' Wiki page:

http://libro.uca.edu/payne1/spainport1.htm

Quote
Particularism in the Portugalense was reinforced by the mountain barriers and watershed--the region of Tras-os-Montes--that separated it from Leon to the northeast. Save for the Douro, none of the rivers that flowed through the Portugalense originated east of the mountains. There was distinct geographic separation and orientation toward the southwest and the Atlantic. Greater geographic and cultural continuity existed toward the north, for it appears that in addition to the climatic and agrarian similarities, a separate western dialect of vernacular Latin had been spoken in that part of the peninsula since late Roman times. This formed the basis for the modern language of Galician-Portuguese.

Quote
Linguistically unified, the Portuguese people were socially and culturally more homogeneous than the population of Castile and Aragon. The small kingdom contained no ethnic subgroup of any importance save for a very slight Jewish population, and by the [121] middle of the thirteenth century had become the first nation-state in Europe.

(All bolds mine)

Interesting stuff, eh Dave?

I've got to thank you, however. Once again, you provide us with interesting knowledge (in linguistics and history, this time) and fruitful research... simply by taking a stand on the opposite side. Good job!

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,01:44   

Quote
there is no threat [from ID] and [confronting IDists] justs wastes time that could be applied to real work.
From my vantage point in Ohio, I am going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.  The Fundies, under the guidance of the infamous Discovery Institute, made a concerted assault on science education in Ohio, starting around 2002. Only a few months ago, after the persistent, laborious, time-consuming, leg-work of a lot of scientists and concerned citizens, did the State Board of Education reverse its endorsement of the stealth ID beach-head that had been established in the biology curriculum.

No threat? To whom? Where do you live, Mr. Skeptic? Do you have - or plan to have - kids? If I had the web savvy of stevestory, I would insert at this point an image from the South Park episode where the town decides that the only way to protect itself from Fundie Wrath* is to import 18 trucks full of sand and have each resident bury his neighbor's head in it.

*(Islamic, in this case, but same idea).

Now, sure, D/2 bashing may seem a bit like swatting a fly with a sledge-hammer. But it's been my experience that, if you don't engage these guys, or at least follow their "logic", you're literally too stunned when you hear it for the first time at the school board meeting to make a coherent reply. Well, heck, why don't I just refer you to the Why Do We Do This thread on Panda's Thumb?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,02:00   

A side question to the side question, for anyone out there knowledgeable about European linguistic history.

While trying to scratch out whether there's anything to D/2's assertion that "thousands of Burgundian knights" migrated to Portugal to help wrest the country from the Castillians, I get the impression that, at the time, Burgundy was more German than French, and that their language was the germanic Franconian, more akin to modern Dutch than to modern French.

But, I hasten to add, I'm no expert, and I'm asking a question, not making a claim. (Probably not a bad attitude to take when venturing into an area in which one is completely unschooled, don't you think?)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,03:23   

Russel, you might have a point there. I am sure my memory fails me, but I recall that when the Holy Roman Empire (Charlemagne - Under Frankish rule) was split between the 2 sons, that it was German that was spoken. I think it was after that time that the Western half came under greater influence from the Gealic tongues of the natives. There is mention somewhere that when the rulers of the 2 sides got together a couple of years after (some generations) that they could not understand each other any more. Anyway, it's all a bit fuzzy, and I don't have dates. I think I'll go and theck up a bit. Maybe Jordane mentions something about it.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,03:32   

Darn, wrong about the Gealic (Celtic)! Guess the whole of Gaul spoke Latin by that time, thanks to old Julius.

Quote
Charlemagne ruled as an emperor for more than thirteen years, during which time three emperors sat upon the [44] Byzantine throne. With them all Charlemagne endeavoured to keep peace, sending them embassies, and calling them brother; but it was not until the year 812 that the Emperor Michael formally recognized Charlemagne's right to the imperial title.

Then for hundreds of years there were two emperors, one in the East and one in the West, each claiming to be the rightful heir of the Cæsars.

But although in the West the title  of emperor endured, Charlemagne's Empire fell to pieces soon after his death, the whole state being filled with discord and violence. For it was built upon no solid foundation, but upon the will of one man.

The Sons of Louis the Pious

Charlemagne had many sons, but only one survived him. He is known as Louis the Pious, and was more fitted for the cloister than the throne. Even in his lifetime his unruly sons tried to rend the Empire from him, and after his death they quarrelled among themselves over their inheritance. After a time the two younger of these sons, Louis and Charles, joined together against Lothaire, the elder.

At Strasburg they met together, and swore an oath of eternal friendship. The taking of this oath was made an occasion of solemn ceremony. The two armies were drawn up facing each other upon the plain, and in the space between the kings, in gorgeous robes, glittering with gold and jewels, met. Each made a speech, and then with great solemnity swore to stand by the other.

Louis, being the elder, spoke first. "For the love of God," he said, "and for this Christian people and our common salvation, as much as God gives me to know and to do, I will aid my brother Charles in all things as one ought rightly to aid one's brother, on condition that he does as much for me. And I will never willingly make any com- [45] pact with Lothaire which may injure this my brother Charles."

Louis repeated the same words but in another language. For the interesting thing about this oath is that it was taken in two languages. It had been the dream of Charlemagne's life to unite all the Germans under one sceptre, so that they should be one people, speaking one language, and owning one ruler.

Before he died he had even begun to write a German grammar. But already, less than thirty years after his death, there were two such widely differing languages spoken within the Empire that the Frankish soldiers of Charles and the Saxon soldiers of Louis could not understand each other. So Louis, speaking to his brother's Franks, spoke their language, and Charles, addressing the Saxon soldiers, used another language.

Out of those two languages have grown modern French and modern German.

You may see how they have developed from the few words from the beginning of the oath which follow:

Old French: "Pro Deo amur et pro Christian poble et nostro commun salvament."

Modern French: "Pour l'amour de Dieu, et pour le salut commun du peuple cretien et le notre."

Old German: "In Godes Minna ind in thes Christianes folches ind unser bedhero gehaltnissi."

Modern German: "Aus Liebe zu Gott und des Christlicher Volkes sowie unser beider Heiles halber."

Those of you who know Latin can see at once what a strong influence that language had on the French spoken in the ninth century. The Vandals and the Goths, who had, in turn, conquered Gaul, left no trace even on the language. The Franks left little, and to-day there are not more than a thousand words of Germanic origin in the whole French [46] language. Still fewer words can be traced to Celtic—the original language of the Gauls. Latin, the language of the Romans, is the chief element. Therefore we call it a Romance language—that is, one founded upon and developed from the language spoken by the ancient Romans. Italian and Spanish are also Romance languages, for in spite of repeated conquests by Vandals, Goths, Lombards, and Saracens, Latin remained the chief element in them.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,04:01   

Based on admittedly af-assed internet research, I think that Burgundy was more or less in the Holy Roman Empire sphere of influence (a largely germanic world) at the beginning of the twelfth century, and gradually over the next two centuries was absorbed into the French nation. Meanwhile, what would become the French, Latin-derived language was growing largely west to east, displacing germanic dialects like the Franconian I suspect was spoken in Burgundy at the time.

I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to nail down, though, with the internet. I may have to (gasp! ) visit the brick-and-mortar library.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,04:05   

Renier;Ask and ye shall receive!

That's what pisses me off so much about the Fundies.
They embody dire consequences for education and the enlightenment. They are simply incapable of getting off their collective useless asses and following the evidence. That; Plus their poor education and forced acceptance of an untestable 'truth' when children, causes a woeful and almost criminal lack of ability to then test for truth.

It's not a coincidence that that suits certain politicians and televison evangelists.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,04:12   

Quote
Those of you who know Latin can see at once what a strong influence that language had on the French spoken in the ninth century.


The wording of this is a bit odd -- it isn't that Latin had a 'strong influence' on French -- French came from Latin.

As for what the Burgundian Knights spoke at certain times, that's stepping into ancient European history, which I never really studied. Tho I do know that Burgundy was originally Germanic speaking a very long time ago.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,04:18   

Russell you need to know what happened before the Romans ;) look up

origins celtic language

plus this link below  has lots of interesting factoids and links.... yes knowing the history of English will tell you a lot about other languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language

try   origins french language indo-european

quick overview

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,04:21   

One good book on Charlemaigne is by a guy named- No Joke- Notker the Stammerer. He was like a scribe or something in his court.

Latin was a deal for Charl.... He couldn'r read himself but he had memorized verses of the bible. He used to trap priests that couldn't do the right Latin by asking for certain benedictions. He was really #### on those priests. Parts of Gaul spoke latin but the burgundians and longobars and other germanics who had sacked rome and etc (the franks and Charlemaigne too) spoke germanic. However, he killed all the germanics east of the rhine or whatever river it was who wouldn't convert to christ- (tens of thousands of them, and y0ou wonder why the germans were skeptical of roman catholocism :) So I think the became more homogeneous after that.

By the time of Song of Roland, (150-200 years later) A romance language seems firmly embedded in gaul. I think charles the great and his empire had quite a bit to do with this. That last detail I am quite fuzzy on.

Does that make it better or worse? Charlemaigne was 800-ish CE to like 880ish CE (he got pretty old).

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,05:05   

Anyone spot the obvious here regarding Portuguese oui?
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%C3%AFl_languages
Quote

Langue d'oïl is an Old French term meaning language of oïl—i.e. language in which the word for "yes" is oïl.

The medieval Italian poet Dante in his De vulgari eloquentia wrote in Latin: "nam alii oc, alii si, alii vero dicunt oil" ("some say oc, others say si, others say oïl"), thereby classifying the Romance languages into three groups: oïl languages (in northern France); oc languages (in southern France) and si languages (in Italy and Iberia). Vulgar Latin developed different methods of signifying assent: hoc ille ("this (is) it") and hoc ("this"), which became the langues d'oïl and langue d'oc (or Occitan language), respectively. Subsequent development changed "oïl" into "oui" as in modern French. (Other Romance languages derive their word for yes from the Latin sic, "thus", such as the Spanish sí, Italian sì, or Portuguese sim.)

Modern linguists typically divide the languages spoken in medieval France into three geographical subgroups: Langue d'oïl and Langue d'oc are the two major groups; the third group, Franco-Provençal, is considered a transitional language between the two other groups.

The Oïl languages in their range from Belgium across northern and central France and the Channel Islands form a dialect continuum.

The language generally referred to as French is an Oïl language, but the territories of France have for centuries included large groups of speakers of Oïl languages other than French, as well as speakers of languages outside the Oïl language family (see Languages of France).

Although there were competing literary standards among the Oïl languages in the mediaeval period, the centralisation of the French kingdom and its influence even outside its formal borders sent most of the Oïl languages into comparative obscurity for several centuries.




--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,06:11   

Indeed, it is no coincidence that, ever since Henry of Burgundy, one of the major exports from Portugal has been olive oïl. I rest dave's case.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,06:52   

Quote (Russell @ May 23 2006,11:11)
Indeed, it is no coincidence that, ever since Henry of Burgundy, one of the major exports from Portugal has been olive oïl. I rest dave's case.

Portuguese is oïl, Spanish is vinegar. QED.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,07:34   

Deja vu  from the ape thread again... Dave stops posting, and we start debating the issues with each other. You know what that means...
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/4900/dumbski17nt.png


...^Yup.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,08:04   

Quote (Faid @ May 23 2006,12:34)
Deja vu  from the ape thread again... Dave stops posting, and we start debating the issues with each other. You know what that means...

It means that despite Dave's best efforts, I actually do learn stuff here.

And, before Dave gets all excited, I suppose I should specify that I learn stuff from everyone other than Dave.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,08:22   

I dunno, AFD's taught me a lot about how Christian Fundamentalists think...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,00:43   

OK.  I said I was going to let this thread die, but I got to thinking that I really don't want to clutter up my "God Hypothesis" thread with Anti-Evolution arguments.  And I learned something new this morning which dispels a persistent myth that I have heard.  It's amazing how many good scientists are jumping the Darwinist ship and writing good new articles which support Creationist Theory.

RESISTANT BACTERIA:  NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION
I have always thought that most mutations are harmful, but that there are a few that are beneficial.  Bacterial mutations which confer resistance to anti-biotics have been cited most often to me as an example of beneficial mutations.

So, I thought I would investigate.  Here's a recent article which appears to dismantle the idea of resistant bacteria supporting the ToE.  What do you think?

 
Quote

Is Bacterial Resistance
to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?

Kevin Anderson, Ph.D.
© 2005 by Creation Research Society. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
This article first appeared in Vol. 41, No. 4 of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal published by the Creation Research Society.

Abstract
Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change.  However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption.  Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer.  Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria.  Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution.  Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems.  While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.”  Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria.  A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions.  Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.


Now here is an excerpt from the discussion of what is required to support the idea of Common Descent With Modification ...
Quote
Thus, common “descent with modification” provides a more appropriate and functional definition of the theory of evolution, and this article will refer to evolution in this context.  This definition also entails several “predictions” regarding the types of genetic change necessary for common evolutionary descent (predictions that are in sharp contrast to the “predictions” of a creation model).  Such changes must provide more than mere changes in phenotype; they must provide a genetic mechanism that accounts for the origin of cellular functions and activities (i.e., regulatory systems, transport systems, enzyme specificity, protein binding affinity, etc.).

Genetic changes that reduce or eliminate any of these cellular systems provide no genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.”  Rather, such changes are actually the antithesis of this descent, reducing or eliminating a pre-existing system of biological complexity (a reversal of “descent with modification”).  Therefore, these genetic changes offer no example of a genetic mechanism for the “evolutionary” acquisition of flight by non-flying organisms, cognition by non-cognitive organisms, photosynthesis by non-photosynthesizing organisms, etc.  Yet the theory of evolution requires such events to have occurred, and requires mutations capable of such genetic changes.  Hence, the predictions of evolution require specific types of changes, not just so-called “beneficial” mutations.  Therefore, despite the great claims that have been made, it is imperative to question whether acquisition of antibiotic resistance is a valid example of evolutionary change that supports the predictions of the evolutionary theory (i.e., the theory of common “descent with modification”).


Here is a particularly telling table showing LOSS of function, not gain.  

 
Quote

In the presence of a particular antibiotic (or other antimicrobial), any mutation that protects the bacterium from the lethality of that compound clearly has a “beneficial” phenotype.  Natural selection will strongly and somewhat precisely select for those resistant mutants, which fits within the framework of an adaptive response.  But, molecular analysis of such mutations reveals a large inconsistency between the true nature of the mutation and the requirements for the theory of evolution (Table I).

Table I. Mutation Phenotypes Leading to Resistances of Specific Antibiotics. Antibiotic  Phenotype Providing Resistance  
Actinonin  Loss of enzyme activity  
Ampicillin  SOS response halting cell division  
Azithromycin  Loss of a regulatory protein  
Chloramphenicol  Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein  
Ciprofloxacin  Loss of a porin or loss of a regulatory protein  
Erythromycin  Reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein  
Fluoroquinolones  Loss of affinity to gyrase  
Imioenem  Reduced formation of a porin  
Kanamycin  Reduced formation of a transport protein  
Nalidixic Acid  Loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein  
Rifampin  Loss of affinity to RNA polymerase  
Streptomycin  Reduced affinity to 16S rRNA or reduction of transport activity  
Tetracycline  Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein  
Zittermicin A  Loss of proton motive force  

Bacterial resistance to the antibiotic, rifampin, can result from a commonly occurring spontaneous mutation.  Rifampin inhibits bacterial transcription by interfering with normal RNA polymerase activity (Gale et al., 1981; Levin and Hatfull, 1993).  Bacteria can acquire resistance by a point mutation of the ß-subunit of RNA polymerase, which is encoded by the rpoB gene (Enright et al., 1998; Taniguchi et al., 1996; Wang et al., 2001; Williams et al., 1998).  This mutation sufficiently alters the structure of the ß-subunit so that it loses specificity for the rifampin molecule.  As a result, the RNA polymerase no longer has an affinity for rifampin, and is no longer affected by the inhibitory effect of the antibiotic.

In fact, the level of rifampin resistance that a bacterium can spontaneously acquire can be extremely high.  In my laboratory, we routinely obtain mutant strains with a resistance level that is orders of magnitude greater than that of the wild-type strain.  When rifampin is present, this mutation provides a decided advantage for survival compared with those cells lacking these specific mutations.  But, each of these mutations eliminates binding affinity of RNA polymerase for the rifampin.  As such, these mutations do not provide a mechanism accounting for the origin of that binding affinity, only its loss.


Dr. Anderson summarizes thusly ...

 
Quote
Summary
Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.”  However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification”).  Rather, resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes.  Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes.  Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated.  Instead, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution.  These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding.  Antibiotic resistance may also impart some decrease of “relative fitness” (severe in a few cases), although for many mutants this is compensated by reversion.  The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.


Now you can read the rest of the article if you like  HERE.

OK.  Shoot me down if you can!

AFD

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,01:12   

Firstly, what did you think people meant when they talked about mutations conferring antibiotic resistance?

Quote
A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions.  Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.
How does this not fall under the definition of evolution?

Quote
Therefore, these genetic changes offer no example of a genetic mechanism for the “evolutionary” acquisition of flight by non-flying organisms
Changes in form are generally caused by the rearrangement of regulatory mechanisms already present.

Quote
Here is a particularly telling table showing LOSS of function, not gain.
Lets take for example Streptomycin, resistance to which is caused by a mutation in the 16s rRNA that removes the antibiotics ability to inhibit protein synthesis. Whether or not this mutation affects the function of the ribosome is irrelevant if it causes resistance, as long as it does not inhibit function all together. It is evolution by any definition.

Quote
As such, these mutations do not provide a mechanism accounting for the origin of that binding affinity, only its loss.
Has anyone ever claimed that reistance to rifampin did provide a mechanism for explaining the origin of binding affinity?

Quote
Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes.
No one has ever claimed horizontal transfer does provide a mechanism for the origin of novel genes.

Quote
The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.
Like most creationists the author of the article attacks his own definition of what evolution is. Much of evolution has resulted from loss, ussually loss of interaction between components. This of course follows duplication and allows the creation of biological novelty. In any case what definition of evolution do you use where mutations causing antibiotic resistance do not count?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,01:54   

Amazing.

What Kevin Anderson, PhD, says, is that the point mutation that makes a bacterium resistant to, say, rifabin, is a loss of function after all, because it is due to "loss of affinity" of RNA polymerase to rifampin.

And why is that amazing, you may ask?

Because, if another point mutation in the same place caused rifampin to act in an individual bacterium, Mr. Anderson would probably once again claim it resulted in loss of function- this time, the enzyme's "biochemical protection" from rifampin.

Starting to get the pattern, Dave?

Let me think of a simpler example...

If a mutation causes a  kitten to be born without hair, which "function" was lost exactly?

If a mutation causes a human baby to be born covered with hair, which "function" was lost exactly?

Or is it that nothing was exactly "lost" in either case, but rather, something was modified?

Work on that a little.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,02:13   

Oh no. Afdave has done it. He has refuted evolution!!! Our evil plot is exposed, run to the hills!!! Or, wait..

Quote
# Antibiotic resistance in bacteria

In modern times antibiotics, drugs that target specific features of bacteria, have become very popular. Bacteria evolve very quickly so it is not surprising that they have evolved resistance to antibiotics. As a general thing this involves changing the features that antibiotics target.

Commonly, but not always, these mutations decrease the fitness of the bacteria, i.e., in environments where there are not antibiotics present, they don't reproduce as quickly as bacteria without the mutation. This is not always true; some of these mutations do not involve any loss of fitness. What is more, there are often secondary mutations that restore fitness.

Bacteria are easy to study. This is an advantage in evolutionary studies because we can see evolution happening in the laboratory. There is a standard experiment in which the experimenter begins with a single bacterium and lets it reproduce in a controlled environment. Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendents are clones. Since reproduction is not perfect mutations happen. The experimenter can set the environment so that mutations for a particular attribute are selected. The experimenter knows both that the mutation was not present originally and, hence, when it occurred.

In the wild it is usually impossible to determine when a mutation occurred. Usually all we know (and often we do not even know that) is the current distribution of particular traits.

The situation with insects and pesticides is similar to that of bacteria and antibiotics. Pesticides are widely used to kill insects. In turn the insects quickly evolve in ways to become immune to the pesticides.


Actually Afdave, just read This

I really don't see what the problem is. Are you saying that the change Bacteria undergoes disproves evolution, or are you on about "increase in genetic information"?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,03:18   

Quote
OK.  Shoot me down if you can!
Nope. Not taking the bait this time. I suspect there's no one reading this who doesn't recognize the BS, and you have convinced me that you are literally ineducable.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,03:39   

Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,05:43)
OK.  I said I was going to let this thread die, but I got to thinking that I really don't want to clutter up my "God Hypothesis" thread with Anti-Evolution arguments.  And I learned something new this morning which dispels a persistent myth that I have heard.  It's amazing how many good scientists are jumping the Darwinist ship and writing good new articles which support Creationist Theory.

RESISTANT BACTERIA:  NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION
I have always thought that most mutations are harmful, but that there are a few that are beneficial.  Bacterial mutations which confer resistance to anti-biotics have been cited most often to me as an example of beneficial mutations.

So, I thought I would investigate.  Here's a recent article which appears to dismantle the idea of resistant bacteria supporting the ToE.  What do you think?

   
Quote

Is Bacterial Resistance
to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?

Kevin Anderson, Ph.D.
© 2005 by Creation Research Society. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
This article first appeared in Vol. 41, No. 4 of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal published by the Creation Research Society.

Abstract
Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change.  However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption.  Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer.  Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria.  Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution.  Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems.  While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.”  Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria.  A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions.  Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.


Now here is an excerpt from the discussion of what is required to support the idea of Common Descent With Modification ...  
Quote
Thus, common “descent with modification” provides a more appropriate and functional definition of the theory of evolution, and this article will refer to evolution in this context.  This definition also entails several “predictions” regarding the types of genetic change necessary for common evolutionary descent (predictions that are in sharp contrast to the “predictions” of a creation model).  Such changes must provide more than mere changes in phenotype; they must provide a genetic mechanism that accounts for the origin of cellular functions and activities (i.e., regulatory systems, transport systems, enzyme specificity, protein binding affinity, etc.).

Genetic changes that reduce or eliminate any of these cellular systems provide no genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.”  Rather, such changes are actually the antithesis of this descent, reducing or eliminating a pre-existing system of biological complexity (a reversal of “descent with modification”).  Therefore, these genetic changes offer no example of a genetic mechanism for the “evolutionary” acquisition of flight by non-flying organisms, cognition by non-cognitive organisms, photosynthesis by non-photosynthesizing organisms, etc.  Yet the theory of evolution requires such events to have occurred, and requires mutations capable of such genetic changes.  Hence, the predictions of evolution require specific types of changes, not just so-called “beneficial” mutations.  Therefore, despite the great claims that have been made, it is imperative to question whether acquisition of antibiotic resistance is a valid example of evolutionary change that supports the predictions of the evolutionary theory (i.e., the theory of common “descent with modification”).


Here is a particularly telling table showing LOSS of function, not gain.  

 
Quote

In the presence of a particular antibiotic (or other antimicrobial), any mutation that protects the bacterium from the lethality of that compound clearly has a “beneficial” phenotype.  Natural selection will strongly and somewhat precisely select for those resistant mutants, which fits within the framework of an adaptive response.  But, molecular analysis of such mutations reveals a large inconsistency between the true nature of the mutation and the requirements for the theory of evolution (Table I).

Table I. Mutation Phenotypes Leading to Resistances of Specific Antibiotics. Antibiotic  Phenotype Providing Resistance  
Actinonin  Loss of enzyme activity  
Ampicillin  SOS response halting cell division  
Azithromycin  Loss of a regulatory protein  
Chloramphenicol  Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein  
Ciprofloxacin  Loss of a porin or loss of a regulatory protein  
Erythromycin  Reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein  
Fluoroquinolones  Loss of affinity to gyrase  
Imioenem  Reduced formation of a porin  
Kanamycin  Reduced formation of a transport protein  
Nalidixic Acid  Loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein  
Rifampin  Loss of affinity to RNA polymerase  
Streptomycin  Reduced affinity to 16S rRNA or reduction of transport activity  
Tetracycline  Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein  
Zittermicin A  Loss of proton motive force  

Bacterial resistance to the antibiotic, rifampin, can result from a commonly occurring spontaneous mutation.  Rifampin inhibits bacterial transcription by interfering with normal RNA polymerase activity (Gale et al., 1981; Levin and Hatfull, 1993).  Bacteria can acquire resistance by a point mutation of the ß-subunit of RNA polymerase, which is encoded by the rpoB gene (Enright et al., 1998; Taniguchi et al., 1996; Wang et al., 2001; Williams et al., 1998).  This mutation sufficiently alters the structure of the ß-subunit so that it loses specificity for the rifampin molecule.  As a result, the RNA polymerase no longer has an affinity for rifampin, and is no longer affected by the inhibitory effect of the antibiotic.

In fact, the level of rifampin resistance that a bacterium can spontaneously acquire can be extremely high.  In my laboratory, we routinely obtain mutant strains with a resistance level that is orders of magnitude greater than that of the wild-type strain.  When rifampin is present, this mutation provides a decided advantage for survival compared with those cells lacking these specific mutations.  But, each of these mutations eliminates binding affinity of RNA polymerase for the rifampin.  As such, these mutations do not provide a mechanism accounting for the origin of that binding affinity, only its loss.


Dr. Anderson summarizes thusly ...

   
Quote
Summary
Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.”  However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification”).  Rather, resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes.  Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes.  Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated.  Instead, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution.  These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding.  Antibiotic resistance may also impart some decrease of “relative fitness” (severe in a few cases), although for many mutants this is compensated by reversion.  The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.


Now you can read the rest of the article if you like  HERE.

OK.  Shoot me down if you can!

AFD

For 2nd Lt. Dave

Young Dave is uncommonly dense,
For he thinks that his 'theory' makes sense.
But for it be
A theory, you see,
He has to show real evidence!

:p

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,05:01   

Quote (Russell @ May 24 2006,08:18)
Quote
OK.  Shoot me down if you can!
Nope. Not taking the bait this time. I suspect there's no one reading this who doesn't recognize the BS, and you have convinced me that you are literally ineducable.

Ditto.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,05:07   

For the hard of reading, what actually happens, is that ccontrary to Dr(?) andersons assertion, bacteria that have mutated to have anti-biotic resistance, although they are sometimes less fit in a normal environment than normal, unmutated bacteria, then proceed to mutate back up to the same level of fitness that they were before the original mutation.  Or in other words,

Quote
The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.

is wrong.

Is that right, fellow evolutionists?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,05:38   

Quote
Is that right, fellow evolutionists?
Things will certainly tend in that direction. Since evolution almost invariably involves optimizing genes, and combinations of genes, you'll generally find that the initial mutation that enables survival of some previously insurmountable obstacle, like, say, an antibiotic, creates a situation that is suboptimal with respect to other aspects of survival and replication, and that here again mutations that improve that situation - without destroying the original antibiotic-survival mutation - will accumulate. There's nothing in theory, however, that says the bacterium would necessarily achieve the same replication rate (or whatever measure of fitness you choose) in the absence of antibiotic as one that doesn't carry the mutation in question. It might; it might not.

In my own personal experience, I have dealt with bacterial strains that differ only in the presence or absence of an antibiotic resistance gene. I have tried to measure a difference in their rate of replication with and without the antibiotic. If there is one, it's too small for me to detect.

But, once again, I'm not going to attempt to "shoot [afdave] down"; as far as I can see, he has yet to get off the ground.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,06:01   

Quote
RESISTANT BACTERIA:  NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION

Resistance to antibiotic is a change that can be inherited.
Wikipedia says :
Quote
evolution is a process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation.


Check your definitions Dave.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,06:31   

Quote
Firstly, what did you think people meant when they talked about mutations conferring antibiotic resistance?
Just what they sound like they mean. That this somehow provides evidence that macroevolution has in fact occurred.  

I am amazed that you would not realize that this argument is commonly used as 'proof' of macroevolution.  I'm quite sure that it has been used by people at this forum ... was it Norm?  I cannot remember who.  Probably several people, though.

 
Quote
How does this not fall under the definition of evolution?
It falls quite nicely under what I call microevolution, but as I said, this argument is routinely offered up as evidence for macroevolution or what I call 'upward evolution.'

The big revelation to me, again, is that this 'proof' for macroevolution is utterly bankrupt.  

Not that I expect anyone here to repent and run to Jesus now.

But as I have said many times, this whole exercise here at Panda's Thumb is helping me educate the public, which I have become convinced is the only way to solve this problem, since scientists heads are in the sand on origins.

 
Quote
Changes in form are generally caused by the rearrangement of regulatory mechanisms already present.
 Ding. Ding. Ding. You are correct.  And the changes in form are very minor - beak gets a little bigger, hair gets longer or shorter, color changes, etc.  No one has ever shown an eye evolving where there was no eye before, or other major changes like this.  

 
Quote
Lets take for example Streptomycin, resistance to which is caused by a mutation in the 16s rRNA that removes the antibiotics ability to inhibit protein synthesis. Whether or not this mutation affects the function of the ribosome is irrelevant if it causes resistance, as long as it does not inhibit function all together. It is evolution by any definition.
OK. Call it evolution if you want to.  I will call it microevolution which I agree with and is no affront to truth, to distinguish it from macroevolution, which is impossible and untrue, and which is what I'm fighting.  And remember, the reason I am fighting it is because on the social and government scene it is critical to correctly define human beings as what they truthfully are:  Creations of the Creator God, made in the image of God, and placed in a position of dominion over all of nature.

 
Quote
Has anyone ever claimed that reistance to rifampin did provide a mechanism for explaining the origin of binding affinity?
I doubt anyone says it quite like that, but here is how the fairy tale is typically told ...

World Book, 1993 edition, "Evolution" entry ...  
Quote
Evolutionary theory holds that all species probably evolved from a single form of life which lived about 3-1/2 billion years ago ... The theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from many scientific fields.  When a theory is supported by so much evidence, it becomes accepted as a scientific fact.  Almost all scientists consider the theory of evolution to be a scientific fact

Keep in mind, the kid reading this is assuming ToE=All life from single celled ancestor=Proven Fact.  The article then sprinkles in a fair amount of truth regarding speciation, etc. and then under "Evidence of Evolution" under the heading "Direct observation of evolution", we read ...  
Quote
Other examples of rapid, observable evolutionary change have occurred among certain insects and disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way.


So what does the kid take away from this?  ToE=All life came from a Single Cell ancestor=Scientific fact, and by the way, disease resistant bacteria proves it.

This is ABSOLUTE AND UTTER BALONEY and now you know why I am fighting you.

This causes nothing but confusion in the minds of kids (and scientists, I might add) and it is totally irresponsible behaviour on the part of science authors.  Then people on this forum (not you) have the audacity to say I'm irresponsible for pointing out this fraud.


 
Quote
No one has ever claimed horizontal transfer does provide a mechanism for the origin of novel genes.
Again, maybe they don't say this exactly - evolutionists are slippery fish.  But they do say things like the World Book article a lot, and they are totally irresponsible in doing so.

 
Quote
Like most creationists the author of the article attacks his own definition of what evolution is. Much of evolution has resulted from loss, ussually loss of interaction between components. This of course follows duplication and allows the creation of biological novelty. In any case what definition of evolution do you use where mutations causing antibiotic resistance do not count?
He had to come up with his own definition of Evolution because nailing evolutionists down on their definition is like nailing jello to the wall.  You guys slip and slide and conform your theory to findings in such a ridiculous manner it is hilarious.

 
Quote
If a mutation causes a  kitten to be born without hair, which "function" was lost exactly?

If a mutation causes a human baby to be born covered with hair, which "function" was lost exactly?

Or is it that nothing was exactly "lost" in either case, but rather, something was modified?
Faid, I actually thought that you guys might have something with the bacteria thing, but since I have read this article by Dr. Anderson, I cannot think of a single thing left where you could possibly say that an organism gains a new function.  I bet if I really scrutinized Norm's nylon-eating bacteria, I would also find LOSS of function, not gain, whaddya want to bet?  Don't worry, I'm not going to research it personally ... I'll leave it to CRS.

I can speak for a lot of creationists -- I know that many, many of them do not yet know about this article.  It only came out last year.  When lots of creationists get ahold of this article, you are going to see evolutionists scurrying like cockroaches to change all the textbooks and encyclopedias to get rid of statements like I quoted from World Book.  You watch and see.  Maybe they have already done so recently because the smart evolutionists will catch on pretty quickly how ridiculous this makes them look.

 
Quote
The situation with insects and pesticides is similar to that of bacteria and antibiotics. Pesticides are widely used to kill insects. In turn the insects quickly evolve in ways to become immune to the pesticides.

Loss of function, Renier.  No proof for macroevolution, my friend.  Your boat has another hole.  Start bailing faster!

 
Quote
For the hard of reading, what actually happens, is that ccontrary to Dr(?) andersons assertion, bacteria that have mutated to have anti-biotic resistance, although they are sometimes less fit in a normal environment than normal, unmutated bacteria, then proceed to mutate back up to the same level of fitness that they were before the original mutation.
Yes.  Just go ahead and make a wild assertion to try to plug the new hole in HMS Darwin.  It's no use.  You're going down.

**************************************

Hey, Rilke ... what's with reposting my entire post?  I mean, I guess that's fine ... why not post the truth TWICE?  But what exactly is your goal in doing it?   Just curious.

**************************************

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,06:44   

Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,11:31)
...... to distinguish it from macroevolution, which is impossible and untrue, and which is what I'm fighting.  And remember, the reason I am fighting it is because on the social and government scene it is critical to correctly define human beings as what they truthfully are:  Creations of the Creator God, made in the image of God, and placed in a position of dominion over all of nature.

There's the admission folks, in his own words.  Not a single word of this was about science.  There is nothing you can prove to him, nothing that will change his mind.  

He's here ... because on the social and government scene it is critical to correctly define human beings as what they truthfully are:  Creations of the Creator God, made in the image of God, and placed in a position of dominion over all of nature.

'nuff said.  Ban him now.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,06:50   

Quote (Bing @ May 24 2006,11:44)
Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,11:31)
...... to distinguish it from macroevolution, which is impossible and untrue, and which is what I'm fighting.  And remember, the reason I am fighting it is because on the social and government scene it is critical to correctly define human beings as what they truthfully are:  Creations of the Creator God, made in the image of God, and placed in a position of dominion over all of nature.

There's the admission folks, in his own words.  Not a single word of this was about science.  There is nothing you can prove to him, nothing that will change his mind.  

He's here ... because on the social and government scene it is critical to correctly define human beings as what they truthfully are:  Creations of the Creator God, made in the image of God, and placed in a position of dominion over all of nature.

'nuff said.  Ban him now.

I don't think anyone was under the illusion that AFD was ever here to learn. I think we could tell from the start that he was here to be a missionary, just like his parents. He's here to convert the wicked secular humanist heathens to Jesus and Young Earth Creationism, since he assumes they're the same thing. And I think there's been a consensus for a while that he's unteachable.

As for banning him? I dunno, maybe that should be Wesley's call?

Seems to me it might be a better idea to just ignore him, but I admit that takes a lot of will power.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:00   

Quote
But as I have said many times, this whole exercise here at Panda's Thumb is helping me educate the public, which I have become convinced is the only way to solve this problem, since scientists heads are in the sand on origins.
My vote for the single funniest, most illogical comment 2nd Lt. Dave has made so far.

Young Dave wants the public to know,
'Evolution' has nothing to show,
So he posts on this site,
Where we show he's not right,
And the public as such doesn't go!

Go for it 2nd Lt. Dave!  Stick up for your right to look silly!

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:02   

No, don't ban him. He hasn't done anything worth being banned. Being stubbornly ignorant does not merit banning. He sticks to the AFDave threads, and if you don't want to be around him, don't go to them. As long as he doesn't grossly misbehave like a Larrry Falafelman or a Davetard, don't ban him.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:06   

Quote
But as I have said many times, this whole exercise here at Panda's Thumb is helping me educate the public, which I have become convinced is the only way to solve this problem, since scientists heads are in the sand on origins.


This is consistent for AFD, tho -- and for all other Creationists. Their whole agenda depends on convincing people that the more you know about a subject, the LESS qualified you are to speak about it. Thus the often-seen notion that biologists are the LAST people who should be talking about 'origins' -- much better to have mathematicians, engineers, pastors, or retired Air Force pilots. The less education they've had, the more 'objective' they are.

The goal of the religious right is to completely redefine what 'knowledge' and 'reality' are. If they can convince people that the most ignorant people are the best-qualified to make pronouncements on anything, their work is complete.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:11   

Quote (stevestory @ May 24 2006,12:02)
No, don't ban him. He hasn't done anything worth being banned. Being stubbornly ignorant does not merit banning. He sticks to the AFDave threads, and if you don't want to be around him, don't go to them. As long as he doesn't grossly misbehave like a Larrry Falafelman or a Davetard, don't ban him.

Besides, his entertainment value is high, and it's useful to have someone to present the failed, illogical, ignorant creationist 'claims'.  We can hone our ability to respond to them.  

In that sense, having Dave learn anything would be counterproductive!  He's like a punching bag: useless if his pompous idiocy deflates.

Keep 'em coming, 2nd Lt. Dave!

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:19   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2006,12:06)
Quote
But as I have said many times, this whole exercise here at Panda's Thumb is helping me educate the public, which I have become convinced is the only way to solve this problem, since scientists heads are in the sand on origins.


This is consistent for AFD, tho -- and for all other Creationists. Their whole agenda depends on convincing people that the more you know about a subject, the LESS qualified you are to speak about it. Thus the often-seen notion that biologists are the LAST people who should be talking about 'origins' -- much better to have mathematicians, engineers, pastors, or retired Air Force pilots. The less education they've had, the more 'objective' they are.

The goal of the religious right is to completely redefine what 'knowledge' and 'reality' are. If they can convince people that the most ignorant people are the best-qualified to make pronouncements on anything, their work is complete.

But who does he think he's educating by posting here?  On PT and ATBC, the posters and the lurkers are aware that Dave's an ignorant idiot.  Does he somehow assume that the great unwashed masses start every day by looking at ATBC?  Does he somehow think that thousands of educable members of the public are listening to him soapbox?

Even amongst his illogical ramblings, the idea that this is a forum to 'educate the public' is astonishingly stupid.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:24   

Quote
But who does he think he's educating by posting here?  On PT and ATBC, the posters and the lurkers are aware that Dave's an ignorant idiot.  Does he somehow assume that the great unwashed masses start every day by looking at ATBC?  Does he somehow think that thousands of educable members of the public are listening to him soapbox?


I think that's where the whole "grossly overinflated ego" thing comes in.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:25   

I figure that the nylon degrading bacteria will flare up here, so I am preemptively posting the paper showing its sequence.


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrend....ype=pdf

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:29   

Nah. Don't ban him. I don't think it's against the rules to be impervious to facts and logic. And, in a way, I agree with him that this whole exercise is to help him educate the public. For instance, after I asked him countless times to provide the creationist answer to this explanation of the Vitamin C gene defect data:      
Quote
The "Darwinist" position is that [genetic] errors creep in if they're not pruned by selection, and are inherited down through the family tree, leaving an imprinted geneology.
after dodging the question so many times it became embarrassing, even to afd, he cut'n'pasted this:      
Quote
It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness.  It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology.  (See, e.g., ReMine, 367-368, 465-467.)  The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution.  Accordingly, “[i]t is not evidence for or against either theory.” (Brand, 155.)
It's stunning enough that he thinks that's an explanation at all. He even goes on to say it's a better explanation than the evolutionary one!

Now if that doesn't educate the public as to the quality of creationist thought, I don't know what will.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:34   

Quote
You guys slip and slide and conform your theory to findings in such a ridiculous manner it is hilarious.


Yeah, I guess modifying a theory to conform to actual data is a bizarre concept - to creationists.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:41   

Quote (improvius @ May 24 2006,12:34)
Quote
You guys slip and slide and conform your theory to findings in such a ridiculous manner it is hilarious.

Good lord, there are so many little gems squirrelled away in AFD's posts! It's almost enough to make one read them closer. Almost.

"Our interpretation of life on earth is based on the Book of Genesis, and by refusing to alter or expand our understanding of it for centuries, we're every bit as ignorant and mistaken as we were thousands of years ago! You scientists on the other hand, now think different things than you did 50 or 100 or 200 years ago, which just shows how bankrupt your philosophy is!"

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:09   

Quote
Faid, I actually thought that you guys might have something with the bacteria thing, but since I have read this article by Dr. Anderson, I cannot think of a single thing left where you could possibly say that an organism gains a new function.  I bet if I really scrutinized Norm's nylon-eating bacteria, I would also find LOSS of function, not gain, whaddya want to bet?  Don't worry, I'm not going to research it personally ... I'll leave it to CRS.

And this responds to my post... How, exactly? Oh yes, the way you always do: "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA"...

Doesn't matter. I gotta go and plug some holes in our sinking ship: But, before I go, and since we've got this little thing going on, guess what I'll do first:

Novel genes

New information in genes

Thaaaat's right, Dave... Read the links.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:11   

Quote
There's the admission folks, in his own words.  Not a single word of this was about science.  There is nothing you can prove to him, nothing that will change his mind.  

He's here ... because on the social and government scene it is critical to correctly define human beings as what they truthfully are:  Creations of the Creator God, made in the image of God, and placed in a position of dominion over all of nature.
Admission?  Do you think I was trying to HIDE this? Not at all.  I've said this several times.  You must be a newcomer.

Quote
This is consistent for AFD, tho -- and for all other Creationists. Their whole agenda depends on convincing people that the more you know about a subject, the LESS qualified you are to speak about it. Thus the often-seen notion that biologists are the LAST people who should be talking about 'origins' -- much better to have mathematicians, engineers, pastors, or retired Air Force pilots. The less education they've had, the more 'objective' they are.
No.  You'll notice that we have no agenda to attack the linguists (other than the silly little Portuguese fun we had), we don't attack the cancer researchers or doctors or geologists searching for oil, and many, many other good people.  We are just attacking the General Theory of Evolution for the reasons stated above.  Soon the lightbulb will come on for a majority of scientists regarding Intelligent Design and us 'amateur scientists' will go back to our churches and be quiet.  This kind of thing has happened over and over again through the centuries and it will happen here as well.

Quote
Even amongst his illogical ramblings, the idea that this is a forum to 'educate the public' is astonishingly stupid.
Reading comprehension, Rilke.  Not the public HERE.  The public OUT THERE.  See, let me walk you through it again.

(1) AF Dave needs to sharpen his arguments because he is actively involved in the education of children with regard to Origins.  See www.kids4truth.com.  He does not want to lead these children wrong, so he wants to test his arguments against some evolutionary biologists.  He has big plans for greatly expanded information to be available at k4t.
(2) So he comes to PT and finds some willing participants at ATBC, some of whom, like Rilke, have absolutely no clue what his goals are, but they try to guess.
(3) AFD has immense fun debating, achieves his goal of honing his arguments, the ATBCers are happy because they think they are honing their arguments, or watching a comedy, practicing their insults, or whatever.
(4) No one gets bored contemplating their navels. (or someone else's)

It's a win-win!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:12   

Quote
Nah. Don't ban him. I don't think it's against the rules to be impervious to facts and logic. And, in a way, I agree with him that this whole exercise is to help him educate the public


Another reason not to ban AFD is because we haven't banned GoP or Thordaddy, and in my opinion, arguing with AFD is a lot more entertaining than arguing with either of those guys. Let's face it, Thordaddy is just plain creepy.

Plus, my estimation of AFD went up a hair when he acted shocked about the human/chimp DNA thing. A true as$hole would just deny it or ignore it.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:17   

Quote
Soon the lightbulb will come on for a majority of scientists regarding Intelligent Design and us 'amateur scientists' will go back to our churches and be quiet.  This kind of thing has happened over and over again through the centuries and it will happen here as well.


When do you think this has happened before?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:24   

Oh and Arden--

You do have to watch people with degrees just like you have to watch anyone.  I have an EE degree so I can say this.  

I had a whole roomful of computer scientists tell me they knew how to build a better data system than mine when we sold our company.  I warned the president that they didn't know what they were talking about, but he went with them anyway.  $700,000 and a year and half later the 'experts' finished their system to replace my $70,000 system.  Almost immediately, the calls started coming in from customers asking for the old system back.

My business partner quit in frustration.

So you gotta watch scientists with degrees sometimes.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:28   

Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,13:24)
Oh and Arden--

You do have to watch people with degrees just like you have to watch anyone.  I have an EE degree so I can say this.  

I had a whole roomful of computer scientists tell me they knew how to build a better data system than mine when we sold our company.  I warned the president that they didn't know what they were talking about, but he went with them anyway.  $700,000 and a year and half later the 'experts' finished their system to replace my $70,000 system.  Almost immediately, the calls started coming in from customers asking for the old system back.

My business partner quit in frustration.

So you gotta watch scientists with degrees sometimes.

That's the best example you can come up with?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:34   

But another thing you might want to do is a little basic reading in the area you're studying before you go mouthing off on stuff you don't understand.

I still can't get over the "humans closer to chimps than chimps to gorillas." I mean, really, Dave. That you were unaware of that incredibly basic fact shows just how desperately ignorant you are in a field you now plan to explain to the members of your church. Do you honestly think, after a clunker like that, that you are in any way qualified to discuss anything at all about the life sciences? Here you are trying to understand arguments about common genetic errors in pseudogenes when you don't even have the taxonomy right!

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:35   

Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,13:11)
Not the public HERE.  The public OUT THERE.  See, let me walk you through it again.

(1) AF Dave needs to sharpen his arguments because he is actively involved in the education of children with regard to Origins.  See www.kids4truth.com.  He does not want to lead these children wrong, so he wants to test his arguments against some evolutionary biologists.  He has big plans for greatly expanded information to be available at k4t.
(2) So he comes to PT and finds some willing participants at ATBC, some of whom, like Rilke, have absolutely no clue what his goals are, but they try to guess.
(3) AFD has immense fun debating, achieves his goal of honing his arguments, the ATBCers are happy because they think they are honing their arguments, or watching a comedy, practicing their insults, or whatever.

So this place is providing selection pressure for AFDave.  His argument evolves.

We're effectively a half-used bottle of antibiotic against his infection of kid's minds.  Not enough to kill it, only enough to develop a stronger resistance.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:38   

Quote
I had a whole roomful of doctors tell me they knew a better treatment for Diabetes than mine when a friend was diagnosed with it.  I warned my friend that they didn't know what they were talking about, but he went with them anyway.  $2,000 in insulin and dietologists and a year and half later the 'experts' finished their treatment to replace my $00.02 system (involving prayer and holy water).  Almost immediately, the calls started coming in from my friend saying that his life was saved... No wait that doesn't work does it



Anyway, you gotta watch scientists with degrees sometimes. Like, sometimes, dude, OK?


--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:41   

Quote
AF Dave needs to sharpen his arguments because he is actively involved in the education of children with regard to Origins.  See www.kids4truth.com.  He does not want to lead these children wrong, so he wants to test his arguments against some evolutionary biologists.  He has big plans for greatly expanded information to be available at k4t.
You "ID" enthusiasts (though in your case we can admit that it's just good ol' creationism, can't we?) are always on about weighing "both sides". In the interest of "truth" (for kids) are you open to posting on your k4t site a writeup of the gulo story by us AtBCers?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:44   

Quote

I had a whole roomful of computer scientists tell me they knew how to build a better data system than mine when we sold our company.  I warned the president that they didn't know what they were talking about, but he went with them anyway.  $700,000 and a year and half later the 'experts' finished their system to replace my $70,000 system.  Almost immediately, the calls started coming in from customers asking for the old system back.


This analogy doesn't really work. The upstart computer programmers in your scenario differ from Creationists and ID advocates in a few crucial ways:

1) they weren't actively ignorant of computers
2) they didn't have a religious belief system telling them that only the oldest possible solution (with no adaptations) could ever work
3) they wanted to make money, and were thus motivated to come up with a system that actually worked, rather than just 'winning the argument'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:50   

Hey Dave, since you think highly of Geologists, why not pick one at random and ask him for his opinion on your Young Earth hypothesis and oil formation?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,08:53   

Quote (Faid @ May 24 2006,13:50)
Hey Dave, since you think highly of Geologists, why not pick one at random and ask him for his opinion on your Young Earth hypothesis and oil formation?

Or perhaps he could check this out:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,09:03   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2006,13:53)
Quote (Faid @ May 24 2006,13:50)
Hey Dave, since you think highly of Geologists, why not pick one at random and ask him for his opinion on your Young Earth hypothesis and oil formation?

Or perhaps he could check this out:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

Wow.

Hey Dave, since we both know you never read my links, how about reading someone else's?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,11:02   

Quote
(1) AF Dave needs to sharpen his arguments because he is actively involved in the education of children with regard to Origins.  See www.kids4truth.com.  He does not want to lead these children wrong, so he wants to test his arguments against some evolutionary biologists.  He has big plans for greatly expanded information to be available at k4t.
(2) So he comes to PT and finds some willing participants at ATBC, some of whom, like Rilke, have absolutely no clue what his goals are, but they try to guess.
(3) AFD has immense fun debating, achieves his goal of honing his arguments, the ATBCers are happy because they think they are honing their arguments, or watching a comedy, practicing their insults, or whatever.
(4) No one gets bored contemplating their navels. (or someone else's)

So Dave's just the perverted kind,
Who plays games with a little kid's mind,
To make them like him:
Unknowing and dim,
UnChristian, uncouth, and unkind.

Keep 'em coming, 2nd Lt. Dave!  You da man!

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,11:15   

2nd Lt. Dave said
Quote
AF Dave needs to sharpen his arguments because he is actively involved in the education of children with regard to Origins.  See www.kids4truth.com.  He does not want to lead these children wrong, so he wants to test his arguments against some evolutionary biologists.  He has big plans for greatly expanded information to be available at k4t.
In America, that's called child-abuse.  Should we report you?

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,11:20   

Y'know how Dave is so fond of Lewis?  I think it's appropos that today in the WSJ, there is a quote from Lewis:

Quote
There are few things more easily corruptible, Lewis observed, than religious belief and practice. "We must fully face the fact that when Christianity does not make a man very much better," he wrote a friend, "it makes him very much worse."


It's good to know that Dave exemplifies that observation of Lewis'.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,11:33   

Quote
In America, that's called child-abuse.  Should we report you?


Is it?

I'd welcome your thoughts on the issue in the thread i created to discuss that very thing.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,11:37   

Quote
I have an EE degree so I can say this.


let's ask Mr. Science! he has a master's degree in... Science!

ahh, brings back memories.

oh and dave, parse this equation for me:

undergrad EE degree = PhD in linguistics

true or false?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,11:42   

Quote
In the interest of "truth" (for kids) are you open to posting on your k4t site a writeup of the gulo story by us AtBCers?


of course he won't like that, it would confuse the poor kids...

strange enough exactly the same argument I would make as to why we shouldn't include creationism in k-12 science courses.

It's a double standard Dave could never understand.

Dave:

have you ever wondered why us "evilutionists" have never come to your church bearing signs that read:

"teach the controversy!"

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:24   

So no one has any rebuttals of my "Bacterial Resistance" paper?

Can I chock this up to another win?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:36   

Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,17:24)
So no one has any rebuttals of my "Bacterial Resistance" paper?

Can I chock this up to another win?

Do you have particular problems preventing you from reading our posts, Dave?

Your paper is based on wrong assumptions, so why should we bother to debunk each point his author tries to make?

Bacterial resistance is a new trait that can spread in a population by the genetic mechanisms of inheritance. This is the very definition of evolution. Period. Your paper proves nothing.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:41   

Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,13:11)
Soon the lightbulb will come on for a majority of scientists regarding Intelligent Design and us 'amateur scientists' will go back to our churches and be quiet.  This kind of thing has happened over and over again through the centuries and it will happen here as well.

Dave,
Could you produce an example please.

Oh, could you also point me in the direction of your blog.  I think Ved linked to a picture from it, but I haven't been able to find it.  Googling has found some interesting things but not specifically your blog.

Thanks in advance,
Paul

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:42   

Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,17:24)
So no one has any rebuttals of my "Bacterial Resistance" paper?

Can I chock this up to another win?

(You mean 'chalk'.)

I really don't recall you 'winning' anything so far...

Don't interpret lack of a response as assent. When you see a homeless person on the street corner talking about how the CIA beamed experimental radiation into his brain, you don't normally see people rebutting him. Does that mean he must be right?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:46   

Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,17:24)
So no one has any rebuttals of my "Bacterial Resistance" paper?

Can I chock this up to another win?

Dave, first of all, no one claims that bacterial resistance "proves" macroevolution. If some Creationist site says that anyone makes any such claim, that's what's known as a "straw man" argument." For one thing, bacterial resistance is not an example of macroevolution anyway, so it could hardly be proof of it.

As has been pointed out, a newly-evolved bacterial ability to metabolize nylon precursors is evidence of two things: 1) that evolution is observable in the wild; and 2) that irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolutionary theory because a) the metabolic pathway has clearly evolved recently since nylon did not exist until less than a hundred years ago and b) the metabolic pathway is irreducibly complex in that if you take any single part of away, the whole system fails to function.

So if you think you've "disproved" anything by your argument about bacterial resistance, you're wrong. If anything, bacterial resistance is merely one minor example of observable evolution. Most examples of evolutionary change happen vastly too slowly to be observed. Certainly "macroevolution" (i.e., evolution above the species or possibly genus level) generally happens on far too slow a timescale to be directly observable. But the evidence that evolution happens is conclusive, whether you want to admit it or not (and you clearly do not).

So can you chalk this up to a "win"? Obviously not. Can you chalk it up to "another win"? Well, that presupposes you've won at least one other argument, and so far you haven't won any arguments.

And by the way, when are you going to post some evidence on your "Dave's YEC evidence thread"? It hasn't escaped our notice that so far you haven't even posted a message there, let alone presented any evidence.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:49   

Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,13:11)
... ...we don't attack the cancer researchers or doctors or geologists searching for oil, and many, many other good people... ...

P.S. Dave,
For an avowed YEC I should think that Geology would be a far more damaging science to your position than Biology.  Why doesn't it give you heartburn?

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:49   

let me clarify something Dave said:

 
Quote
Reading comprehension, Rilke.  Not the public HERE.  The public OUT THERE.  See, let me walk you through it again.


translation:

I've never been in public before, so I'm afraid that reality might conflict with my worldview, and came here first so i could run away if that was true.

 
Quote

(1) AF Dave needs to sharpen his arguments because he is actively involved in the education of children with regard to Origins.  See www.kids4truth.com.  He does not want to lead these children wrong, so he wants to test his arguments against some evolutionary biologists.  He has big plans for greatly expanded information to be available at k4t.



translation:

I wanted to find out what the real arguments are, so i could effectively produce half-truths, obfuscations, and outright lies to cover them up for the kids I want to indoctrinate into my cult.  Wouldn't want them seeing any form of reality before I'm done with them.

 
Quote

(2) So he comes to PT and finds some willing participants at ATBC, some of whom, like Rilke, have absolutely no clue what his goals are, but they try to guess.


translation:

I know my goals are obvious, but i figured you wouldn't be able to resist arguing with me anyway.  

 
Quote

(3) AFD has immense fun debating, achieves his goal of honing his arguments, the ATBCers are happy because they think they are honing their arguments, or watching a comedy, practicing their insults, or whatever.


translation:

I didn't really learn anything.  But am encouraged to proceed to indoctrinate kids anyway, and I had fun trying to comprehend your "monkey language" (gee you guys talk funny).

 
Quote

(4) No one gets bored contemplating their navels. (or someone else's)



translation:

well, it sure wasn't boring for ME!

 
Quote


It's a win-win!



except for the poor kids he wants to indoctrinate into his cult.

really, I encourage all here to re-interpret Dave's behavior from the angle of his motivation for coming here simply to be to gather arguments for deconstruction and obfuscation.

He's as much as admitted that IS his motivation, so with that in mind, does what he has posted over the last month make more sense now?

does to me.

Also, it becomes clear that continuing to try to clarify things for him simply becomes more homework for him to obfuscate our clarifications to better indoctrinate kids.

seems all we are doing is aiding and abeting a felon.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:56   

Yes, 'chalk' not 'chock' ... silly me.

airdave.blogspot.com

Just kidding about winning already.  I'll give you a little more time :-)

More tomorrow morning!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:01   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 23 2006,00:07)
Quote
I bet Dave isn't showing this site to his wife and kids anymore.


I find this curious - I just looked at AFDave's blog airdave.blogspot.com and he has removed his AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis entry along with all the associated critical comments.  That's one way to hide the embarrassment I guess.  Do we have another Dave Springer-Spaniel the mad deleter on our hands?

Thankyou Occam!!!
I've been looking for that.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:04   

Quote
Yes, 'chalk' not 'chock' ... silly me.


YAYY US! We got Dave to admit he's silly!

WOOT!

I claim victory for now and all time, infinity times infinity.

nyah nyah!


Dave, didn't christ encourage his followers to be childlike, not childish?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:18   

Holy sh*t!

I just look at AFDave's profile on his blog

He identifies himself as a '43 year old male Pisces'  :O  :O  :O

Oh Dave, do tell us you believe in astrology, pretty pretty please!

I guess when Behe said that astrology qualified as science under the Creto/IDiot definition, he had Missionary AFDave in mind!  ;)

(shakes head sadly and chuckles) Damm Dave, you get funnier every day  :D

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:32   

here's the best thing i found on Dave's blog:

Quote
posted by Dave Hawkins | 7:11 AM | 0 comments

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:37   

Hey, Dave is from Missoury!
Is it a coincidence of do Larry and he share a recent common ancestor?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:48   

"Another win", dave? Man you're a joke.

Um, if I'm not mistaken, right after you posted Anderson's baloney (hey, this word is fun), I tried (for the last time) to give you something as incentive to think, like how CRI and Co. use their little word play to lead you in. You then responded like this:
     
Quote
Faid, I actually thought that you guys might have something with the bacteria thing, but since I have read this article by Dr. Anderson, I cannot think of a single thing left where you could possibly say that an organism gains a new function

So what are you asking for now?

But hey, if you find the time from all your humble christian gloating, browse through the 200+ links I showed you, to see how you and Mr. Anderson once again argue against something that is common and well-established knowledge in Genetics. Just, you know, FYI.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,15:23   

AFDave might want to check out the paper I posted on the nylon degrading bacterium as an example of "upward" (a term I think is meaningless) evolution.

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,00:06   

Oh come on, Drew, that's too easy.

That kind of bacteria, like, LOST its alternative reading frame, which totally led to a reduced alternative-reading-framing function.

Like, duh.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:32   

DISEASE RESISTANT BACTERIA - NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION (STILL)

I got some pretty interesting responses yesterday to Dr. Anderson's article showing that disease resistant bacteria offers on proof of macroevolutionary theory.  The responses were basically ...

(1) We never said disease resistant bacteria is proof for macroevolution (which is not true at all--see World Book for example)
(2) Here go read these links that disprove what you say, Dave (I've never read them because you have to pay for all the articles, but you go read 'em, Dave)
(3) What about the old 'nylon-eating' bacteria?  (Team member shoots down argument for Dave)
(4) Dr. Anderson is just making his own definition of evolution (yeah, because it's really hard to nail down evolutionists on what their definition is and what is proper terminology)

Remember, guys, I deal a lot with what the PUBLIC gets to hear about evolution ... I'll repeat the description from World Book because it is typical of what the public hears.

World Book, 1993 edition, "Evolution" entry ...    
Quote
 
Evolutionary theory holds that all species probably evolved from a single form of life which lived about 3-1/2 billion years ago ... The theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from many scientific fields.  When a theory is supported by so much evidence, it becomes accepted as a scientific fact.  Almost all scientists consider the theory of evolution to be a scientific fact
Keep in mind, the kid reading this is assuming ToE=All life from single celled ancestor=Proven Fact.  The article then sprinkles in a fair amount of truth regarding speciation, etc. and then under "Evidence of Evolution" under the heading "Direct observation of evolution", we read ...    
Quote
 
Other examples of rapid, observable evolutionary change have occurred among certain insects and disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way.
So what does the kid take away from this?  ToE=All life came from a Single Cell ancestor=Scientific fact, and by the way, disease resistant bacteria proves it.

Before reading this article, I was under the impression that bacterial resistance to anti-biotics might in some way provide evidence for macroevolution.

After reading this article, I see that it does not.  I also see that it must be a pretty good article with no obvious gaffes.  The folks here at ATBC jump on obvious gaffes pretty quickly.


It's interesting to see that I'm not the only one who drops by and voices concerns like this ... Here's a biochemist and computer programmer named 'skeptic' ...    
Quote
We are losing the PR battle.

Given those assumptions (mine), here's my thoughts:

Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.

Can we develop an experiment that can be tested and repeated to reveal the mechanism driving evolution?

Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity.

Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions.

The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation.

and ...
   
Quote
Its obvious that this [trying to discuss how to salvage ToE] is a waste of time.  Its a shame but very revealing about the current state of evolutionary theory.  Right now it is much more important to defend at all costs then to actually engage in science.  Pity.

and ...
   
Quote
2)but more difficult is the actual mechanics of random mutation, it taken at its smallest component, the substitution of a single AA, it mosts cases that it actually has an effect upon the structure of the protein you have a non-functioning, or reduced-functioning protein.  In the case of an entire gene mutation, now we're talking long odds, you still only have a single protein that may or may not have an effect and when it does it is almost assuredly detremental to the organism.  What we really need is for the random emergence of traits and this may require mutiple proteins, very very long odds.

I think this is a source of concern.


Yes, skeptic, that it is, but good luck trying to get these guys concerned about it.

(Oh ... sorry, I'm not into astrology ... I just didn't realize that putting my birthday in would generate an astrological sign.  Also, Paul Flocken and whoever else goes to my blog ... I don't post there very often ... too busy here at the moment ... right now it just serves as a repository for articles that I want to refer people to.)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:55   

Quote
Before reading this article, I was under the impression that bacterial resistance to anti-biotics might in some way provide evidence for macroevolution.


So you agree evolution (on micro scale) is a well established fact? You have a problem with Macroevolution, no?

What is your definition of macroevolution?

And, allow me a nitpick. Back on the GULO gene. You say the gene was not broken before the fall of man, so that's about 6000 years (in your book), right? So God made a perfect VitaminC gene in all primates, and humans. Then, Adam eats the apple and the gene (in all primates) starts breaking down, in VERY much the same way for all primates and Humans. Correct? The Guinea pig also gets a dose of broken GULO, but in a VERY different way. Okay, I got that. Now, how on earth does your common design argument fit into all this. Was the errors in GULO after the fall the "common design"? So, God designed the error to look the same in all primates (and humans) and designed the error in Gunea pigs (did they also eat of the cursed apple) to look totally different from the one in primates, and humans?

C'mon Afdave, you have to admit, it looks like pure BS. It does not take faith to believe this, it takes stupidity.

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:56   

Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,08:32)
(3) What about the old 'nylon-eating' bacteria?  (Team member shoots down argument for Dave)

Uh, Dave maybe you need to turn on your sarcasm detector. Notice the use of the word "like" in the sentence.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:04   

Quote
Now, how on earth does your common design argument fit into all this. Was the errors in GULO after the fall the "common design"?
Geez, Renier. Do try to keep up! Afdave clearly answered that:
Quote
It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness.  It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology.  (See, e.g., ReMine, 367-368, 465-467.)  The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution.  Accordingly, “[i]t is not evidence for or against either theory.” (Brand, 155.)
I mean,  could there be clearer, more complete explanation of the nested hierarchy of mutations that characterize the Gulo story?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:11   

Quote
Other examples of rapid, observable evolutionary change have occurred among certain insects and disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way.
How is this not true? It happens quickly and has an observable phenotype.

 
Quote
Yes, skeptic, that it is, but good luck trying to get these guys concerned about it.
Sketpic seems to think that all evolutionary change involves cahnges in amino acids in proteins. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that this in an honest error.

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:43   

Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,05:32)
World Book, 1993 edition, "Evolution" entry ...      
Quote
 
Evolutionary theory holds that all species probably evolved from a single form of life which lived about 3-1/2 billion years ago ... The theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from many scientific fields.  When a theory is supported by so much evidence, it becomes accepted as a scientific fact.  Almost all scientists consider the theory of evolution to be a scientific fact
Keep in mind, the kid reading this is assuming ToE=All life from single celled ancestor=Proven Fact.  The article then sprinkles in a fair amount of truth regarding speciation, etc. and then under "Evidence of Evolution" under the heading "Direct observation of evolution", we read ...        
Quote
 
Other examples of rapid, observable evolutionary change have occurred among certain insects and disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way.
So what does the kid take away from this?  ToE=All life came from a Single Cell ancestor=Scientific fact, and by the way, disease resistant bacteria proves it.

Only if the kid were an idiot.  The article you're quoting doesn't say that antibiotic resistant bacteria "prove" "macroevolution." Need I parse it for you?  It says

1. Scientists accept evolution from a common ancestor and
2. Evolutionary change has been observed and
3. Antibiotic resistance is an example of observed evolution

Now don't lie about it again.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:52   

...aiding and abeting a felon...

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:58   

[sigh]

I suppose that counts too, doesn't it?

OK, Dave, forget all that stuff except where I told you not to repeat the lie.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:08   

Quote
DISEASE RESISTANT BACTERIA - NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION (STILL)


Disease resistant? What the #### are you rambling about?

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:21   

Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,11:31)
Quote

 
Quote
For the hard of reading, what actually happens, is that ccontrary to Dr(?) andersons assertion, bacteria that have mutated to have anti-biotic resistance, although they are sometimes less fit in a normal environment than normal, unmutated bacteria, then proceed to mutate back up to the same level of fitness that they were before the original mutation.
Yes.  Just go ahead and make a wild assertion to try to plug the new hole in HMS Darwin.  It's no use.  You're going down.

Hey!  I've been mindlessly dissed by AFDAve!  I feel almost motivated enogh to go and get myself banned from Dembskis place!

I shall just have to go and try and find where I read my wild assertion, or do any of you with literature access have something appropriate to hand?

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:23   

You know, the ones resistant to phage infection.  I'm sure that's what he's talking about, right?  What I want to know is what are "disease-eating bacteria?"

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:33   

Dave I am beginning to see your point. I had a dream last night and in it, a diembodied voice came to me and chastised me for my behavior.

I woke this morning and had what might be called an epiphany. I tried to describe it with words but I think i fell short. In the best way I can describe it,

The universe is too great to be described by the name universe. If it could be named so simply, it would not be the universe. Heaven and Earth began from the nameless, but the multitudes of things around us were created by names. We desire to understand the world by giving names to the things we see,but these things are only the effects of something subtle. When we see beyond the desire to use names, we can sense the nameless cause of these effects.

The cause and the effects are aspects of the same, one thing. They are both mysterious and profound. At their most mysterious and profound point lies the "Gate of the Great Truth".

Am I close to your concept?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:38   

Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,08:32)
DISEASE RESISTANT BACTERIA - NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION (STILL)

I got some pretty interesting responses yesterday to Dr. Anderson's article showing that disease resistant bacteria offers on proof of macroevolutionary theory.  The responses were basically ...

(1) We never said disease resistant bacteria is proof for macroevolution (which is not true at all--see World Book for example)

Dave, please for the love of God, get your nomenclature straight. There is no single phenomenon out there that is "proof" of evolution. Saying that disease-resistant (I'm assuming you actually mean antibiotic-resistant) bacteria is not "proof" of evolution is totally unimpressive, because no one thinks it is anyway. I don't care what the World Book says on the subject; not one scientist on this board has or ever will claim that bacterial resistance is "proof" of evolution.

You do understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof," don't you?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,06:27   

IT'S GOT A TITLE, THEREFORE IT'S TRUE:

DAVE'S LATEST IN SCIENCE-SMASHING ARGUMENTS

(1) We never said disease resistant bacteria is proof for macroevolution (which is not true at all--see World Book for example) (Can you please show me where it says "macroevolution" in your snippings, Dave?)
(2) Here go read these links that disprove what you say, Dave (I've never read them because you have to pay for all the articles, but you go read 'em, Dave) (They're called abstracts, Dave. They're free, Dave. They're more than enough to show you how far everything you say is from contemporary knowledge in genetics, Dave.)
(3) What about the old 'nylon-eating' bacteria?  (Team member shoots down argument for Dave) (Are you talking about me, Dave? Please please pretty please tell me you were talking about me, Dave... :D  :D  :D )
(4) Dr. Anderson is just making his own definition of evolution (yeah, because it's really hard to nail down evolutionists on what their definition is and what is proper terminology) (Maybe you should read the first pages of your "Prove evolution to me" thread again, Dave... Unless by "proper" you mean "A strawman I can beat up")

So, Dave, how about answering my question? If another point mutation makes the bacterium sensitive to rifampin again, according to Mr. Anderson, which function will be lost?

BTW, I like the way you honestly, sincerely and Christianly snipped sceptic's assumptions... Don't worry though, I have a hunch he's much more up your alley than you think.  :p

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,06:37   

You're right Dave, resitant bacteria are not an evidence for the abiotic origin of life. They are neither an instance of speciation, nor a proof that all living beings come from LUCA.

huh... what's your point?
:p

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:09   

Oh and, "Disease-resistant bacteria"? WTF?

dave, do you even try to understand what you are arguing against?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:20   

Quote (Faid @ May 25 2006,12:09)
Oh and, "Disease-resistant bacteria"? WTF?

dave, do you even try to understand what you are arguing against?

No.  It's reasonably clear at this point that our friend 2nd. Lt. Dave is

* ignorant of science; pretty much all science
* unable to reason in any coherent way
* a nasty-minded unChristian type who revels in child-abuse
* boring

It's number (2) I find so interesting: how anyone who has managed to reach the age of more or less adulthood can demonstrate so little ability to construct or understand a logical argument is amazing.

I'm not surprised he never made it beyond 2nd. Lt.; I think they require the ability to think for anything higher.

And that's why responding to him is such a waste of time: he literally cannot understand the counter-arguments.  Can't.  This isn't a question of willful stupidity; this is a case of actual inability.

But he is funny.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:29   

Yes.  I meant ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT BACTERIA.

I had just read this ...

"disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way."

...and used the wrong word ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:36   

Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,12:29)
Yes.  I meant ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT BACTERIA.

I had just read this ...

"disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way."

...and used the wrong word ...

Poor Davey, he can't even read,
No matter the theistic need,
To find some excuse
To be dumb and obtuse.
His poor brain has all gone to seed.

:p

Keep 'em coming, 2nd. Lt. Dave!  Stick up for your God-given right to make a fool of yourself in public!

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:46   

Cometh Dave with creationist griping,
Anti-evolutionist sniping,
Famed New Yorker guy,
Would surely reply,
"That's not writing," sayeth Truman, "That's typing."

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:52   

Quote
So what does the kid take away from this?  ToE=All life came from a Single Cell ancestor=Scientific fact, and by the way, disease resistant bacteria proves it.

Only if the kid were an idiot.  The article you're quoting doesn't say that antibiotic resistant bacteria "prove" "macroevolution." Need I parse it for you?  It says

1. Scientists accept evolution from a common ancestor and
2. Evolutionary change has been observed and
3. Antibiotic resistance is an example of observed evolution


Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ... Apes and humans are so similar, and look at the fossil record, and look at the age of the earth, and look at evolution in bacteria, and on and on ... who needs to invoke God did it?

I submit to you that if you don't think evolutionists think that antibiotic resistant bacteria lend support to macroevolutionary theory (which some people pretend they don't know what we're talking about with this term), then you are simply lying.  It's plain as day in the popular literature which in turn is based on information from scientists like you.

The good news for me and all creationists is that most of the general public does think that resistant bacteria not only lends support to ToE, but is a very strong support.

It will be quite fun for us disseminating the news to the public that it most certainly does not.  Oh, and by the way, General Public, I have the firm statements from evolutionary biologists at PT that it does not.

One more leg of the shaky table is removed !!

I love it!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,08:29   

Quote
I submit to you that if you don't think evolutionists think that antibiotic resistant bacteria lend support to macroevolutionary theory (which some people pretend they don't know what we're talking about with this term), then you are simply lying.  It's plain as day in the popular literature which in turn is based on information from scientists like you.
You seem to be under some kind of weird impression that each piece of evidence to support evolution must singularly conclusively prove that humans evolved from bacteria. Im afraid it doesn't work like that, is isn't as simple as you think it should be. Drug resistant bacteria are one of the many pieces of evidence for evolution as they demonstrate mutation, selection and adaptation. Every time you talk about a piece of evidence you act like this is the only evidence we have. Your conclusions seem to be based on twisting some things we say and ignoring others, and so I pity the children you are telling these things to.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,08:38   

Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,12:52)
I submit to you that if you don't think evolutionists think that antibiotic resistant bacteria lend support to macroevolutionary theory (which some people pretend they don't know what we're talking about with this term), then you are simply lying.  It's plain as day in the popular literature which in turn is based on information from scientists like you.

Dave, do you understand the difference between "lends support to the theory,"  and "proves the theory" (no one piece of evidence "proves" the theory of evolution)?

Furthermore, do you even understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? How could bacterial resistance possibly lend support to macroevolutionary theory, when it's not even an example of macroevolution? Think, Dave, think.

This isn't rocket science, Dave. Or even jet science, for that matter.

 
Quote
One more leg of the shaky table is removed !!

I love it!


Nice try, Dave. You deliberately misrepresent your opponent's argument, shoot down that argument (kinda, sorta, but not really), and then claim victory.

This is what's known as a "straw man" argument, and it's kind of frowned upon around here.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,08:47   

Quote
Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ... Apes and humans are so similar, and look at the fossil record, and look at the age of the earth, and look at evolution in bacteria, and on and on ... who needs to invoke God did it?


In the only from afdave file, Davey equates idiocy with education (and perhaps atheism).  Okay, Dave, I was wrong -- by your Bizarro definitions, you are NOT an idiot.

Quote
I submit to you that if you don't think evolutionists think that antibiotic resistant bacteria lend support to macroevolutionary theory (which some people pretend they don't know what we're talking about with this term), then you are simply lying.  It's plain as day in the popular literature which in turn is based on information from scientists like you.


And I submit to you that you are inadvertantly correct, if only because you don't understand the difference between (nevermind the meaning of) evidence and proof, nor proves and lends support to, and thus are prone to using them interchangeably.  Once in a while, this leads to your comments almost making sense (especially when you fail to grasp that our definition of "macroevolution", if we employ it at all, does not contain the word "information" or "upward" or...).  But by then they don't mean what you think they mean, do they?  He11uva Catch-22.

Dave, how are we supposed to carry on a discussion with you if we can't use words or numbers, since you demonstrate a thoroughly appalling incapacity to understand either?

No wonder your vaunted opponent, jstockwell, starts out very politely but ends up just giving up and calling you an idiot, as Aftershave and Rilke and Faid and Jeannot and myself &c. have done before (check your early threads, big guy).

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,08:50   

Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,12:52)
Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ... Apes and humans are so similar, and look at the fossil record, and look at the age of the earth, and look at evolution in bacteria, and on and on ... who needs to invoke God did it?

I submit to you that if you don't think evolutionists think that antibiotic resistant bacteria lend support to macroevolutionary theory (which some people pretend they don't know what we're talking about with this term), then you are simply lying.  It's plain as day in the popular literature which in turn is based on information from scientists like you.

The good news for me and all creationists is that most of the general public does think that resistant bacteria not only lends support to ToE, but is a very strong support.

It will be quite fun for us disseminating the news to the public that it most certainly does not.  Oh, and by the way, General Public, I have the firm statements from evolutionary biologists at PT that it does not.

One more leg of the shaky table is removed !!

I love it!

Starting to lose your thick skin, dave? Don't worry, it's not like it's the first time we've caught you arguing against something you know nothing about: we're used to that by now.
Quote
I love it!


...P-Professor Davidson???????

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,09:03   

My interest in Davey is Waning
Since I have inpected the draining

Oatmeal mush from his cranial location
Slowly draining since indoctrination
In self-evident truths of creation
And intellectual constipation

And his words that he hopes will be staining
Young minds punished like caning
And he goes on a rage campaigning
For truth or a lie or a chaining

Of science with shackles of shaming.

Ok, we'll improve with the next one.

Davey, did you read my last post? I had a revelation!
Care to comment?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,09:07   

Sorry, My revelation in verse:


God and heaven both unfold
While you yourself are being sold
By preachers round a water hole
To those who want to gain control

Over body mind heart and soul
In fear that they are growing old
Their bodies that will decompose
So pave the fears with bricks of gold

And keep you in a stranglehold
Of fear that you can only go
To pastures sung about of woe
Sheep for shepherd’s crook to mold

Body mind heart and soul
The joys that we can only know
Apart from any friend or foe
We learned about them long ago

Where our thoughts can overflow
From silver cups and drinking bowls
And timeless loves that we stow
In little boxes wrapped in bows

Enjoying time where we forego
Fear of pleasures down below
Chains of daisies that we hold
As we dance we know it’s so
The hours our ours to see no more

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,09:09   

Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,12:52)
I love it!

You love looking like a ignorant fool in public?

Are you some kind of masochist, AFDave?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,09:17   

That should read  
Quote
I love it so!
;)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,09:53   

Dave, I'm going to cross-post this here in case you haven't read the thread where I originally posted it, the "Reserved for AFDave's YEC evidence" thread. I'm guessing you haven't actually visited that thread yet, so you probably haven't read this:

   
Quote
I think it's just a little significant that Dave has yet to even post to this thread. I can't imagine he doesn't know it's here. It only adds further confirmation (if any were needed) that Dave doesn't actually have any YEC evidence.


You do realize, Dave, that your absence from that thread is pretty powerful evidence that you do not, in fact, have any evidence whatsoever for your "Creator God Hypothesis," don't you?

We always suspected so anyway, but it's interesting that you've shown so little interest in disabusing us of the notion.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,11:40   

Quote
We always suspected so anyway, but it's interesting that you've shown so little interest in disabusing us of the notion.


It's just that he is "disinclined to acquiesce"

10 points to the one who recognizes that quote.

PS, I'm kinda proud of that last poem. Rather lyrical. I will set it to music I think.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,12:16   

"One half of one stupid percent?
(I wish that I knew what that meant)
Your lectures on genes,
Don't mean to me beans,
And so far you've not made a dent!"

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,13:41   

Davey,

You're a muse! All things according to the creator's plan. You needed to be so insanely ridiculously stupid to spur us on to poetic inspiration.

Thank you

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,15:11   

BWE -

Pirates!

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,15:54   

Quote
Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ...


If you really must know, learning evolution had nothing to do with me "losing my faith" (if a 9 year old can have faith).  It was simply lack of evidence (no prayers answered, never any miracles occurring, etc.).  And lack of evidence is still the reason for my atheism.  I don't remember if I'd learned about evolution yet.  Definitely knew a lot about dinosaurs at the time, though.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,16:15   

Quote
Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ... Apes and humans are so similar, and look at the fossil record, and look at the age of the earth, and look at evolution in bacteria, and on and on ... who needs to invoke God did it?
Since there are many, many scientists who accept both evolution and God, your bizarre contention that the theory of evolution somehow eliminates God continues to make you look like the greatest a55 in Christendom.

You're stupid Dave - that's why you buddies in the Air Force ignored your little 'pamphlets' and probably laughed at you behind your back.

You're stupid Dave - cause you can't even understand evolution well enough to argue against it.

You're stupid Dave - cause your blind 'science vs. theism' diatribe won't go over with the public; only with innocent children too inexperienced to realize that you're crippling them for life.

It's child abuse, Dave.  That's what you're doing to them.  To teach that one must choose between evolution and Christianity is the stupidest, most illogical, most unreasonable position you can hold.

No wonder you only made 2nd. Lt.  ;)

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,17:13   

Rilke's Granddaughter says
 
Quote
It's child abuse, Dave.  That's what you're doing to them.  To teach that one must choose between evolution and Christianity is the stupidest, most illogical, most unreasonable position you can hold.


There's one silver lining to AFDave's dark cloud of lies and child abuse.  Many of Dave's child victims will realize when they get older that they were lied to and used.  Hopefully they will develop a great resentment not just for AFDave, but for all the other evangelistic liars and charlatans like Dave who abuse children for their own selfish egotistical reasons.  They will make great champions for science because they will understand first-hand the damage that the pseudoscientific liars-for-Jesus like Washout Dave can cause.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,02:05   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 25 2006,22:13)
There's one silver lining to AFDave's dark cloud of lies and child abuse.  Many of Dave's child victims will realize when they get older that they were lied to and used.  Hopefully they will develop a great resentment not just for AFDave, but for all the other evangelistic liars and charlatans like Dave who abuse children for their own selfish egotistical reasons.  They will make great champions for science because they will understand first-hand the damage that the pseudoscientific liars-for-Jesus like Washout Dave can cause.

I fear a great many more will complete their home-schooling and go on to academic careers at Patrick Henry College and then into internships with senators and congressmen.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,02:13   

Quote (Bing @ May 26 2006,07:05)
I fear a great many more will complete their home-schooling and go on to academic careers at Patrick Henry College and then into internships with senators and congressmen.

But it will be short-lived, since I'm pretty sure the aides of senators and congressmen have to be able to identify which "one lousy percentage points" are important.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,01:44   

Quote
Okay, AFDave: Let's begin again. Your broken link should be  this one.. This paper is not "research" it is a literature review, and a poorly done one at that. A cursory search for papers that directly contradict what "Kevin Anderson, Ph.D." was saying in his "review of the literature" comes up with some fast results:

Did I say it was "research"?  Did I say this guy performed all the relevant experiments himself to support his conclusions?  Are you taking the absurd position that for anyone's papers to be worth anything, they have to do the original research themselves?  I have no problem with it being a literature review.  Why do you?  All researchers do literature reviews and come to conclusions, both Evo and Creo.  Stop your whining.  It's a good literature review and your lame attempts to show otherwise don't hack it.

 
Quote

http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/full/48/4/1289  "Effect of rpoB Mutations Conferring Rifampin Resistance on Fitness of Mycobacterium tuberculosis" Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2004, p. 1289-1294, Vol. 48, No. 4
Quote  
... resistance mutations appear to confer no cost (<1% reduction in fitness), at least as measured by in vitro assay systems. For example, certain rpsL mutations (streptomycin resistance) in M. tuberculosis , Escherichia coli, and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium , katG mutations (isoniazid resistance) in M. tuberculosis , and gyrA and parC mutations (fluoroquinolone resistance) in Streptococcus pneumoniae confer no measurable reduction in growth rate.


Your guy is saying <1% cost = no cost.  Come on.

 
Quote

Fitness costs conferred by mutations that [do]alter target molecules may also be partly or fully ameliorated by compensatory mutations without loss of resistance. Such compensatory evolution has been observed in vitro, in experimental animals, and in clinical situations. Thus, the occurrence of cost-free mutations and compensatory evolution suggests that antibiotic-resistant bacteria will not disappear as a result of restricted use of antibiotics  

Really?  Prove it.  Don't just assert it.


 
Quote
Your boy, Kevin Anderson, also claims that no mutations resulting in drug resistance have been identified. He somehow believes that lateral transfer happens miraculously: Quote  
Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated

Point mutations in the dihydrofolate reductase and dihydropteroate synthase genes of Plasmodium falciparum and resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in Sri Lanka. Hapuarachchi HC, et al  (2006).
Am J Trop Med Hyg 74: 198-204
Quote  
Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is the second-line treatment for Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Sri Lanka. Resistance to SP is caused by point mutations in the dihydrofolate reductase (Pf-dhfr) and dihydropteroate synthase (Pf-dhps) genes of P. falciparum.


Deadman ... read carefully, my friend.  He's talking about the ORIGIN of the genes.  He does not claim that no mutations resulting in drug resistance have been identified.  Quite the opposite.  The whole article is about how they DO, but that it is not because of "adding something" but rather it's because of the LOSS of something. "He says that "Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the ORIGIN OF THESE GENES, but such an ORIGIN has never been demonstrated ."  See that word "ORIGIN" ??  

Nice try at rebutting, but you have to do better than that.

*************************************************************************

RESISTANT BACTERIA -- STILL NO PROOF FOR 'UPWARD' EVOLUTION
(for the slow people 'upward' in this context means 'toward more complex life forms';)

Just to recap, evolutionists for many years having been offering anti-biotic resistant bacteria as evidence for macroevolution.  The reasoning is "Look at bacteria ... they 'evolve' and develop drug resistance ... see?  This means that a little, single celled organism a billion years ago could have likewise 'evolved' into a multi-celled organism, which in turn continued to evolve into the diversity of life forms we see today.  Isn't this wonderful?"  Neat fairy tale, yes.  

The Anderson paper cited on 5/24 in this thread clearly shows that the developed resistance is the result of either a rearrangement of genes, horizontal gene transfer, or a LOSS of function, not a gain.  These are not the types of mechanisms which evolutionists so desparately need to support their theory.

The hilarious thing is that the folks here at Panda's Thumb say they aren't even aware that resistant bacteria are offered as evidence of macroevolution.  This can only mean that they are lying or they are very naive.

Notice also the Evos desparate attempt to portray me as a "child-abuser" ... why you may ask?  Well ... I contribute content to a Bible based, creationist kids web site at www.kids4truth.com .   Oh ... and maybe because I take my kids to church and teach them the Bible is true.  Child abuse!  What a joke.  These guys are really scraping bottom.  

Anyway, another leg of the shaky table just got broken for me.

(Note:  My original post on 5/24 was entitled "RESISTANT BACTERIA ..." then on 5/24, I wrote "DISEASE RESISTANT BACTERIA ..." -- this was an error ... I meant to write "ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT BACTERIA")

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,02:09   

Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,06:44)
"Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the ORIGIN OF THESE GENES, but such an ORIGIN has never been demonstrated ."  See that word "ORIGIN" ??  
...
Just to recap, evolutionists for many years having been offering anti-biotic resistant bacteria as evidence for macroevolution.  

What the heck is your point, Dave?  ???
No, spontaneous mutations in a gene don't provide any evidence regarding its origine. What does a child's broken arm say about his parents?

And your 2nd assertion is just plain wrong, as always.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,03:01   

Jeannot said ...
Quote
What the heck is your point, Dave?  
No, spontaneous mutations in a gene don't provide any evidence regarding its origine.

What does a child's broken arm say about his parents?

And your 2nd assertion is just plain wrong, as always.


Here's my point ... again ... slowly.

(1) Deadman says that "my man" Dr. Anderson claims that no mutations resulting in drug resistance have been identified.  Dr. Anderson claims no such thing
(2) Deadman absurdly supports (1) above with this from Dr. A ... "Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated." Do you see and agree now that Dr. A says no such thing?
(3) I point out that this quote from Dr. A is showing that the ORIGIN of the genetic mechanism has never been demonstrated, not that there IS NO mechanism, as Deadman asserts

I'm glad that at least YOU agree with me that "spontaneous mutations in a gene don't provide any evidence regarding its origin" because evolutionists desparately need to account for the origin of this type of mechanism, but they have come up empty handed.

Thanks for agreeing with this.

Could you please explain this whole thing to Deadman?  He appears confused.

Quote
What does a child's broken arm say about his parents?
Well, Jeannot, here's some possibilities for you ...

(1)  His parents shouldn't let him climb trees
(2)  His parents shouldn't let him play tackle football
(3)  His parents shouldn't let him ride motocross
(4)  His parents shouldn't let him do umpteen other possibly dangerous activities
(5)  His parents shouldn't discipline him with a baseball bat (probably the one you are thinking about)

Now tell me ... what did your question have to do with anything?

Were you lamely trying to connect a hypothetical kid's broken arm with the absurd attempt of some people to portray 'indoctrination of kids with creationism' as child abuse?

Quote
And your 2nd assertion is just plain wrong, as always.
 Wrong, huh.  Do you care to try to PROVE me wrong?  I gave a great example supporting my assertion.  Could you give me an example refuting my assertion?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,03:46   

Dave, can you state your "great example" again please? I must have missed it. Oh, and don't point me to your previous posts; not me, after all the times I've explained the same thing to you over and over again. Can you tell me, in plain words, how ToE uses aquired resistance to antibiotics by bacteria as an example of macroevolution?

Quote
The hilarious thing is that the folks here at Panda's Thumb say they aren't even aware that resistant bacteria are offered as evidence of macroevolution.  This can only mean that they are lying or they are very naive.
Or, you know, that you have absolutely no idea what macroevolution is supposed to mean. Just a thought.

But since Prof. Anderson is your new favorite now, after Wieland and Woodmorappe bit the dust, can you answer that question I keep asking you?

If another point mutation in the same place makes the enzyme sensitive to rifampin again, what function will be lost, dave?

That's like, the fourth time? But don't think I'll get bored. I'm actually enjoying this.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,05:25   

Dave, do you even read other people's posts? Or are you developing Thordaddy syndrome? I dealt with these issues already, just yesterday:

   
Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,06:44)

Did I say it was "research"?  Did I say this guy performed all the relevant experiments himself to support his conclusions?  Are you taking the absurd position that for anyone's papers to be worth anything, they have to do the original research themselves?  I have no problem with it being a literature review.  Why do you?  All researchers do literature reviews and come to conclusions, both Evo and Creo.  Stop your whining.  It's a good literature review and your lame attempts to show otherwise don't hack it.

Read my previous post re "research papers" vs. "literature review." You don't remember reading it?


   
Quote
RESISTANT BACTERIA -- STILL NO PROOF FOR 'UPWARD' EVOLUTION
(for the slow people 'upward' in this context means 'toward more complex life forms';)

Just to recap, evolutionists for many years having been offering anti-biotic resistant bacteria as evidence for macroevolution.  The reasoning is "Look at bacteria ... they 'evolve' and develop drug resistance ... see?  

You didn't read my previous post on why bacterial resistance is not evidence for macroevolution, Dave? I only posted it yesterday. Come on.

Is it any wonder people get exasperated when dealing with you? The endless repetition starts to get on everyone's nerves.

   
Quote
The hilarious thing is that the folks here at Panda's Thumb say they aren't even aware that resistant bacteria are offered as evidence of macroevolution.  This can only mean that they are lying or they are very naive.

No, Dave. It means that you're clueless.

   
Quote
Anyway, another leg of the shaky table just got broken for me.

Is that why you're sprawled on the floor with stars circling your head, Dave?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,05:42   

Quote
Your guy is saying <1% cost = no cost.  Come on.
He's saying that, if there is a cost, it's too small to measure. What's Anderson saying? That "creationist theory" predicts that there will always be a cost, which may or may not be detectable? That's just dumb.

Also, when you say
Quote
because evolutionists desparately* need to account for the origin of this type of mechanism, but they have come up empty handed.
What type of mechanism are you talking about? What's your idea of an proposed origin that doesn't work? I have some ideas, but since the standard creationist response to any explanation is "Yeah? well, what came before that?", we need to have some idea, in advance, what the question really is. I.e., let's anchor those goalposts before we start aiming for them.

*it's spelled "desperately

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,05:50   

You're acting retarded again dave.

Dave, you referred to "macroevolution" as "[eyes appearing where there were no eyes before, and wings appearing where there were no wings before]"

How the F is bacteria developing anti-biotic resistance anywhere near this ballpark???

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,05:55   

Quote (ericmurphy @ May 27 2006,10:25)
     
Quote
RESISTANT BACTERIA -- STILL NO PROOF FOR 'UPWARD' EVOLUTION
(for the slow people 'upward' in this context means 'toward more complex life forms';)

Just to recap, evolutionists for many years having been offering anti-biotic resistant bacteria as evidence for macroevolution.  The reasoning is "Look at bacteria ... they 'evolve' and develop drug resistance ... see?  

You didn't read my previous post on why bacterial resistance is not evidence for macroevolution, Dave? I only posted it yesterday. Come on.

You know, I am just a simple industrial engineer (which isn't much more than business with some calculus thrown in) and the extent of my knowledge of biology comes from reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.  Even I knew that anti-biotic resistance in bacteria was proof of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

After watching this thread for a few days now, I have to wonder if continuing the discussion is like mud wrestling a pig.  Pretty soon you realize that it is pointless, and that the pig is enjoying it.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,09:09   

oh, don't worry, the mud is apparently enjoying it as well.

*rolleyes*

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,09:21   

Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,06:44)
Your guy is saying <1% cost = no cost.  Come on.

Um...Dave...given you prior comments on the ape thread, exactly how are you determining when "<1%" is important and when it is not?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,09:53   

Quote
Even I knew that anti-biotic resistance in bacteria was proof of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.


Very good, Mr. Carlson.  And how does macroevolution happen, you may ask?  By microevolution happening over millions of years according to the Evos.

Just look in any World Book under the "Evolution" article (or other popular works on Evolution) and you will see how the truth about bacteria adapting (microevolution) fits into the very large Fairy Tale of the development of all life on earth.  

Only a moron or a dishonest person could miss it.

Bacterial adaptation offers the evolutionist no mechanism for the development of complex life on earth.

Do you understand now?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,10:16   

Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,14:53)
Quote
Even I knew that anti-biotic resistance in bacteria was proof of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.


Very good, Mr. Carlson.  And how does macroevolution happen, you may ask?  By microevolution happening over millions of years according to the Evos.

True, resistant bacterias are an evidence of micro-evolution. Good point Dave. And evidence of micro-evolution is not an evidence that micro-evo explains macro-evo. We're making progress.

Now, what about the evidence for macro-evolution listed at talkorigins?
So far, your response to the GULO case was :
- it's the result of chance (well, 1 chance in a gazillon to the power of 2 is always a chance :))
- it's a divine message conveyed by errors in a pseudogene.  :D

Who's talking about fairy tales, Dave?
Shall we examine another evidence for marcoevolution, so that you could tell your children a new story tonight?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,10:28   

dave, dave, dave...

check out the following two statements:

A --> B

A  =  B

Are they identical, or different? and  why?

If, you're having trouble, check your kids' schoolbooks.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,10:30   

Quote
And how does macroevolution happen, you may ask?  By microevolution happening over millions of years according to the Evos.
I'm not so sure all "evos" would agree with this. In fact, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. You certainly have these smallish mutations - small deletions, insertions, point mutations - and I've never seen anyone define a limit to how much such mutations can accomplish over millions of years. But you also have huge, abrupt changes - like whole genome duplication, chromosome fission/fusion, and, of course, endosymbiosis.

In a sense it's just "micro-evolution writ large", in that it still boils down to random changes in the genetic code + selection, but the scale of the mutation might be rather different.

In the case of bacterial antibiotic resistance, of course, you have the phenomena of plasmid exchange, phage transduction, and transposition. There's plenty of evidence that such phenomena have also played a part in our own genomic history.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,11:25   

Quote
And evidence of micro-evolution is not an evidence that micro-evo explains macro-evo.


Oh really?  Then what is the mechanism for macroevolution if not microevolution over millions of years?

Maybe what Russell suggests?  This is an interesting one ...
Quote
But you also have huge, abrupt changes - like whole genome duplication, chromosome fission/fusion, and, of course, endosymbiosis.


Hmmm ... huge, abrupt changes you say?  Whole genome duplication!  Wow!  Can you give some examples of this happening today?  In fact, can you give examples of ANY of these abrupt changes?

Or is this YOUR fairy tale?  Why is your fairy tale better than mine?

Quote
A --> B

A  =  B

Are they identical, or different? and  why?


Faid, what is your point?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,11:29   

Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,16:25)
Quote
And evidence of micro-evolution is not an evidence that micro-evo explains macro-evo.


Oh really?  Then what is the mechanism for macroevolution if not microevolution over millions of years?

Dave, read again the sentence you juste quoted. Do it several times.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,11:35   

Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,16:25)
Hmmm ... huge, abrupt changes you say?  Whole genome duplication!  Wow!  Can you give some examples of this happening today?  In fact, can you give examples of ANY of these abrupt changes?

Ohohoh.

Dave is about to meet another big disillusion.  :)

But I'll let Russell shoot him down.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,12:14   

Quote
Faid, what is your point?

Oh, I dunno- maybe what you are demonstrating by not answering?


Jeannot:
 
Quote
Dave is about to meet another big disillusion.  

I doubt it. After the chromosome fusion thing, dave has raised his mental shields to the maximum: Nothing comes through. His response will probably be something between "that don't count" and "la la la I ain't listening- look at the silly ape picture".

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,12:30   

Quote
In fact, can you give examples of ANY of these abrupt changes?
yes.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,12:50   

Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,14:53)
         
Quote
Even I knew that anti-biotic resistance in bacteria was proof of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Very good, Mr. Carlson.  And how does macroevolution happen, you may ask?  By microevolution happening over millions of years according to the Evos.

Just look in any World Book under the "Evolution" article (or other popular works on Evolution) and you will see how the truth about bacteria adapting (microevolution) fits into the very large Fairy Tale of the development of all life on earth.

Only a moron or a dishonest person could miss it.


See, here is the thing.  You and me, we're not scientists, we're engineers. Sure, we had to take chemistry and physics in college.  But don't kid yourself.  What we took what amounts to the remedial, short-bus versions.  As engineers, we are glorified mechanics.  So, if I have an interest in a topic outside of my area of expertise, I am humble enough to seek out people who have devoted their life to the subject, I listen to them and I try to understand.  

I think I'm a reasonably intelligent person.  But, I don't make an idol of my intellect and suppose that I know better than those that make a subject their life's business.  

 
Quote

Do you understand now?


All too well, my man, all too well. May I be so presumptuous to make a suggestion?  I referenced before the book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.  If you are truly interested in understanding the practice of science (frankly, it isn't clear to me that you are), buy it and read it.  It takes you on a jolly good tour through cosmology, physics, archaelogy, paleontology, mathematics, and biology.  And, best of all, it is written to be understood by wrench-turners like us.  It is especially interesting in the sections devoted to the process of aging the earth and plate tectonics.  Did you know that many of the early contributors to these sciences were ministers and priests?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,12:53   

Quote (Faid @ May 27 2006,17:14)
dave has raised his mental shields to the maximum: Nothing comes through.

The comparison between Dave and the black knight guarding the bridge in 'Monty Python and the holy Grail' was accurate. "None shall pass!"
:p

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,13:52   

HAH, I find this really amusing, Dave. I just glanced at this thread for the first time.

I HAVE NEVER POSTED ON THIS THREAD BEFORE.

But Dave, YOU decided that you were going to address my post on your "Creator God Hypothesis " thread ----- HERE??????

THAT I POSTED TWO DAYS AGO???

You little weasel, you couldn't even address my post on the same thread that it was placed on? You chose this thread....that you KNOW I have never posted on, and tried to make claims about the veracity of my post?

Let me quote the full passage of "Kevin Anderson, Ph.D's ."  article in question...
Quote
resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes. Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes. Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated
 this is available here

NOw, there are only two possibilities here, Dave. One is that your "Kevin Anderson" is saying that mutations cannot account for a gene like the dihydrofolate reductase gene of P. falciparum...but look at what he SAYS, DaveTARD...he is saying
RESISTANCE GENES...

GENES THAT HAVE GAINED RESISTANCE

NOTE THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINS OF THE UNALTERED GENES DAVETARD, IT HAS TO DO WITH RESISTANCE GENES. YOU DUMBSHIT

Now, in your little post ON THIS THREAD, which addresses MY POST ON ANOTHER THREAD... you ask:
Quote
Did I say it was "research"? Did I say this guy performed all the relevant experiments himself to support his conclusions?  


Well, yes, Dave, you sure as #### suggested it by saying on your Creator God Thread that :  
Quote
AF Dave finds a very recent (2005) scholarly article by a real scientist who "you know ... really wears a lab coat and does experiments" (there Eric, are you happy?). Here's the title and source for the article ...


Here, you ask aboutthis article ("Effect of rpoB Mutations Conferring Rifampin Resistance on Fitness of Mycobacterium tuberculosis" Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2004, p. 1289-1294, Vol. 48, No. 4) and boldly  ( and stupidly) say "prove it" when the article says:
Quote
mutations that [do]alter target molecules may also be partly or fully ameliorated by compensatory mutations without loss of resistance. Such compensatory evolution has been observed in vitro, in experimental animals, and in clinical situations. Thus, the occurrence of cost-free mutations and compensatory evolution suggests that antibiotic-resistant bacteria will not disappear as a result of restricted use of antibiotics  


Well, Okay, DaveTard:

IN VITRO

Björkman, J., D. Hughes, and D. I. Andersson. 1998. Virulence of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella typhimurium. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:3949-3953 " avirulent-resistant mutants rapidly accumulated various types of compensatory mutations that restored virulence without concomitant loss of resistance...compensatory mutations could increase the fitness of resistant bacteria and allow them to persist and compete successfully with sensitive strains even in an antibiotic-free environment. "

P. Sander, B. Springer, T. Prammananan, A. Sturmfels, M. Kappler, M. Pletschette, and E. C. Bottger (2002).Fitness Cost of Chromosomal Drug Resistance-Conferring Mutations.  Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46: 1204-1211

"We found that the chromosomal drug resistance mutations studied often had only a small fitness cost; compensatory mutations were not involved in low-cost or no-cost resistance mutations. "

IN ANIMALS

Schrag, S. J., V. Perrot, and B. R. Levin. 1997. Adaptation to the fitness costs of antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli. Proc. R. Soc. London B 264:1287-1291.

"While fitness costs have been demonstrated for bacteria and viruses resistant to some chemotherapeutic agents, these costs are anticipated to decline during subsequent evolution. This has recently been observed in pathogens as diverse as HIV and Escherichia coli. Here we present evidence that these gentic adaptations to the costs of resistance can virtually preclude resistant lineages from reverting to sensitivity.
in experimental animals"

Björkman, J., I. Nagaev, O. G. Berg, D. Hughes, and D. I. Andersson. 2000. Effects of environment on compensatory mutations to ameliorate costs of antibiotic resistance. Science 287:1479-1482

A. I. Nilsson, A. Zorzet, A. Kanth, S. Dahlstrom, O. G. Berg, and D. I. Andersson (2006). Reducing the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance by amplification of initiator tRNA genes. (on rifampin resistance)

"Conclusions: The fitness impact imposed on E. coli 345-2 RifC by carriage of antibiotic resistance elements was generally low or non-existent, suggesting that once established, resistance may be difficult to eliminate through reduction in prescribing alone."

N. Luo, S. Pereira, O. Sahin, J. Lin, S. Huang, L. Michel, and Q. Zhang (2005).
PNAS 102: 541-546. Enhanced in vivo fitness of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni in the absence of antibiotic selection pressure.

"The prolonged colonization in chickens did not result in loss of the FQ resistance and the resistance-conferring point mutation (C257-> T) in the gyrA gene. Strikingly, when coinoculated into chickens, the FQ-resistant Campylobacter isolates outcompeted the majority of the FQ-susceptible strains"

CLINICAL SITUATIONS

Prouzet-Mauléon,Valérie, M. Abid Hussain, Hervé Lamouliatte, Farhana Kauser, Francis Mégraud, and Niyaz Ahmed. 2005. Pathogen Evolution In Vivo: Genome Dynamics of Two Isolates Obtained 9 Years Apart from a Duodenal Ulcer Patient Infected with a Single Helicobacter pylori Strain. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, p. 4237-4241, Vol. 43, No. 8

"Microevolution, however, was observed in the cagA gene and its right junction, the vacA m1 allele, and a member of the plasticity region cluster (JHP926). These results suggest that H. pylori has a great ability to survive and reemerge as a microevolved strain "

Nagaev, I., J. Björkman, D. I. Andersson, and D. Hughes. 2001. Biological cost and compensatory evolution in fusidic acid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Mol. Microbiol. 40:433-439.

"observation suggests that fitness-compensatory mutations may be an important aspect of the evolution of antibiotic resistance in the clinical environment, and may contribute to a stabilization of the resistant bacteria present in a bacterial population."


You're a cowardly litle Chickenshit that can't even respond to my posts on the same thread that they were posted on and you're a complete idiot for trying to imply any lack of support for what I did post there.

Notice that I addressed fully and completely each one of your stupid-ass "objections" DaveTard, maybe some day you can grow the balls to do the same in response.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,14:10   

Just in case I didn't make this clear enough for your tiny brain to grasp, DAVE, I'm going to spell it out in terms even microcephalics like yourself MIGHT be able to grasp:
1. Take genes like the  dihydrofolate reductase (Pf-dhfr) and dihydropteroate synthase (Pf-dhps) genes of P. falciparum. THESE are genes native , unaltered at that moment.

2. Drugs are developed that act upon those genes, disrupting them and their ability to deal with, oh, say FOLATES.

3. THOSE GENES MUTATE...RESULTING IN...RESISTANCE GENES. GENES THAT CAN RESIST  Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine

Your "boy" Kevin Anderson, PhD...mentions what in his post, DAVETARD? WHY, he mentions "Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated"  but of WHAT GENES? RESISTANCE GENES.

Contrary to what your boy said...here's what the article *I* cited said: "Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is the second-line treatment for Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Sri Lanka. Resistance to SP is caused by point mutations in the dihydrofolate reductase (Pf-dhfr) and dihydropteroate synthase (Pf-dhps) genes of P. falciparum"

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,14:32   

Quote
Hmmm ... huge, abrupt changes you say?  Whole genome duplication!  Wow!  Can you give some examples of this happening today?  In fact, can you give examples of ANY of these abrupt changes?


Flowering plants Dave. But then, I am sure, you would not believe a word any scientist say.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,14:59   

I'm thinking I might not have made myself simple enough for y0u to grasp, DaveTard2, so here:

Different genetic mutations yield different types of resistance:

1.Some mutations enable the bacteria to produce enzymes that inactivate antibiotics.

2. Some mutations eliminate/alter the cell target that the antibiotic attacks -- As in the example I gave about the dihydrofolate reductase (Pf-dhfr) and dihydropteroate synthase (Pf-dhps) genes of  P. falciparum. A point mutation in each enables them to now resist the drug... hence they are resistance genes at that stage.

3. Some close up the entry ports that allow antibiotics into the cell.

4. I'm sure there are others

So, DaveTard2, when "Kevin Anderson, PhD says:    
Quote
resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes. Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes. Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated


and I give you a citation for a study that DOES show the precise mutational origins of...RESISTANCE GENES...you  cannot say that I am misreading "Kevin Anderson, PhD"

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:17   

Quote

4. I'm sure there are others


Some allow the bacterium to pump the drug out of the cell.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,22:59   

Quote
Hmmm ... huge, abrupt changes you say?  Whole genome duplication!  Wow!  Can you give some examples of this happening today?  In fact, can you give examples of ANY of these abrupt changes?
Dave, are you kidding? Iv'e even mentioned this a couple of times on these threads. It is a major source of new information, and is observable today. Interstingly, we can often see genome duplication events coinciding with extictions (in the organisms that survived), because it creates a great potential for phenotypic novelty, which presumably is useful in these cases.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,01:41   

EVOLUTIONISTS DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS ARE

I quoted Dr. Anderson's article showing that Resistant Bacteria provide no mechanism for macroevolutionary change as is often claimed by evolutionists.
   
Quote
Summary
Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.”  However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification”).  Rather, resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes.  Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes.  Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated.  Instead, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution.  These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding.  Antibiotic resistance may also impart some decrease of “relative fitness” (severe in a few cases), although for many mutants this is compensated by reversion.  The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.

Now you can read the rest of the article if you like  HERE.

Many here on this thread said in effect "no evolutionist would cite bacterial resistance as an evidence for macroevolution" ... here's some examples ...

Jeannot ...    
Quote
And evidence of micro-evolution is not an evidence that micro-evo explains macro-evo.
Eric Murphy ...    
Quote
How could bacterial resistance possibly lend support to macroevolutionary theory, when it's not even an example of macroevolution?
Ved ...    
Quote
Dave, you referred to "macroevolution" as "[eyes appearing where there were no eyes before, and wings appearing where there were no wings before]"
How the F is bacteria developing anti-biotic resistance anywhere near this ballpark???

Oh playing stupid are we?  Well, hop on over to the "Favorite Proof Site for Everything Evolutionary" -- Talk Origins and what do you find?

Talk Origins definition of the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution."  
Quote
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.87

Copyright © 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
[Last Update: March 29, 2006]
Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes.

Introduction
volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


So there you have it quite clear.  These are the definitions I have always heard and I have always used them in this sense.

Now that these definitions have been established, Dr. Theobald goes on to offer 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, one of which is ... drum roll ... Bacterial Resistance!

Talk Origins ...    
Quote
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Part 5: Change and Mutability
...
Prediction 5.3: Functional change
One of the major differences between organisms is their capacity for various functions. The ability to occupy one niche over another is invariably due to differing functions. Thus, functional change must be extremely important for macroscopic macroevolutionary change.
...
Bacteria have acquired resistance to viruses (Luria and Delbruck 1943) and to antibiotics (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html


IT DOESN'T GET MUCH PLAINER THAN THAT, FOLKS.  I'M NOT SURE IF THE FOLKS ON THIS THREAD ARE JUST IGNORANT, CONFUSED OR PLAYING OBFUSCATION GAMES.  THE FACT IS ... EVOLUTIONISTS DESPERATELY NEED GENETIC MECHANISMS TO SUPPORT THEIR MACROEVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

THEY SAY THAT FUNCTIONAL CHANGE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR MACROSCOPIC MACROEVOLUTIONARY CHANGE, AND THEY CITE RESISTANT BACTERIA AS AN INSTANCE OF THIS.

DR. ANDERSON'S ARTICLE DEMOLISHES THIS SUPPOSED INSTANCE OF SUPPORT

If a scientist with similar qualifications to Dr. Anderson would like to refute Dr. Anderson, let him do so and post it at Talk Origins.

(Deadman, I cannot tell if your rebuttals have any merit or not.  I would have to defer to an expert.  I would suggest that you ask Talk Origins to write a formal rebuttal of Dr. Anderson's paper.  Then Dr. Anderson would have the opportunity to counter this rebuttal ... and so on.)

Faid ...    
Quote
I doubt it. After the chromosome fusion thing, dave has raised his mental shields to the maximum: Nothing comes through.

Faid-- I was talking to a Dr. last night and she said (as you have said), that chromosomal fusion is quite common.  She of course mentioned Downs syndrome and she also mentioned other instances of fusion.  

My question is this ... Are you familiar with the other instances?  Are they all harmful as well?  (like Downs)

Carlson ...    
Quote
As engineers, we are glorified mechanics.
Speak for yourself, please.  I am an electrical engineer and this means I design things which very much resemble biological systems.  I am also a retired business owner and now write content for children's educational materials (creationist stuff).  As a business owner, I used the work of scientists to create wealth.  As a content creator, I will also be using the work of scientists (both Evo and Creo) to teach kids the truth about origins.  You are very naive if you think you are too dumb to understand how scientists operate.  You do not need an advanced science degree to understand both the good things scientists do and the errors that they make.  My approach is to analyze the writings of scientists with advanced degrees on both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate.  Scientists on both sides often write papers that are easily understandable by "amateur scientists" such as you and I.  Even the "original research" technical papers are often accessible to laymen.  Don't sell yourself short.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,01:53   

Quote
THEY SAY THAT FUNCTIONAL CHANGE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR MACROSCOPIC MACROEVOLUTIONARY CHANGE, AND THEY CITE RESISTANT BACTERIA AS AN INSTANCE OF THIS.

True (about functional change).
 
Quote
DR. ANDERSON'S ARTICLE DEMOLISHES THIS SUPPOSED INSTANCE OF SUPPORT

Wrong.
As others have tried to make you understand, arguing on some supposed 'losses of function' is just masturbation (like Dumbski's conservation of infomation). Find a book where it is stated that a loss of function (even if it were objective) can't be qualified as an evolutionary change.
Same thing regarding his alleged tradeoffs involved in resistance. Resistant bacteria a more efficient than non-resistant bacteria in their environment, with antibiotics. They may be less efficient in their previous environment, but who gives a sh*t ?
d*mned, in the jungle we are less efficient than chimps. Big deal.
???

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,02:06   

Carlson...
Quote
Even I knew that anti-biotic resistance in bacteria was proof of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.
Forgot about you, Carlson, when I was quoting evolutionists that don't know their own arguments.   Be careful throwing that 'proof' word around here.  You'll get slammed ...

(Oh, wait, never mind ... you won't get slammed no matter what you say because you are an Evo, not a Creo ... I almost forgot Rule#1: Creos get slammed for everything they say, no matter how factual.  Evos don't get slammed for anything they say, no matter how un-factual.)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,02:50   

Hey D/2 .....geez you still digging that hole?
What did JC say about throwing pearls to swine?
Or are you not a Christian?

There was a REASON he said that ...do you know why?

BTW when DO YOU expect the Lord to show up?
A rough estimate would be fine.
You know some would say that your version of H3LL, waiting for goddot (or the inevitable democratic president), is no different where you are now.


A boy was watching his father, a pastor, write a sermon. How do you know what to say?" he asked.

"Why, God tells me."

"Oh, then why do you keep crossing things out?"


http://www.godisajoke.com/2006....y-poker

This is old but its interesting that the Preacher washes his kids mouth with soap if they step out of line, I wonder if D/2 has a similar regime?

ABC AIRS ATHEIST-PREACHER "WIFE SWAP" SHOW

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,03:06   

Just as a matter of interest D/2 why are you rabbiting on about 'millions of years'.

You have stated that the Bible is inerrant and that time only began 6000 years ago so why do creationsts talk about mys when they didn't exist? Or do you conceed creationists don't agee that time began 6000 years ago?

I'm begining to think you don't believe creationism, does your family know about this?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,03:10   

D/2 do you apply the term  "non-Christian" to refer to mainline and liberal Christian groups as well as Muslims, Hindus, followers of Aboriginal and Neo-Pagan religions etc ?
If so why?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,03:15   

D/2 what Christian denominations do you regard as having strayed from the teachings of Jesus and of the Bible.?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,04:23   

Quote
EVOLUTIONISTS DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS ARE
Here's a news flash for you dave.

Since we "evos" don't  recognize a sharp boundary between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution, it's not terribly surprising that this, that or the other piece of evidence is this side or that of that fuzzy boundary, according to this, that or the other "evolutionist".

There's no particular reason why we should all agree on some arbitrarily defined boundary.

Quote
I am an electrical engineer and this means I design things which very much resemble biological systems.
[guffaw]
I sing in the shower, which means I create music pretty much the same as Beethoven. Never mind. Yours was much funnier.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,04:46   

D/2 I suppose this is the sort of inerrancy you agree with

16 Biblical ways to aquire a wife

Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she's yours. -- Deuterononmy (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)

Find a prostitute and marry her. -- Hosea (Hosea 1:1-3)

Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock. -- Moses (Exodus 2:16-21)

Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal. -- Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)

Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife. -- Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)

Have God create a wife for you while you sleep. Note: this will cost you a rib. -- Adam (Genesis 2:19-24)

Agree to work seven years in exchange for a woman's hand in marriage. Get tricked into marrying the wrong woman. Then work another seven years for the woman you wanted to marry in the first place. That's right. Fourteen years of toil for a woman. -- Jacob (Genesis 29:15-30)

Cut off 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law's enemies and get his daughter for a wife. -- David (1Samuel 18:27)

Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you'll definitely find someone. (It's all relative of course.) -- Cain (Genesis 4:16-17)

Become the emperor of a huge nation and hold a beauty contest. -- Xerxes or Ahasuerus (Esther 2:3-4)

When you see someone you like, go home and tell your parents, "I have seen a ...woman; now get her for me." If your parents question your decision, simply say, "Get her for me. She's the one for me." -- Samson (Judges 14:1-3)

Kill any husband and take HIS wife. (Prepare to lose four sons though). -- David (2 Samuel 11)

Wait for your brother to die. Take his widow. (It's not just a good idea, it's the law). -- Onan and Boaz (Deuteronomy or Leviticus, example in Ruth)

Don't be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity. -- Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)

A wife?...NOT!!! -- Paul (1Corinthians 7:32-35)

Become sinless, and die in atonement for others, and you can marry a whole bunch of people. -- Jesus (Revelation 15?)

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,05:18   

Quote (afdave @ May 28 2006,06:41)
       
Quote
As engineers, we are glorified mechanics.
Speak for yourself, please.  I am an electrical engineer and this means I design things which very much resemble biological systems.

I seem to recall a while back you were asked for some exposition in an area where you have expertise.  Perhaps this should have come up then?  A discussion of what you have designed and how they are analogous to biological systems might serve to give us some insight into where you are coming from.
       
Quote
 As a business owner, I used the work of scientists to create wealth.

Hydroponic tomatoes and phone cards?  Okay. I'll bite.  Discuss.
       
Quote
You are very naive if you think you are too dumb to understand how scientists operate.  You do not need an advanced science degree to understand both the good things scientists do and the errors that they make.  My approach is to analyze the writings of scientists with advanced degrees on both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate.  Scientists on both sides often write papers that are easily understandable by "amateur scientists" such as you and I.  Even the "original research" technical papers are often accessible to laymen.  Don't sell yourself short.

I don't sell myself short. But, I know what I know and I know what I don't know.  And in areas where I do not have expertise or knowledge, I don't presume to lecture those that have made that area their life's work.  To assume that because I have may have mastered one subject that I am equally knowledgeable and erudite on all topics is arrogant. It elevates the intellect to the level of a god.  And I am pretty sure that there are injunctions against that.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,08:40   

Quote (afdave @ May 28 2006,06:41)
My approach is to analyze the writings of scientists with advanced degrees on both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate.  

Ooops - Logical Fallacy Alert!!

There are only scientists on one side of this particular debate.  The other side consists of religous "experts" and nutcases. :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Caledonian



Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,11:30   

Biological systems are far more complex, sophisticated, and elegant than anything human electrical engineers are capable of producing through any process of conscious design.

Variation and selection, when acting upon electronic designs, are capable of producing functional structures that utilize noise interactions that human engineers spend their time trying to minimize, as it's too difficult to produce designs that can take advantage of them.  The experiment has been performed with reprogrammable chip structures, and the resulting chips can do things that current applied electronics theory doesn't fully understand.

Nature is smarter than we are, afdave.  It is certainly smarter than *you*.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,11:40   

Quote (Caledonian @ May 28 2006,16:30)
Nature is smarter than we are, afdave.  It is certainly smarter than *you*.

Orgel’s Second Rule: “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”

And it's smarter for good reason, its resources are greater than the three pounds of jello-like stuff that make up the human brain.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,12:12   

Quote (k.e @ May 28 2006,08:10)
D/2 do you apply the term  "non-Christian" to refer to mainline and liberal Christian groups as well as Muslims, Hindus, followers of Aboriginal and Neo-Pagan religions etc ?
If so why?

k.e.,
AirFarceDave doesn't accept catholics as much more than aboriginal neo-pagans.  I'll try to find the link later, but I have to go for now.  See you guys later.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,16:38   

Quote
Thus, functional change must be extremely important for macroscopic macroevolutionary change.

Exactly, dave.

A ---> B, dave.

Starting to get the picture now, dave?

Oh and, for the next argument you present, if you want it to be a tad more convincing, try ALL CAPS, BOLDS... AND ITALICS. I hear it can help.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,23:26   

Quote
Many here on this thread said in effect "no evolutionist would cite bacterial resistance as an evidence for macroevolution"
Again you think that if one piece of evidence does not conclusively prove macroevolution on it's own then it is useless. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that as several people have patiently tried to explain to you. Please can you tell us why loss cannot count as a mechanism of evolution.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,03:53   

k.e. ...  
Quote
D/2 I suppose this is the sort of inerrancy you agree with
...(lots of examples of people doing things the Bible speaks against)
Yes.  The Bible records the history of mankind as they were.  There is no covering up of faults or oddities.  The Bible just tells it like it is, but it also tells us how it should be.  No question that it is the strangest book on earth.  But they say that 'truth is stranger than fiction.'  You should investigate the Bible for yourself.  Many a skeptic has done just that and become a believer.

Caledonian ...
Quote
Nature is smarter than we are, afdave.  It is certainly smarter than *you*.
No.  Nature is not smart.  You cannot demonstrate that it is.  It is much more plausible that there is a smart Intelligent Designer.

Chris Hyland ...
Quote
Again you think that if one piece of evidence does not conclusively prove macroevolution on it's own then it is useless. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that as several people have patiently tried to explain to you. Please can you tell us why loss cannot count as a mechanism of evolution.

I don't think that and I didn't say that.  I said that evolutionists cite bacterial resistance as an example of evidence (admittedly only one piece of evidence) that macroevolution has, in fact, happened on planet earth.  

The reason that loss cannot count as a mechanism for macroevolutionary change is quite simple and should be obvious.  If organisms are going become more complex, they must add functions not lose them.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,04:52   

Quote
The reason that loss cannot count as a mechanism for macroevolutionary change is quite simple and should be obvious.  If organisms are going become more complex, they must add functions not lose them
No. That's assuming all macroevolutionary change = becoming more complex. Not true. For instance, in the evolution of various kinds of parasites, losing the machinery to make stuff they can get from the host makes them more efficient.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,05:26   

Well, since we're now discussing loss of functions again, can you answer my question, dave? This is the fifth time I'm asking...

Oh, about the Down Syndrome thing: I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that a fusion is responsible for its occurence? That's simply not true. For the vast majority of cases, failed disjunction (sp?) is the reason: and that's affected by things like the mother's age etc. Now, a quick glance at my old textbooks told me that there are in fact a few cases of DS attributed to chromosome fusions (Robertsonian translocations); but those are like, 3% of the total number.
Or is it that you are claiming that all fusions have such disastrous effects? That is also extremely incorrect. In all the people in the world today, more than 1 in 1000 has a kind of Robertsonian translocation. Most of those are "balanced" fusions, and their carriers have no phaenotypic problem. It has been suggested that these people might have an increased risk in giving birth to children with genetic defects (like Down), but recent studies propose that the risk is much smaller than previously thought.
As for other mammals: Robertsonian translocations of various kinds are quite common, especially in horses and cows, with only a minor drop in fertility as a result -which may pose problems for selective breeding, but none for the animal's survival. IIRC, there's also a kind of antelope where a RobT is so common and without problems, the population of the species has three distinct caryotypes, with 24, 25 and 26 chromosomes.But I'll cave to check that out.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,05:42   

Quote (afdave @ May 29 2006,08:53)
The reason that loss cannot count as a mechanism for macroevolutionary change is quite simple and should be obvious.  If organisms are going become more complex, they must add functions not lose them.

Is the ability to metabolize nylon precursors a "loss of function," Dave, or a "gain of function"?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,08:36   

Quote
but it also tells us how it should be...


I don't think you've actually read the thing very closely.

what about when the bible tells us it's right and proper to wipe out every man, woman, and child in a village?

is that how it should be?

stoning adulterers.

is that how it should be?

Dave -

do you pick and choose what you think "should be" from the bible, or do you accept it as is?

which are sins and which are not?

are the ten commandments in the KJV the ruleset you follow?  How do those agree or conflict with the new covenant?

I'd say for the satement of yours that i quoted to be correct, you'd have to be awfully choosy about what you ignore, even in the KJV, let alone any other bits of scripture that were left out of that version.

but then you are VERY good at ignoring the obvious.

What say you?

Quote
You should investigate the Bible for yourself.  Many a skeptic has done just that and become a believer.



and vice versa.

  
  517 replies since April 17 2006,14:08 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (18) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]