PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     EXPELLED!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, back in April, 2007, Dr. PZ Myers was tricked into an interview for a documentary called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". This movie attempted to portray "big science" as oppressive towards advocates of intelligent design and tried to put the burden of Nazism on Darwin's shoulders. Last night at the Mall of America, I went with PZ, the gf, her mother, and Richard Dawkins and his staff to see a pre-screening of the movie.

The irony: they EXPELLED PZ from the theater.

The laugh: in checking everyone's ID at the door, they didn't find anything odd with Dawkins. Mark Mathis, the associate producer of the film, must have been a bit surprised when Dawkins stood up during the Q&A session at the end of the movie and asked, "Why did you expel Dr. Myers from seeing a film in which he was featured and for which he was paid?"

Mathis lied a lot, and now the national newspapers keep calling our hotel room.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:10 PM on March 21, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's funny - they recognized PZ, but didn't recognize Richard Dawkins!  The 'enemy' got in to the screening anyway!

So how bad/misleading is the film?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:28 PM on March 21, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's put it this way: half the film isn't even original footage. They inserted so many zillions of clips of Nazis cooking Jews and Soviet tanks rolling down streets that I couldn't remember if we evil atheists are supposed to be communists or fascists.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:30 PM on March 21, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ugh!  it sounds like the producer of the film must have studied Joseph Goebbels methods himself.  (ie; Joseph Goebbels was the leader of the Nazi propaganda machine)
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:03 PM on March 21, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here's the way it really works, welcome to theocracy:

Evangelical scholar forced out after endorsing evolution

"If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult ... some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God's Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness," he says, according to several accounts by those who have seen the video. Those words set off a furor at the Reformed Theological Seminary, where Waltke was — until this week — a professor. (The seminary is evangelical, with ties to several denominations.)


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:01 PM on April 13, 2010 | IP
JETZEN

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 5:10 PM on March 21, 2008 :
So, back in April, 2007, Dr. PZ Myers was tricked into an interview for a documentary called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". This movie attempted to portray "big science" as oppressive towards advocates of intelligent design and tried to put the burden of Nazism on Darwin's shoulders.


oh my god,LOL!, that'll be the day when purest nazies accept monkeys as ancestors.
but i guess intelligent designers don't have to be intelligent anyway.
recently i was in a discussion with 2 creationists that were convinced that Darwin was a racist.
yet they had no evidence to back it up.

is recognition of subspecies considerd racisim?





-------
split wood...not atoms, L.RoyJetzen
 


Posts: 213 | Posted: 6:27 PM on April 13, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JETZEN at 6:27 PM on April 13, 2010 :
is recognition of subspecies considerd racisim?


Not that I know of, unless you want to say nearly every scientist and thinking human being is a racist. There are many sub-species, like dogs are a subspecies of gray wolves and so on. But talking humans specifically, recognizing differences, although sometimes inconvenient, can have a real (positive) difference on people's lives. Each different subspecies/race of human has different characteristics, and thus is susceptible to different diseases and different physical ailments etc, and some medicines works better or worse depending on what 'race' of human you are. Doctors, for example, should be aware of these differences in order to properly treat patients.

I think the important thing to always keep in mind with these types of conversations is that the greatest genetic diversity between humans is less than 1%! To take these small genetic differences and claim one 'race' is superior to another is just moronic. We are one giant family, and whether a person is a creationist or evolutionist, both views have the entire human race coming from a single common ancestor.

That was probably more than you wanted. So to wrap my post up; No, understanding that there are differences between subspecies/races of humans is not racist and can have real benefits. It is when people start making (empty) claims about one race being superior, or inferior, than the others is when racism begins.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:16 PM on April 13, 2010 | IP
JETZEN

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 11:16 PM on April 13, 2010 :
Quote from JETZEN at 6:27 PM on April 13, 2010 :
is recognition of subspecies considerd racisim?


Not that I know of, unless you want to say nearly every scientist and thinking human being is a racist. There are many sub-species, like dogs are a subspecies of gray wolves and so on. But talking humans specifically, recognizing differences, although sometimes inconvenient, can have a real (positive) difference on people's lives. Each different subspecies/race of human has different characteristics, and thus is susceptible to different diseases and different physical ailments etc, and some medicines works better or worse depending on what 'race' of human you are. Doctors, for example, should be aware of these differences in order to properly treat patients.

I think the important thing to always keep in mind with these types of conversations is that the greatest genetic diversity between humans is less than 1%! To take these small genetic differences and claim one 'race' is superior to another is just moronic. We are one giant family, and whether a person is a creationist or evolutionist, both views have the entire human race coming from a single common ancestor.

That was probably more than you wanted. So to wrap my post up; No, understanding that there are differences between subspecies/races of humans is not racist and can have real benefits. It is when people start making (empty) claims about one race being superior, or inferior, than the others is when racism begins.


well said and i agree 100% and being that the geographical human variations have actually not evolved into different species...then yes the human species is just one big diverse and very close family.

humans are a classic examples of enviromental adaption.




(Edited by JETZEN 4/13/2010 at 11:48 PM).


-------
split wood...not atoms, L.RoyJetzen
 


Posts: 213 | Posted: 11:46 PM on April 13, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

. Waltke's scholarly and religious credentials in Christian theology were too strong for him to be dismissed easily.

But even those steps weren't enough for the seminary, which announced that it had accepted his resignation.

But the fact that his seminary did dismiss him

, Milton said that his resignation wasn't accepted on the spot.

But after prayer on the question, Milton said, officials accepted the resignation.


Something does not add up here. Was he dismissed or did he resign?

If he was dismissed, why didn’t they accept his resignation immediately.
It sounds as if he dismissed himself. If he was dismissed, why would they pray about it?

Something is rotten in this article –it contradicts itself all over the place.

So tell me, was he dismissed or did he resign?




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:41 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Shouldn't you be following up in all of the other threads you're taking part in or are directed at you?

Like this one.

Or this one.

Or this one.

Or this one.


By the way = sometimes people are 'forced' to resign.  


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:16 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We can't ignore the fact that races are a delicate subject.

When one is naming characteristics of a person we should list things that really tell us something relevant about them.

If you're applying for a job it's ridiculous if the form has a box for "race".

A term is useful if it's informative.

The tag "male" is obviously informative. You automatically know more about the individual, and your uncertainty is reduced. You have better chances at guessing the pitch of his voice, the body fat distribution, the shape of the genitals, etc.

We don't like discrimination, but sex does actually say a lot about someone.

Race says a lot less.

If all but one race of humans died out, most of the genetic variability in our species would be PRESERVED.

The genetic difference between two people of the same race can be greater than with someone from another race. It's true.

Nevertheless, if they tell you that some individual was a 100 m Olympic champion you automatically know something about his probable race.
It HAS to work both ways.

It is apparent that humans have underwent a bottleneck not so long ago (Noah's ark???). But since that time we adapted rapidly to different environments.

Hunters in jungles tend to get shorter (probably to avoid branches).
People in cloudy weathers tend to get whiter (to absorb vitamin D).

But in most situations we should do without thinking about races (even in some of the few cases when it might be relevant).

For instance, in sports.
Analyze individual abilities. And if you end up with a black team, so be it. There was no discrimination.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:25 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 11:16 AM on April 14, 2010 :
Shouldn't you be following up in all of the other threads you're taking part in or are directed at you?

Like this one.

Or this one.

Or this one.

Or this one.


By the way = sometimes people are 'forced' to resign.  
Yeah, Lester, seriously. About Kimura you said "Not really. I'll have to find my source that says he was completely wrong."

Well get busy! Or apologize! Or something!

Also, give me your definition for "ape". It should be no longer than one line, if you knew what you're talking about.
Otherwise say "Sorry, i didn't know what i was talking about", and all is fine.

Also, go ahead and list your pieces of evidence against Evolution in general, and for creationism in particular.

Also, if you think you know what you're talking about when you say "information", go ahead and tell me if you find any in a spider web.
Otherwise say "Sorry, i didn't know what i was talking about", and all is fine.

You're constantly and dishonestly moving on.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:32 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The video that ended a career

religon professor bruce waltke dissmissed for accepting evolution


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:39 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seems to me that someone is taking apples and oranges and declaring them to be equal here.

If you belong to the Mormons but don’t accept Joseph Smith as the first prophet, can you still be a Mormon?

If you belong to the scientology religion and don’t believe their most basic tenets, do you stay or do you go?

If you are ostensibly a Muslim but don’t believe in Allah, do you stay or do you go?

If you are a Christian then you believe the Bible to be the inspired infallible Word of God –some institutions say a day in the Bible is a day, others say a day can be a billion years or hundreds of millions. So you join the church or institution you are in agreement with.

he said that some faculty members believe that the Hebrew word yom (day) should be seen in Genesis as a literal 24-hour day. Others believe that yom may be providing "a framework" for some period of time longer than a day. Both of those views, and various others, are allowed


So he didn’t leave because of that…?

(either a day is a day or some longer period of time seems to cover everything –so what are the various other views on this? Badly written article or what??)

: "We are a confessional seminary. I'm a professor myself, but I do not have a freedom that would go past the boundaries of the confession.


I suppose much like belonging to a mosque and coming out with a statement about Allah not being god.

Just so we get this straight, the argument of creation versus evolution has little to do with this argument. This argument is about specific faiths having specific boundaries. Evolution is supposed to be science, not a faith statement, but of course it is, which is why it should not be funded by government institutions that are not permitted to favour one faith over another with tax payers money.

When people who believe that the scientific evidence supports Intelligent design are expelled from government funded institutions –that should not be allowed. When people no longer follow or believe the tenets of an openly  faith-based institution, they should resign and join the faith based institution they follow in order to be true to themselves and everybody else.

This example of a controversy and the attempt to put across a false impression that is supposed to be comparable to the movie EXPELLED is an attention seeking device based on deceit.

Apples are apples and oranges are oranges so you really should make a new thread for faithful evolutionists that are not acceptable to institutions of another faith.

Evolutionists should have their own faith-based churches and seminaries and finance them privately. The evolution philosophy (faith) should not be favoured so blatantly in supposedly religiously  neutral organizations.

Keep real science in scientific institutions and force religion and philosophy to be separate OR allow both philisophical interpretations of the evidence of the evidence to be heard in the interests of remaining religiously neutral in tax supported institutions.      






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:01 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, this isn't your thread! Stop procrastinating.

Define "ape".
Is there any information in a spider web?
Where is your source that Kimura was completely wrong?

Get busy! It should take you no more than 5 minutes, if you knew what you're talking about!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:29 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DerwoodShouldn't you be following up in all of the other threads you're taking part in or are directed at you?


So was he dismissed or did he resign? Simple question. On this thread we can stick to the discussion at hand.


Wisp Yeah, Lester, seriously. About Kimura you said "Not really. I'll have to find my source that says he was completely wrong."


Dismissed or resigned?

Also, give me your definition for "ape". It should be no longer than one line, if you knew what you're talking about.


I don’t need to define ‘ape’ in order for you to know the difference between a human and an ape. Why don’t you google it and see what an ape is if you are in doubt.

I’m not an evolutionist as you know, so I don’t happen to believe that humans evolved from apes. You can believe it if you want to and try to fit ape bones into a hypothetical family tree but I don’t have your faith.

No-one ever saw it happening –the bones are few and sparse and need interpretation and people that believe that apes turned slowly into humans need links, so it is no wonder every ape bone ever found is being forced into the human origins tree. Not even evolutionists agree with one another about where everything fits except to the extent that they believe in that tree.

You're constantly and dishonestly moving on.


You are constantly and dishonestly moving into any arbitrary thread and attempting to force me to answer other threads. What’s the point when you don’t ever listen? What are you scared of –why are both you and Derwood uninclined to stick to the topic here? Why are you both changing the subject? Is this coincidence or have you formed a gang?

Dismissed or resigned????




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:30 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:30 AM on April 14, 2010 :
I don’t need to define ‘ape’ in order for you to know the difference between a human and an ape. Why don’t you google it and see what an ape is if you are in doubt.


An "ape" is any organism in the hominoidea superfamily of primates. And guess what, that includes humans. This has been pointed out to you before on more then one occasion. If you want to use words in a way that defies their normal definition, can you at least give the definition that you are using?

So far it seems you are using it in the normal way except that you don't like the fact that humans are also grouped into this category. Beyond a knee-jerk emotional reaction to deny the human race any connection to other organisms, what reason(s) do you have?

I’m not an evolutionist as you know, so I don’t happen to believe that humans evolved from apes. You can believe it if you want to and try to fit ape bones into a hypothetical family tree but I don’t have your faith.


It really doesn't have that much to do with evolution, grouping organisms together was around way before evolution. Even before Darwin humans were grouped with other primates.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 09:56 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:30 AM on April 14, 2010 :
On this thread we can stick to the discussion at hand.


Wisp Yeah, Lester, seriously. About Kimura you said "Not really. I'll have to find my source that says he was completely wrong."


Dismissed or resigned?


Ran away or lied?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:17 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:01 AM on April 14, 2010 :
It seems to me that someone is taking apples and oranges and declaring them to be equal here.

If you belong to the Mormons but don’t accept Joseph Smith as the first prophet, can you still be a Mormon?


Sometimes people are forced to resign rather than be fired, but the effect is the same.  You know, like when an employee does somethign wrogn and the boss says 'I'll be expecting your reignation letter tomorrow."  So, was the guy fired ro did he resign?

What are you scared of –why are both you and Derwood uninclined to stick to the topic here?


I addressed the topic - didn't you see?

Why are you both changing the subject?

This from the fellow that, in a thread on his cvlaim that genetics does nto support evolution blabbered on about museum displays...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:23 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

An "ape" is any organism in the hominoidea superfamily of primates.


That's very nice however it doesn't stand to reason that the one evolved from the other unless your philisophical naturalism gets in the way of the evidence.

So far it seems you are using it in the normal way except that you don't like the fact that humans are also grouped into this category.


Humans may be grouped as primates but they can only be called 'apes' if evolution is assumed.

Even before Darwin humans were grouped with other primates.


But not with other apes.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:45 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sometimes people are forced to resign rather than be fired, but the effect is the same.  


I would also resign from the local mosque if I ceased to see allah as god. It would be the right thing to do. The professor in this case seems to be saying that he has no authority to go outside the confession of faith that he joined the organization with. He can get a job with another faith-based organization that believes what he does. I wouldn’t join the NSCE nor you the Discovery institute with our current leanings. If the Discovery institute decided to condemn intelligent design while I was a member, I’d leave/ resign because I would no longer believe what they believe.

The movie EXPELLED had to do with religious faith in tax-supported institution that have no right favouring one religion over the other and should not be expelling people that are opposed to their unstated majority faith position.

Trying to put this discussion into that category, is disingenuous.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:58 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:45 AM on April 14, 2010 :
An "ape" is any organism in the hominoidea superfamily of primates.


That's very nice however it doesn't stand to reason that the one evolved from the other unless your philisophical naturalism gets in the way of the evidence.


It has nothing to do with philosophical naturalism, I don't even support it anyway, and evolution doesn't have any place in this conversation. We are mammals because we have hair, it doesn't matter if evolution is true or not; we have hair, thus we are mammals. Similarly, we have the characteristics to be classified as a hominoidea, therefore we are "apes", regardless of any evolutionary origins.

Humans may be grouped as primates but they can only be called 'apes' if evolution is assumed.


As far as I know we are apes in the same sense we are mammals, it isn't some weird cladistics thing where we are still fish because our ancestors were. So evolution is irrelevant to whether or not we are apes.

Even before Darwin humans were grouped with other primates.

But not with other apes.


The definition of an "ape" is obscure. As best I can tell the modern definition of "ape" in academia is any member of the hominoidea superfamily. Since this is a forum about science, and like we don't use the term "theory" to mean a wild guess, I don't see why laymen definitions regarding "ape" should be accepted either.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:09 PM on April 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Dismissed or resigned????
I'm sorry. I don't have an answer for you because i'm completely clueless. I'm perfectly ignorant about the subject.

Isn't it a perfectly valid answer?

Your turn. What's an "ape" to you?

So was he dismissed or did he resign? Simple question. On this thread we can stick to the discussion at hand.
I don't want for you to answer in this thread. I want you to go to the right one.
On this thread you shouldn't even tread. You have more urgent (and easier, if you knew what you were talking about) issues which involve defending your own claims.

Wisp
Yeah, Lester, seriously. About Kimura you said "Not really. I'll have to find my source that says he was completely wrong."
Dismissed or resigned?
I don't know, so i shouldn't talk about it. If i gave you the impression that i knew about that, i'm very sorry and i'll try not to do it again. I have to recognize my limitations, and this is one of them.

Your turn. What about Kimura?


Also, give me your definition for "ape". It should be no longer than one line, if you knew what you're talking about.
I don’t need to define ‘ape’ in order for you to know the difference between a human and an ape.
This isn't about me. It's about your definition of "ape". It was you who used the word, but giving it some vague and strange meaning.

So define it. In the thread "Taxonomy and Apes", please.

Why don’t you google it and see what an ape is if you are in doubt.
My doubt is your definition. I don't think google knows it. Apparently not even you do.

I’m not an evolutionist as you know,
Lousy dodge.
so I don’t happen to believe that humans evolved from apes.
From what?
Did you say "apes"?
What do you mean by "apes"? What's an "ape" to you?

I'm waiting.

You can believe it if you want to and try to fit ape bones into a hypothetical family tree but I don’t have your faith.

No-one ever saw it happening –the bones are few and sparse and need interpretation and people that believe that apes turned slowly into humans need links, so it is no wonder every ape bone ever found is being forced into the human origins tree. Not even evolutionists agree with one another about where everything fits except to the extent that they believe in that tree.
Blah blah blah blah blah.

What's an ape?

You're constantly and dishonestly moving on.
You are constantly and dishonestly moving into any arbitrary thread and attempting to force me to answer other threads.
Exactly. Except for the "dishonestly" part.

I want you to force you to defend your claims or take them back.

Anything wrong with that?

Nobody should force you. It's something honest people do without even being asked.

What’s the point when you don’t ever listen?
I'm reading.
What's an ape?
Does a spiderweb contain any of this "information" stuff you talk about?
What are you scared of
Needles and plesiosaurs.
–why are both you and Derwood uninclined to stick to the topic here?
We can stick to the topic here. Let's move away from it, and go to the ones where you've been asked again and again and again and again and again... Shall we?

Why are you both changing the subject?
I wouldn't like that. My hope is that you stop running away from thread to thread and start defending your claims in the right ones. I don't enjoy chasing you around.
Is this coincidence or have you formed a gang?

I do not see coincidence, I see providence. I see purpose.

(Edited by wisp 4/14/2010 at 1:14 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:30 PM on April 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
An "ape" is any organism in the hominoidea superfamily of primates.


That's very nice however it doesn't stand to reason that the one evolved from the other unless your philisophical naturalism gets in the way of the evidence.

So far it seems you are using it in the normal way except that you don't like the fact that humans are also grouped into this category.


Humans may be grouped as primates but they can only be called 'apes' if evolution is assumed.

Even before Darwin humans were grouped with other primates.


But not with OTHER apes.
Ahem... OTHER apes?

And you want for ME to know the difference?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:38 PM on April 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anyway, you haven't defined "ape" yet.

Please, do it. In the right thread, please.

Oh, and dragons! Don't forget about dragons! Were you talking about winged ones or not?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:58 PM on April 14, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:58 AM on April 14, 2010 :
Sometimes people are forced to resign rather than be fired, but the effect is the same.  


I would also resign from the local mosque if I ceased to see allah as god.blah blah blah

The movie EXPELLED had to do with religious faith in tax-supported institution that have no right favouring one religion over the other and should not be expelling people that are opposed to their unstated majority faith position.

Trying to put this discussion into that category, is disingenuous.




The movie Expelled was a lie-filled propaganda film.

www.expelledexposed.com


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:06 AM on April 16, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The movie Expelled was a lie-filled propaganda film.


I would expect you to be of that opinion -after all we can't have any critical thinking allowed in the classroom -what would become of you????


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:04 AM on April 17, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:04 AM on April 17, 2010 :
The movie Expelled was a lie-filled propaganda film.


I would expect you to be of that opinion -after all we can't have any critical thinking allowed in the classroom -what would become of you????



What sort of critical thinking does ID/YECism advocate when they demand of their compatriots the signing and/or adhering to of an oath claiming that they will never do anything to cast doubt on YECism?


You should look into www.expelledexposed.com to see what sorts of martyrs you people put forth and how many lies it takes otmake people agree with you.

But don't do that until AFTER you produce that source of yours who says that Kimura's gene number prediction was totally wrong.

I mean, you didn't just make that up, did you?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:30 AM on April 17, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What sort of critical thinking does ID/YECism advocate when they demand of their compatriots the signing and/or adhering to of an oath claiming that they will never do anything to cast doubt on YECism?


Show me this document and we can discuss what it actually says and whether it is at all reasonable.
You have seen it I suppose?

You should look into www.expelledexposed.com to see what sorts of martyrs you people put forth and how many lies it takes otmake people agree with you.


Glittering generalities, sweeping statements -want to give me some examples and some evidence of what you are proposing. It's very easy to accuse. Please back that up.

But don't do that until AFTER you produce that source of yours who says that Kimura's gene number prediction was totally wrong.


I told you I didn't have a reference right from the beginning. If you're so desperate, I'm sure with a little bit of effort, you could find it yourself.... are you trying to elevate yourself through this silly little story? Do you think it makes a better case for evolution of everything from nothing through natural causes that came from nowhere and made everything with no purpose and no plan?

Think again.

If it makes you happy, forget Kimura for now and when I come across that reference again, I'll give you a shout -ok??





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:03 AM on April 17, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:03 AM on April 17, 2010 :
What sort of critical thinking does ID/YECism advocate when they demand of their compatriots the signing and/or adhering to of an oath claiming that they will never do anything to cast doubt on YECism?


Show me this document and we can discuss what it actually says and whether it is at all reasonable.
You have seen it I suppose?


AiG requires all submitting manuscripts to their 'journal to sign off on this, all workers at their 'museum' to abide by it, etc.  The last part of it:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of Primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

So open minded I can hardly think.

The Creation Research Society has the following reequirement:

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.


So, how much open mindedness shall we expect from such folk?


The goals of the Discovery Institute?

From their 'Wedge Strategy' document:

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.


Hmm....  I wonder how much pro-'darwinism' material they will tolerate from their associates?


You should look into www.expelledexposed.com to see what sorts of martyrs you people put forth and how many lies it takes otmake people agree with you.


Glittering generalities, sweeping statements -want to give me some examples and some evidence of what you are proposing. It's very easy to accuse. Please back that up.


Did you visit that site?  Of course not.

Take the case of Caroline Crocker.  She claims she was discriminted against for merely 'mentioning' ID in one of her classes.  Poor innocent Caroline.  Poor lying Caroline.

In fact, she went out of her way to spread disinformation about evolution.  See the link I provided.

Oh, right - you don't follow links provided by non-right-wing bible zealots...

But don't do that until AFTER you produce that source of yours who says that Kimura's gene number prediction was totally wrong.


I told you I didn't have a reference right from the beginning.

YOU wrote:

Me: "Guess he (Kimura) knew what he was talking about."

YOU:
"Not really. I’ll have to find my source that says he was completely wrong."

"Not really" - i.e., no, Kimura was not right and did not know what he was talking about.  Find "MY source" .    There is really only so many ways to interpret what you wrote.  It clearly implies that you have read a source indicating that Kimra was "completely wrong."

I am asking you to find it or retract it.

What you wrote does NOT imply that you didn't have a source at all - if you had no source, how on earth can you even suggest that Kimura was wrong?  Because his conclusion is in line with evolutionary genetics?

A knee jerk lie by a desperate YEC?

If you're so desperate, I'm sure with a little bit of effort, you could find it yourself....


Desperate?

I KNOW Kimura was correct, I have his original prediction in print, so how on earth can I look for a source indicating that he was wrong when I know he was right?  How completely stupid are you?


are you trying to elevate yourself through this silly little story? Do you think it makes a better case for evolution of everything from nothing through natural causes that came from nowhere and made everything with no purpose and no plan?


No, I do not think pointing out yet again that you are a desperate lying fraud that your strawman claim has any more merit than it did before I had demonstrated your incompetence and dishonesty, all I am doing is, once again, showing how undereducated, closed-minded, Dunning-Krugerite, Christian creationists say things that they do not understand, cannot back up, and refuse to acknowledge error in.


I am showing how unreliable creationist witnessing is, and how desperate and dishonest creationists can be when it comes to propping up their religious fantasies.

If you had no source in the beginning, then a rational, honest response would have been no response at all.  Which is why you did what you did.

If it makes you happy, forget Kimura for now and when I come across that reference again, I'll give you a shout -ok??


Why would letting you get away with making a false claim make me happy?

Especialy since you wrote just a few sentences up that you did not have the reference at all?  Now you are saying you might come across it 'again.'
 Can you not even keep your lies straight in one post?

You will NEVER follow up on your lie.  You never do.  Look at all the threads you have abandoned when your bluff has been called.

You clearly do not even understand what evolution is, you have simply been programmed to reject it and hate it.  Your sick religion has poisoned your mind into thinking that the ends justify the means.



(Edited by derwood 4/17/2010 at 11:09 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:04 AM on April 17, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Derwood
What sort of critical thinking does ID/YECism advocate when they demand of their compatriots the signing and/or adhering to of an oath claiming that they will never do anything to cast doubt on YECism?

Show me this document and we can discuss what it actually says and whether it is at all reasonable.
You have seen it I suppose?


Lester, it's also right there on the ICR application form for research grants.

Page 8
ICR Tenets Agreement



"I have read all the ICR Tenets on www.ICR.org/tenets.

  __ I agree with all of the ICR Tenets.
  __ I do not agree with all of the ICR Tenets."


And here are the ICR Tenets:
Here - ICR Tenets

Now, I have to ask Derwood and Apoapsis - are normal scientific research grants given based on a signed agreement to support given predisposed ideas?

Sounds like conflict of interest to me.  Wouldn't you agree that signing such an agreement tends to destroy the integrity of any results of research funded under such terms?

(Edited by orion 4/17/2010 at 11:24 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:21 AM on April 17, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
The movie Expelled was a lie-filled propaganda film.
I would expect you to be of that opinion -after all we can't have any critical thinking allowed in the classroom -what would become of you????
Wouldn't a definition of "ape" be shorter than that piece of blah blah blah?

What about a "yes" or "no" to my extremely simple question: Does a spiderweb contain any of this "information" stuff you keep talking about?

What about a "yes" or "no" to my other extremely simple question: Are the dragons you talk about winged or not?

What about posting something in the thread i started for you to defend your own claim about the billion fold decay rates?

What about giving us something substantial or going away and never coming back?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:12 PM on April 17, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:21 AM on April 17, 2010 :

Now, I have to ask Derwood and Apoapsis - are normal scientific research grants given based on a signed agreement to support given predisposed ideas?


Absolutely not.  There are normally a thick packet of contractual requirements on monetary accounting, to make sure the funding is expended within legal requirements.

Results are typically required to be published in recognized journals, if you don't publish, you are essentially not producing return on the investment.

Having results that would overturn established theories would be the wildest dream of any funding agency.  Funding Nobel prize class work is a big deal.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:19 PM on April 17, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:21 AM on April 17, 2010 :
Now, I have to ask Derwood and Apoapsis - are normal scientific research grants given based on a signed agreement to support given predisposed ideas?


NO.

The only thing you have to sign off on, as far as I know, is essentially that you will use the money in a legal manner according to what you proposed.  And I am only assuming that such a requirement might exist (I personally have never signed such a thing).


Sounds like conflict of interest to me.  Wouldn't you agree that signing such an agreement tends to destroy the integrity of any results of research funded under such terms?


Well, a rational person would, sure.  I think their usual response is along the lines of 'Well, at least we are honest about not having any integirty'.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:42 PM on April 17, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis & Derwood - thank you both for your replies.

Derwood

I think their usual response is along the lines of 'Well, at least we are honest about not having any integirty'.


Now that comment made me laugh!  

At least they are honest on something.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:30 PM on April 17, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What a bunch of dimwits... They just don't know what they're doing!

I bet they try to be cunning, but sometimes they just lack the wit.

How could they have been clearer?

"
We encourage the hiding of evidence against these presuppositions.".


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:32 PM on April 17, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion Now, I have to ask Derwood and Apoapsis - are normal scientific research grants given based on a signed agreement to support given predisposed ideas?


Its true –tax funded research is not as open about its presuppositions as it should be, but then it is not allowed, in principle, to support any particular religious view over any other.

The fact that it does support a religious view based on philosophical naturalism to the exclusion of any possible intelligence just makes it a bit more difficult for some of the researchers involved, since the agenda and presuppositions are not as clear as an institution like ICR’s is.

Some people think they live in a free country with a free exchange of ideas only to find themselves ousted in academia should they propose anything other than the accepted religious viewpoint of the ‘majority’.

This is not the ‘majority’ in reality, just the ‘majority’ in academia. They hold the purse strings and the microphone and they have what they call INTEGRITY but is in actual fact total bias. They hold to a position that really has to be exposed as a philosophical/religious position that needs to be condemned.

Effectively through this bias they only allow the evidence for one point of view to be heard and heaven help you if they detect a whiff of something else in your work. Many an evolutionist has been accused of believing in God (NO!)just for daring to suggest that the evidence for both sides of the argument should be heard.

There are only 2 sides fundamentally –either there was an intelligence involved in life or there was not. That means it is dishonest to allow only the evidence for naturalism, and then to pretend that that is all the evidence there is.

It’s exactly like presenting all the evidence for the benefits of communism in a class while completely ignoring the evidence for any other potentially beneficial system.

That gives the students the incorrect view that there is nothing else to be considered and they are, in fact, being fed propaganda and are not being allowed to use their critical thinking skills.

That system won’t hold out. Humans are inherently rebellious. You closet and overt atheists may be rebelling against your creator but a new generation is coming up and they are going to rebel against YOU and your dishonest control of academia.    




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:18 AM on April 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Man, specifics. Facts.

Does a spiderweb contain any of this "information" stuff you keep talking about?

Any news about your source? The one showing that Kimura was wrong.

What dragons were dinosaurs? Were they the winged ones or not?

Care to defend your claim about the billion fold decay rates?

Care to define "ape" in a way that doesn't include you?

If you have nothing substantial, go away.


(Edited by wisp 4/18/2010 at 12:44 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:42 AM on April 18, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...


Come now Wisp -surely you can do better than that! If that is your answer to my charges, then it is because you know that what I am saying is true.

Evolution is Religion not science.

Having recognized the indefensible, perhaps it is time to allow ALL the evidence into the classrooms and lecture halls -come on, for the sake of fairness and this integrity that you bunch profess to value.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:59 AM on April 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Wisp
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
Come now Wisp -surely you can do better than that!
Blah blah blah blah blah.
If that is your answer to my charges, then it is because you know that what I am saying is true.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Evolution is Religion not science.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Having recognized the indefensible, perhaps it is time to allow ALL the evidence into the classrooms and lecture halls -come on, for the sake of fairness and this integrity that you bunch profess to value.
Yes, you're right... So let's talk about it, for a change.

So tell us all about this evidence. Such as the information.

I can't get a hold on the concept... If i know it's real, detectable and measurable i sure would want it shown in a classroom. Do you find any in a spider web?

If we're not apes, i'd like for kids to know. How would you define "ape"?

If Kimura was wrong, that should be known too. Care to show us?

If decay rates can be accelerated by a billion fold that's worth paying attention to. Care to show me?

If people depicted dragons as dinosaurs that seems interesting. Care to show me? Do you mean winged dragons or not?

Any other evidence you want to discuss?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:27 AM on April 18, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So tell us all about this evidence.


Shall we go with the Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil record in general or do you want to discuss information?

As for a spider web, the thought of whether it contains information doesn’t really interest me. Perhaps information was required for the existence of the spider in the first place and that information in the form of intelligence along with the spider’s chemicals provided by intelligence is what caused the web to exist.

Does your house contain information if someone with intelligence built it?



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:03 AM on April 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
So tell us all about this evidence.
Shall we go with the Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil record in general or do you want to discuss information?
No "or". "And"!

And in the right threads.

As for a spider web, the thought of whether it contains information doesn’t really interest me.
It's not about interest. It's about knowing and understanding. If you knew what you're talking about when you say "information" i think you shouldn't have any problems deciding if a spiderweb contains any or not. Or at least devising a way to detect it. Some experiment.
Perhaps information was required for the existence of the spider in the first place and that information in the form of intelligence along with the spider’s chemicals provided by intelligence is what caused the web to exist.
Yeah... Well, that's not my question.

You say the DNA DOES contain information. My question is clear: does a spiderweb contain it too?

Does your house contain information if someone with intelligence built it?
I'm not qualified to answer questions about what YOU understand by "information".

If someone else asked me i'd say "Sure. If i know it's a house, then i see information. Namely, that no giant is supposed to live there." (if the house is normal-sized).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:24 AM on April 18, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:03 AM on April 18, 2010 :
So tell us all about this evidence.


Shall we go with the Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil record in general or do you want to discuss information?


You've been shown it several times before, you never wanted to discuss it then, why should we think you do now?

Quote from Mustrum at 11:46 AM on August 11, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 06:54 AM on August 11, 2009 :
There is no sudden appearance of all animals in a single contemporaneous stratum


No but when you do find anything at all, it appears suddenly and fully formed with no signs of anything leading up to it and a lot of those invertebrates that still exist have barely changed to this day (strangely). Neither can you find anything notably transitional between any of  the well-defined invertebrate kinds that are found in the Cambrian.
This is not a question, this is a fact.


First, as I'm sure has been mentioned before, each organism is fully form.  Why would anyone expect something different?  That's certainly not a prediction from evolutionary theory.

As for the assertion that there were not any life forms found that offer a reasonable step towards the Cambrian creatures, that is not accurate.  While, obviously, we won't find as many fossils for soft bodied organisms, we do find them in Precambrian strata.  For instance, check out the cool guys from the Vendian period here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html.






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:04 PM on April 18, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:18 AM on April 18, 2010 :
Orion Now, I have to ask Derwood and Apoapsis - are normal scientific research grants given based on a signed agreement to support given predisposed ideas?


Its true –tax funded research is not as open about its presuppositions as it should be, but then it is not allowed, in principle, to support any particular religious view over any other.

 See what I mean?

These people are so predictable....




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:20 PM on April 18, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 1:20 PM on April 18, 2010 :

These people are so predictable....


The ones that wail the loudest are the ones with the weakest faith.  Lester knows the truth, but he can't even let himself think it.

Reading Baumgardener's recent writings, I wouldn't be surprised to a Todd Wood/Kurt Wise style announcement from him.  The pain in his text to show YEC adherence really shows through.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:57 PM on April 18, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You say the DNA DOES contain information. My question is clear: does a spiderweb contain it too?


And my answer is clear- I don’t know whether the web could contain information since I have never studied spiders webs.

However information was required for the existence of the spider otherwise it wouldn’t exist.

Does your house contain information if someone with intelligence built it?
I'm not qualified to answer questions about what YOU understand by "information".


Oh so neither of us know whether a house contains information. However once again I do know that the builder had to have information in order to build it and that had to come from someone’s mind –the source of all information.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:54 AM on April 19, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis There is no sudden appearance of all animals in a single contemporaneous stratum


Neither is there any sign of where any of them came from so they nonetheless arise suddenly and fully formed with no sign of where they are supposed to have EVOLVED from.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:03 AM on April 19, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:03 AM on April 18, 2010 :
So tell us all about this evidence.


Shall we go with the Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil record in general or do you want to discuss information?


Hi Doc,

I will discuss either one of them with you, though your history shows that you can't really discuss either of them beyond a few hackneyed parapphrases from YEC charlatans.

But first I was hoping you could discuss Archaeopteryx's skeleton with me, after you find your source showing that Kimura's prediction on gene number in humans is 'totally wrong.'




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:46 AM on April 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, please. In the right thread.

Are you afraid of the right thread?

I'll have to copypaste this. Don't answer here, but in the RIGHT THREAD.
Quote from Lester10 at 05:54 AM on April 19, 2010 in the thread EXPELLED!:
Lester
As for a spider web, the thought of whether it contains information doesn’t really interest me.
It's not about interest. It's about knowing and understanding. If you knew what you're talking about when you say "information" i think you shouldn't have any problems deciding if a spiderweb contains any or not. Or at least devising a way to detect it. Some experiment.
Perhaps information was required for the existence of the spider in the first place and that information in the form of intelligence along with the spider’s chemicals provided by intelligence is what caused the web to exist.
Yeah... Well, that's not my question.

You say the DNA DOES contain information. My question is clear: does a spiderweb contain it too?
And my answer is clear-
Yes, that you're not interested in it.
I don’t know whether the web could contain information since I have never studied spiders webs.
My bet is that you have never studied DNA either.

Anyway, how can we test for information in a spider web? You think it's detectable in the DNA. Is it possible to do the same with a spiderweb?

And NO, you had not answered that you didn't know. This is so rare that i would have remembered.
However information was required for the existence of the spider otherwise it wouldn’t exist.
Can you say the same thing about a rock? How 'bout a snowflake?


Does your house contain information if someone with intelligence built it?
I'm not qualified to answer questions about what YOU understand by "information".
Oh so neither of us know whether a house contains information.
Oh, so we're in the same situation, aren't we?

Neither of us know what the Hell you mean by "information".

Shame on us.

However once again I do know that the builder had to have information in order to build it and that had to come from someone’s mind –the source of all information.
I see... So in order to see if something comes from a mind, you have to look for information. In order to know if something has information you have to know if it comes from a mind.

Meyer
Meyer:
p. 396: "As noted previously, as I present the evidence for intelligent design, critics do not typically try to dispute my specific empirical claims. They do not dispute that DNA contains specified information, or that this type of information always comes from a mind..."
That's the very thing you're trying to demonstrate, whatever that "type" of information might be.

Try again, but no circular reasoning this time.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:37 AM on April 19, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very insightful commentary on the Waltke affair.

Update on the Creation Wars

I commended Dr. Waltke for his sensible, courageous words. The church cannot hide its head in the sand. We cannot merely stick our fingers in our ears and cry, “False! False!” whenever the concept of evolution is discussed.

If certain groups of Christians doubt that the evidence leads to the almost universally accepted conclusions of the scientific community, I suggest that we should be encouraging believers to pursue scientific vocations, to gain credibility by practicing honest accountable research, to do the hard work of coming up with compelling alternative models, and to make their case in the public arena.

Alas, this is not what “creationists” do.

   * Creationists don’t use the scientific method to discuss science, but rely on a priori judgments. They start with their conclusions fully formed—based on their interpretation of Genesis 1-11—and then work backward to reject any evidence that appears to contradict that.

   * Creationists look for scientific findings that appear on the surface to contradict some small aspect of the evolutionary model and then declare that the whole thing must be false.

   * Creationists use straw man arguments, asserting that because some hardcore atheists are evolutionists, accepting evolutionary theory must equal accepting naturalistic explanations of the universe and life.

   * Creationists use scare tactics, blaming the scientific model of biological evolution as the root of all the evils in our “secularist” culture, from abortion to pornography to youth rebellion to the breakdown of the nuclear family to gay marriage to euthanasia to President Obama’s policies on health care reform. (Maybe we’ll find out it’s the real source of the designated hitter rule.)

   * Creationists are propagandists. They don’t build museums to display their scientific findings to the world, updating their collections when new evidence is found. They build creationism apologetic centers. No science. Just their own narrow interpretations of the Bible and imaginative recreations of what it must have been like “in the beginning.”

   * Creationists ignore the complex history of interpretation when it comes to critical Biblical texts like the early chapters of Genesis. To them, there has only been one accepted view of the creation narratives throughout the ages, until some geologists started suggesting that the earth might be older than previously thought, which led to “liberal theology” and all its resultant social ills.

   * Creationists ignore the history of their own views. They fail to understand, for example, that the theory of a worldwide flood that changed the actual physical structures of the earth has its roots in “visions” by Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White, a teacher most Bible-believing Christians would find wanting in terms of theological acumen.

   * Creationists have politicized this issue to such an extent that it is nearly impossible in many places to have a civil and thoughtful discussion about the subject. They have made this a zero sum game. There is no room for debate. If you’re not for us, you’re against us.

Creationism has become a main plank in the platform of conservative Christian culture warriors. As a result, this issue has become more than a debate among Bible scholars who differ on their interpretations of Genesis. It has become a “litmus test” issue for many, identifying who is and who is not a faithful Christian.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:51 AM on April 22, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.