BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 05:10 PM

Anyone watch Cosmos last night?

So far it is a bald faced polemic aimed at kids. But a very good and entertaining one.

pete, If you watch it you may pick up enough science to not have to claim ignorance so much. Scientific method is explained a couple of times as well as church dogma vs scientific insight.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 03:04 PM

Musket

Not saying what you are thinking = manners.

There are two way to deal with mudcat bickerers,

Manners = unilateral disarmament if the rules are not enforced

or

Slap them back with one's metaphorical dueling glove without engaging in the bickering.

the third way is to bicker back. But dude isn't listening to me. Dude is giving me zero benefit of the doubt. So I'll be phucked if I'll listen to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 03:01 PM

I don't normally bother with anything pete says but just to set the record straight "snails position interests me. he thinks evolutionism is the best explanation". No, pete, that's not what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 02:52 PM

dmcg.- it was only the very last bit that I could not suss, but I got the example , I think, thanks. I do suspect a trap, I must admit, especially as you are not going to answer the question at present, but I accept that whatever your tactic, and whether it works or not, that you have no ill will toward me, so far as I can see.

You are right I have no ill will, and have no trap beyond asking you to be consistent. If we got to the end and you didn't agree that I had treated your agreements along the way fairly, I intended to ask you which of the various steps you want to change the answer to and we could explore that in more detail. However, my encroaching holiday makes that unlikely.

I fear, though, I will have to ask you to be explicit:

i) Do you agree that it is a factually undeniable that the evolutionary theory does predict separate species in some circumstances? Once again, whether the theory is or is not true is not the question, but whether it makes that prediction is the question.

ii) Do you also agree that characteristics tend to be preserved if there is no natural selection encouraging change? (the 'blue hair' in my example)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

dmcg.- it was only the very last bit that I could not suss, but I got the example , I think, thanks. I do suspect a trap, I must admit, especially as you are not going to answer the question at present, but I accept that whatever your tactic, and whether it works or not, that you have no ill will toward me, so far as I can see.

snails position interests me. he thinks evolutionism is the best explanation but gives no more explanation than those he criticizes for saying it is true. interesting also that no one is showing him or me what can be demonstrated as evolution.
does that mean that he knows it is not anywhere near proven...
or maybe just wants to show up certain people on this thread.
he does however seem to agree that, at least for certain people that theirs is a faith based position.....
as lewontin said"......a fully fledged religion, replacing Christianity...."

I think the above is relevant to bills claims, except for me to repeat again that imo, ,presupposing biblical creation is no more intractable than presupposing the general theory of evolution.
though of course evolutionism has to keep changing its storyline as more data necessitates it. that's the wonderful thing about it !.
you can change it around to make new data fit.
was,nt it popper who said it cannot be falsified?
and is it therefore science ?
is it not rather a religious position ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 09:13 AM

Just tidying up a few things.

Steve Shaw
Incidentally, as Mr Molluscan keeps asking me why I think I'm better than Popper, Newton and Einstein, perhaps I should ask him now whether he thinks he's better than Professor Dawkins, who, er, knows a fair bit more about evolutionary biology

Steve, you have said that you cannot excuse Newton for his work on alchemy despite the fact that that was mainstream thinking at the time. You have argued on another thread that Popper was wrong. The comment about Einstein was a joke and might better be directed at Musket (see below). As far as I can recall, I have never commented on Dawkins' abilities as an evolutionary biologist. I am sure he is brilliant. Do you take my disagreements with you faith based attitude to evolution as criticism of Dawkins?

In my researches, I came across this article by Stephen Jay Gould http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html. In it he says "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's". Dozy sod.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 08:07 AM

Troubadour
Perhaps you and Snail need to watch ALL of it yourselves?

I have done, Troubadour. I haven't had time to comment on it yet. Have you read my last post?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:13 AM

Ah. Peace in our time.

Waving pieces of paper, however figuratively, was always over rated.

Still, eventually everybody says what they are really thinking.

That's better.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 10:27 PM

You read it and said this?

"Find one who says that evolution, as a process, DOESN'T happen! After all, it is you and Snail who are issuing the challenge."

You just want to argue when your case is basically won? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:46 PM

"OTOH, I did find what I had asked pshaw and truebie to find and had the integrity to post it here saving them the trouble. But neither of them had the sense to open the CLEARLY labeled link and see what it was."

You really don't abide by the rules you keep spouting, do you Jack.

Would you like me to post them for YOU to see where you are going wrong.

1. I can't speak for Steve, but I DID watch every second of thayt video, and a very good case was made for the statement. Perhaps you and Snail need to watch ALL of it yourselves?

2. There was a very telling section toward the end regarding the correlation between religious belief and dysfunctional societies, which would make our Pete wet his knickersand which places the US near the top of the religious scale and right down the bottom of the social functionality scale.

3. Perhaps you should be paying more attention to US?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:43 PM

Excellent points snail.

And to agree with you. The "evolution is true"/"evolution is a fact" seems like a fudge to justify Dr. Coyne's book title.

OTOH, I did find what I had asked pshaw and truebie to find and had the integrity to post it here saving them the trouble. But neither of them had the sense to open the CLEARLY labeled link and see what it was.

It is my opinion that their goal is to fight. May I suggest that the only opponents worthy of such champions of "true" science are each other. So why don't the two of you just pick a topic and without bothering to read the other's posts call each other stupid ad infinitum?

I'm not interested in play that game with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM

Oh dear, there's too much to keep up with and I really do have other things to do like playing tunes.

Troubadour
Surely, it is up to YOU TWO to furnish EVIDENCE that evolution DOESN'T happen.

You are relatively new to this epic battle so perhaps you don't realise my position. I do not have the intention or the desire or the means to produce any evidence that evolution doesn't happen. I have studied evolution and genetics at university level and find them utterly fascinating. They offer the best explanation we have for the myriad forms of life on Earth and almost certainly the best explanation we will ever have. I have absolutely no problem with any of that. What I do have a problem with is turning evolution into a pseudo religious belief system by declaring it to be true. I have said many times, science doesn't do true. Throughout my education in science I have been taught that you can never say a theory is true only that it hasn't (yet) been proved false.

Unfortunately following up things from the link to Jerry Coyne's talk that Jack posted, I found that the "evolution is true"/"evolution is a fact" stance is taken by a number of prominent scientists in the field of evolution. I can't help but feel that this plays into the hands of people like pete with their accusations of "Evolutionism". It only seems to Evolution. I don't recall anyone saying Quantum Theory is true or Relativity is true.

In the confrontation between Evolution and Creationism, much emphasis is put on the overwhelming evidence for evolution. I think this is wrong because it implies that their is a meaningful contest. The important difference is that the study of evolution is a branch of science and creationism is a branch of religion. They have no point of contact. What matters is to establish what defines science to distinguish it from religion. Steve Shaw dismisses this as quasi-philosophical burbling.

I have asked a number of times for people to show me some evolution and neither Troubadour nor Steve Shaw have responded. Parallels have been drawn between evolution/the theory of evolution and gravity/the theory of gravity. I experience gravity every waking moment. Something is holding me in my chair. If I put my coffee mug on my desk, it stays there, if I put it against the wall... oops. If I throw a ball up, it comes down again. Steve went even further saying that evolution was as self-evident as his left hand and its five digits. I can't see Steve's left hand but my own fits the same description. Show me some evolution that I can see and touch and smell. I'm afraid that a 23 year experiment involving bacteria in an American university doesn't really hack it as "self-evident".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 11:17 AM

>>Surely, it is up to YOU TWO to furnish EVIDENCE that evolution DOESN'T happen.<<

I wouldn't worry Too much about it DMcG

Trubie cheats when he argues and like his pal Steve doesn't read the thread before he aggressively and arrogantly posts.

Saying that Steve has an erroneous definition of "scientific truth" is not the same as saying evolution does not happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:33 AM

Ah, I well remember a similar conversation with my flatmate as a student


He: Every ideal in a Noetherian ring is expressible as a finite intersection of primary ideals

Me: Is it?

He: [pause] Yes.

Me: Why?

He:[longer pause] Because I BLOODY SAY SO!



You had to be there, I suppose....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:10 AM

We had a physics teacher when we were in the sixth form way back in the 60s who we relished plying with awkward questions ("asking the wrong question" deliberately, or baiting, if you know what I mean). His usual response was to rub the back of his head in frustration staring at his blackboard, then he'd whip round to us and declare tersely "God made it so!" We always suspected that he was an atheist really, and that he was demonstrating to us that the easiest answer is usually the wrong answer. Good man!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:48 AM

No DMcG, Pete's responses will always be a consistent "Ready, FIRE, aim!

"I have seen flowers come in stony places
And kind things done by men with ugly faces
And the gold cup won by the worst horse at the races,
So I trust too."

John Masefield, English author (1878 - 1967)


Call me a naïve old fool if you like, but I think any of us are capable of developing, and, pretty much always, the first step is to admit to ourselves that something mightn't be as clear cut as we like to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 09:20 PM

"Will he ask himself whether it is really an answer to end his initial creationist defence of marsupials in Australia with "that's how it is"? (We have yet to see the second explanation.) Will he wonder why it took somebody else to point out the number of beetles needed explaining, rather than realising that himself? In short, will he actually spend time thinking about what he believes, rather than simply accepting it."

No DMcG, Pete's responses will always be a consistent "Ready, FIRE, aim!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 09:05 PM

"Religion started like that. The rain comes? God did it. The other lot kicked the shit out of our soldiers? God was unhappy. We have famine? God punishes us. We are enjoying life too much? God'll put a stop to that malarkey! What gives you the right to be the boss and order us around? God put me here."

I'd like Pete to answer a simple question.

Do you agree with the politician who said that this winter's floods were a punishment for permitting gay marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 08:56 PM

"Tell you what though. Find a respected scientist with a reasoned argument who claims "evolution is true" and I will read it thoroughly and keep an open mind."

Right back at you Jack!

Find one who says that evolution, as a process, DOESN'T happen! After all, it is you and Snail who are issuing the challenge.

Surely, it is up to YOU TWO to furnish EVIDENCE that evolution DOESN'T happen.

I wish you luck with that.

Meanwhile, the theory of how it happens is still being researched.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:42 AM

Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Just sack your manager.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:16 AM

You certainly seem to be willing them up the Championship table this season. Had I not been a Lancashire lad I could have applauded that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:34 PM

How would we know if he is an atheist? He might be someone who isn't anything to do with religion.....

Nice bit of gangsta rap though, all the same. I'd be flattered Steve.


DMcG. Why in the name of Clapton would I ever ask myself whether Sheffield Wednesday are as good as I think? Think!? I know!!

You get the picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:13 PM

You won't stay away. The only people who stay away are the ones who melt without saying anything. And if I see an atheist called Steve in your novel I might have to sue. :-)

And you're still a liar!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:47 AM

"You claim to be superior to Newton in the clarity and purity of your scientific dogma.


As you well know, liar, I have never claimed any such thing. And dogma is never scientific, but how would you know."

"Berlin wall in the brain." Is not exactly scientific "fact" Is it Oh pshaw?

Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw.
Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw.
Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw.

Berlin wall in the brain
How can we pierce his membrane
when his scientific dogma
has cooled as hard as magma
When it hits the open sea
Creating a crust of prejudice
as far as the eye can see.

Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw.
Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw.
Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw.

You know you are darned tootin
He thinks he's smarter than Newton
When pseudo science is fruitin
pete will get a bootin
But its water down the drain
pshaw never takes the time to explain
All he does is complain
And call names
he calls names
And he calls names
Cause he got no brains

And pshaw with all his squawkin's
Thinks he's a baby Dawkins
Diff'rence is plain. People pay
to hear the things that Dawkins say
While pshaw hurls abuse at pete and me
It's worth its price because its free.

And he calls names
And he calls names
And he calls names
cause he got no brains.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:30 AM

Hmmm. "Dawkins is a bit of an arse." Would a thread with that title run and run? Shame I don't start threads around here. Know anyone who loves startin' 'em? Wacko...??

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:25 AM

Humph. "Wacko whinges thus" belongs two lines further down. See what happens when Wackers gets me all petulant and enraged and brainless and...and...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:22 AM

It is hardly petulant or deranged to point out to a fellow that providing a link to a 48-minute video for reasons one cannot readily glean (as your rather lazy message provided no other guidance, though the one before that one seemed to hint you didn't believe me), is insufficient. I therefore assisted you, graciously as ever, by demonstrating, as you requested, that Dawkins has indeed stated, rightly, that evolution is true.

You claim to be superior to Newton in the clarity and purity of your scientific dogma.

As you well know, liar, I have never claimed any such thing. And dogma is never scientific, but how would you know that?

Wacko whinges thus:

Do you think that Newton wouldn't have Googled before he ranted?

In short, no, as Tim Berners-Lee was still in his nappies in Newton's time.

...before you launch into name calling and ranting.

Then:

Are you not aware that you only make yourself look petulant and deranged...?

And:

For God's sakes, you claim to have a brain.

Then:

...the condescending arse that Dawkins is he is a bit of an arse.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 09:54 AM

Oh pshaw!!!


"Why evolution is true (Wacko's link)"

If you didn't want to watch it, you could have taken 14 seconds to look up Dr Coyne in Google before you launch into name calling and ranting. Are you not aware that you only make yourself look petulant and deranged when you do things like that?

For God's sakes, you claim to have a brain. You claim to be superior to Newton in the clarity and purity of your scientific dogma. Do you think that Newton wouldn't have Googled before he ranted? I think Newton would have Googled and NOT ranted and called me names.


I think Newton would have said. "Thank you kindly Mr. Sailor for pointing out this excellent informative and humouresque video from the most excellent Doctor Coyne!"


Dr. Coyne wrote a book called "Why Evolution is true" the same time that Dawkins wrote "Greatest Show on Earth." Coyne is a bit less of an apologist for evolutionism than Dawkins. And the evidence he shows on the video is compelling and clear. It might even be clear to pete. Though it must be said that though Coyne is not near the condescending arse that Dawkins is he is a bit of an arse. Is it too much to ask that someone, anyone would produce such a video without being deliberately rude to those that they say that they want to convince?   Much of the evidence presented by Dr. Coyne is new to me at least and Dawkins asked Coyne to make the talk be about undermining Creationism. He does that very well. At the end he comes up with a far more constructive and compelling way for dealing with backward religious folk than any argument I have seen on this forum. He partly credits Theologian and social scientist, Dr. Gregg Paul for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 08:41 AM

Incidentally, as Mr Molluscan keeps asking me why I think I'm better than Popper, Newton and Einstein, perhaps I should ask him now whether he thinks he's better than Professor Dawkins, who, er, knows a fair bit more about evolutionary biology than yer average man-in-the-street, to slightly understate the case. Yeah, yeah, appeal to authority an' all that, but what's a chap to do? Anyway, I won't ask him, so it don't count!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 08:33 AM

Why evolution is true (Wacko's link)

My, how bloody useful is that! Do you expect us to wade through a 48-minute video to find out either what you agree with or what you don't agree with?

Let me make it easier. Grab your copy of The God Delusion. Turn to page 283, where you will read "I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere."

Glad to be of service.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:06 AM

But my point is that if I looked at league tables, goals scored, odds of beating Chelsea if we played them etc etc etc, my faith would be shattered.

Or so you would think. But it isn't, because Ozzie Owl moves in mysterious ways.
Exactly so! I couldn't have put it better. We can show you every league table/fossil, goal scores/carbon dating etc etc etc and it will not make the slightest impression.


Once you start asking yourself if Sheffield Wednesday are as good as you think, though, the ground suddenly becomes much more shaky ...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:51 AM

More impact than being struck by irrelevance...

DMcG, I more than see your point and please do carry on, I find it all rather interesting. But my point is that if I looked at league tables, goals scored, odds of beating Chelsea if we played them etc etc etc, my faith would be shattered.

Or so you would think. But it isn't, because Ozzie Owl moves in mysterious ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:33 AM

"there are different approaches taken by OT scholars to the narrative in gen 2. these mainly relate to nuances of the Hebrew."

Surely, God wouldn't allow misinterpretation of His message? Do we know of any translators being struck by lightning or meteors?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:33 AM

"there are different approaches taken by OT scholars to the narrative in gen 2. these mainly relate to nuances of the Hebrew."

Er, so the text of the original source you base your beliefs on is open to the interpretation of individual translators?

Seems you're moving even further away from objectivity Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:11 AM


There's a snag. pete is, I am sure, liable to go away thinking creationism passed another test of doubting Thomas syndrome and therefore creationism must be true

Possibly so. I am not saying I am not trying to win the argument, simply that winning it is not the main goal!

My personal belief is that when a creationist really thinks about what creationism implies they will conclude that it really cannot bear the weight of the number of assumptions and special cases required. As a result, they will come to the conclusion it cannot be the answer. But that's my opinion, not fact. However, I don't think an outside person can convince them of that: they have to come to that conclusion by themselves. So any number of fossils and carbon dating examples and inconsistancies we point out don't make much of an impression. What does is when they find an inconsistancy or other problem themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:53 AM

There's a snag. pete is, I am sure, liable to go away thinking creationism passed another test of doubting Thomas syndrome and therefore creationism must be true.

I keep repeating, humouring him isn't good for him or indeed anyone he has influence over in the long run. We all need opinions and opinions can be harmless. So long as you don't try to share them. Nobody is going to say anything detrimental about Sheffield Wednesday and expect me to believe it. Not even facts. All facts do is test my faith.

But here's the thing. I don't expect to see anybody on the Kop on Saturday on the basis of me knocking on their door and sharing my faith. If you need to explain, don't bother explaining. I never indoctrinated my children with it either. They both asked for season tickets of their own free will. Why? Because I am a true believer so why shouldn't they?

You can carry on the analogy yourselves if you really must.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:32 AM

Thank you kindly (and also thanks to several others who have complemented me along the way).


I think I need to make something clear, though: I have no interest in 'beating' pete in an argument. If he goes away cross but otherwise unchanged, then I agree with your earlier remark that the exercise is futile. On the other hand, even if I lost the discussion I would feel it worth while if pete remains a creationist but is more self aware: will he continue to wonder about those beetles, or will he simply forget them? Will he ask himself whether it is really an answer to end his initial creationist defence of marsupials in Australia with "that's how it is"? (We have yet to see the second explanation.) Will he wonder why it took somebody else to point out the number of beetles needed explaining, rather than realising that himself? In short, will he actually spend time thinking about what he believes, rather than simply accepting it.

Thomas Aquinas said that religion must be reasonable, by which he meant 'capable of being reasoned about' rather than 'plausible'. I would deem it a success if pete remains every bit of a creationist that he was before, but spent more time reasoning about it with himself.

The other thing I need to point out is that I go on holiday mid next week and will be absent for about three weeks. It is possible that we do not get to the end of this logical argument before then. That would be a shame, butif that's what happens, it can't be helped - I'm not giving up my holiday!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Actual...
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:19 PM

DMcG
I really appreciate your approach with pete.
If he would just answer simple questions with simple answers (that his day-to-day common sense brain fully supports), you would make a brilliant and inescapable point.
Sadly,he senses the trap which is no trap at all (just a roadmap for consistencyncy), and will second-guess, anticipate, and bob-and-weave.
This alone is the proof of the point you are making.
Well played Sir!
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:11 PM

Why evolution is true

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:08 PM

"that evolution is true is Richard Dawkins"

I'd better not hold my breath until you show me a quote or clip of him saying that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:58 PM

"Evolutionary theory" is not "true". Evolution is, though. The theory is simply the best explanation we currently have for it. No-one here bar pete should be finding this difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:55 PM

But Steve, as you have been so fond of pointing out in the past, I make no original contributions of my own.

You can say that again (unless you regard tedious and serial misrepresentations as "original contributions"). And the only time you'll ever see me saying that I'm fond of pointing out anything you say is the day you turn the bloody record over. And to think that I found snails to be so interesting when I was at at university. When I dissected 'em.

Incidentally, one noted scientist who says, quite rightly, that evolution is true is Richard Dawkins. There. I knew that wouldn't shut any of you up!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:26 PM

"and do you apply the burdon of proof to evolutionism..."

Oh, indeed I do! (except I do not use that term...) Evolution is not in serious doubt. Some of the details are, quite naturally, not clear & settled.
We can't possibly know the precise stages in the development of every species of plant & animal: and when a species is extinct, it is even harder. We can take what we do know and learn general principles & patterns. Then we can make educated, informed guesses about what we MIGHT find and how certain species MIGHT develop and what missing links MIGHT look like if we manage to find them.
Then we dig, measure, compare, analyze and debate the evidence and see if it is consistent and, as far as possible, found from several sources. Then we take that data and make NEW predictions and refine our analysis & predictions. That IS "applying the burden of proof"!
Needless to say, scientists do not take new data from paleontology & anthropology and look to see see whether it can be explained by some theological interpretation of some version of some old manuscript.

Sadly, a few groups do NOT allow the burden of proof to interfere with their already-decided-opinion that everything MUST fit into an 8000 year span of history.

-------------------------
I repost for the 3 or 4th time a story I have told before:

..I kinda envy those who just say "Oh, I like THIS answer...I'll just believe it from now on, and avoid all that tedious thinking and juggling."

There was a cartoon strip called "Hagar the Horrible", about a silly Viking type with very modern problems. One Sunday saw him visiting the local wizard, Dr. Zook, who had a huge stone ring leaning against the wall, (like that 'money' on Yap Island).

"What's this?", asks Hagar.
"That's my new scientific measuring device." replys Dr. Zook, "Step in!"
....so Hagar squirms into the center of the stone ring....

"More...hunch down...squeeze tighter..." Zook says, as Hagar tries to cram himself into the tight space. Finally, he is in, awkwardly peering out at the pleased wizard.

"There!", says Dr. Zook with authority, "You are exactly 5 feet tall!"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:27 PM

Or perhaps "a prediction of Evolutionary theory is that species speciate to fill ecological niches."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:20 PM

I am not asking you to agree that the evolutionary theory is true, but I am asking you to agree that is what it claims.

Sorry, what 'it claims' means was unclear. I should have said evolutionary theory ' claims new species arise in certain circumstance'

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:06 PM

What the flying fuck is evolutionism? We don't have mountainism. We don't have blue shirtism. We don't have iphoneism.

But we apparently got dumbfuckism and ignorantism in spades.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 01:36 PM

any chance of saying what the evolutionary explanation for marsupials being concentrated mostly in one area is, and why you suggest it superior to the creation migratory theory.

Please be patient. I am getting you to agree with every step of the argument. Once we have collected all your agreements I will assemble them in the right order and you will have said what the evolutionary argument is!


yes, dmcg, that seems what I understand the theory entails, though I cant get my head as to what the very last clause is saying.

By the very last clause I assume you mean "the new species that the theory claims occur (even if you disagree with the theory, I can't see how you can disagree the theory claims it) will share characteristics of the ancestor that were not those giving rise to the different species" Now I agree I've expressed that in a complex way, so let's see if you agree with this bit: even if you disagree with the theory, I can't see how you can disagree the theory claims it


Let me give an analogy. Not one atheist in this thread will agree with the statement "God made the world". On the other hand, every one of them will agree with "The Bible claims God made the world". You see the importance of the distinction? So I am not asking you to agree that the evolutionary theory is true, but I am asking you to agree that is what it claims.

If it is other part, I think that is fairly straightforward. Suppose we have a blue-haired small creature and a natural selection pressure to become taller - creationist model or evolutionist model matters not. I am saying that when it does become taller you would not expect it then to become pink. It could, but it is far more probable that it remains blue.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 01:31 PM

What the flying fuck is evolutionism?

We don't have mountainism. We don't have blue shirtism. We don't have iphoneism.

You don't have to prove what exists.

You have to prove what doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 01:27 PM

>>yes it is tougher for land based animals to leave Australasia.
any chance of saying what the evolutionary explanation for marsupials being concentrated mostly in one area is, and why you suggest it superior to the creation migratory theory.<<

How about common sense?

pete,

Given that you believe in Natural Selection, which is more plausible.
That 4,000 years ago, marsupial carnivores, marsupial insectivores, and marsupial plant grazers (kangas and walabies), each a very different kind of animal, walked off (or hopped) the Ark and walked to Australia, leaving no trace anywhere along the way to propagate and divide into the species we see in that very short time frame. Why did they not procreate and spread out from Africa to Siberia to Sri Lanka. Did God tell them to go directly to Australia? Did God tell, canines and felines and ruminants and rabbits to stay out. You may believe that, but there is no scientific or Biblical evidence of that. Camels and rabbits thrive in Australia why did they have to be introduced by western explorers? Why weren't they there already? If the Kangaroos could hop there and the Koalas could crawl there isn't it obvious that rabbits and camels could do so at least as easily?

Isn't it a thousand times more plausible that Natural Selection occurred there over a much longer time frame in geographic isolation starting with a common ancestor leaving marsupials to fill every unoccupied ecological niche?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 12:57 PM

frogprince.   there are different approaches taken by OT scholars to the narrative in gen 2. these mainly relate to nuances of the Hebrew.
some interpret as " had created". also the vegetation described on the 3rd day would be that not requiring cultivation whereas that planted after adams creation included that which he would tend v15.

yes, dmcg, that seems what I understand the theory entails, though I cant get my head as to what the very last clause is saying.
yes it is tougher for land based animals to leave Australasia.
any chance of saying what the evolutionary explanation for marsupials being concentrated mostly in one area is, and why you suggest it superior to the creation migratory theory.

bill. ok so no one says that. no surprise there. it is obviously a big problem for atheists so better to leave it as an open question, because it is totally inconsistent with observable, testable science.
and do you apply the burdon of proof to evolutionism...
to paraphrase snail...show me some.