A debate about debates

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 22:13
VIEWED: 12983
PAGE 5 of 17

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

Normally, I would agree, but the problem is that people have made this into a debate, which itself is a tremendous corruption of the concept of debate.

Allow me to illustrate. We could have a debate about who was King of England in 1374. The Historinazis would say it was Edward III, but I choose to say it was Mickey Mouse. Hence, there is a debate. Now both sides can provide evidence, and be built up to equal levels and given equal weight. Ultimately, if I fail in my stubborn conviction that it was Mickey Mouse, by yielding no ground, I may instead decide to compromise, and eventually we may all agree that Mickey Mouse was at least Archbishop of Canterbury in exchange for my concession than he was not actually King of England. If I have a large number of unquestioning followers, I may even get the rest of you to move from you position that it was Edward III in favor of Richard II.

Oh I get what they're doing, they're kind of trying to destroy Science and critical thought from within so to speak.

But we let them put creationism on a scientific par with Evolution by not ignoring them.

You won't get a concession out of them, you won't get anything out of them by debating. They aren't interested in anything you have to say, the people trying to make this a "Creationism vs Evolution" aren't interested in debate or truth.

People like Cartoon are merely interested in forcing they're religion down everyones throat, they're interested in destroying science.

"He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason"

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KANEMAN

Sunday, October 15, 2006 1:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But you haven't seen 'the facts'. Until you take a lot of biochemistry and read the research, you're not even close to 'the facts'. A hand-waving gloss is neither honest nor fair.

For example, another poster on another thread keeps maintaining that you can't 'add' new DNA. This after I posted how indeed you can add 'new DNA', not only through repeats and insertions but also by incorporating whole viral genomes - that in fact most of human DNA IS viral DNA. (The current estimate is roughly 80%.) How is that not adding new DNA? Even the process of repeats and insertions of normal DNA causes a genetic change. (One common example - Down's syndrome, which is normal but extra genetic material cascading down through the entire development.)

Until you do the science you can't evaluate its state.

What that poster is typing is you can't add new data into a genome. I've said nothing about segments on a gene or adding DNA. In that, there is a huge difference and you know it. Evolution has as much of a scientific basis as believing in the Bermuda triangle, big foot, aliens, exorcisms, global warming, or oil being a fossil fuel. You have the right to believe in any of that baseless crap without questioning the proof all you want.Have fun....Well, it's true

CITIZEN

Sunday, October 15, 2006 1:23 AM

Actually it's very easy to add DNA to a DNA strand. Retro Viruses and Bacteria do it all the time.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, October 15, 2006 3:44 AM

imma moderate ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Someone's been wresting those 10ft tall Taliban reinforcements, methinks.

Anarchists are *not* moderates, by definition we're a form of extremists, and individually different from each other as well - I represent my variation of the belief in wanting to be left the hell alone, but don't take that for a moderate viewpoint, it is most certainly not.

Being a realist, I acknowledge some interferance is gonna happen regardless, and so my primary focus is limiting how much and how often, which might appear to be a moderate viewpoint, but that is a matter of scale of useful effectiveness rather than desire, for it would not bother me very much if our entire gov imploded and collapsed.

Moderate... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-Frem

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, October 15, 2006 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

I refuse to treat people like you with civility. But SignyM has been nothing but patient, rational and honest with everyone. If you try to pick on him for his debate style, I guarantee you will lose whatever shreds of credibility you might have left.

Go there at your peril.

There must be something wrong with my computer. Every time I respond to SignyM, it send's you notification. Perhaps I should try to contact Haken.

If you can honestly go through the PN and child porn thread for instance and not find several examples of Signy's hypocricy, then it is your credibility that will be in question, not mine.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24439#394105

Posting to stir stuff up.

OK, went there, read it. Don't see any hipocracy. At least on SignyM's part.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

TPAGE

Sunday, October 15, 2006 4:32 AM

Something I found a while back which may help differeniate between fact and opinion is A Field Guide to Critical Thinking:

http://www.totse.com/en/ego/self_improvement/afieldguidetoc174154.html

ANTIMASON

Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:

But we let them put creationism on a scientific par with Evolution by not ignoring them.

we're not trying to compete with you Citizen, i think we can find a lot of common ground. in the bible it says that God layed the foundations of the heavens, but it doesnt bother to specificy beause it wasnt meant to be a collection of scientific jargon. it was meant to appeal spiritually to everday common people, and in that way i think Jesus' spiritual messages are just as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago; whereas scientific theories historically have come and gone like the seasons. sometimes, we're just holding out for better theories, thats all

Quote:
You won't get a concession out of them, you won't get anything out of them by debating. They aren't interested in anything you have to say, the people trying to make this a "Creationism vs Evolution" aren't interested in debate or truth.

like i said, all we are saying is that we may not have the whole story yet

Quote:
People like Cartoon are merely interested in forcing they're religion down everyones throat, they're interested in destroying science.

come on, destroy science? we are not a threat to you because we believe in a supreme intelligence(like a central processor); there are a lot of dimensions and planets and planes that we havent measured yet, we're just being cautious about what we state as ultimate truths. i feel obliged to consider what the ancients believed about our origins and see how it may all tie together with modern discoveries

CITIZEN

Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
we're not trying to compete with you Citizen, i think we can find a lot of common ground. in the bible it says that God layed the foundations of the heavens, but it doesnt bother to specificy beause it wasnt meant to be a collection of scientific jargon. it was meant to appeal spiritually to everday common people, and in that way i think Jesus' spiritual messages are just as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago; whereas scientific theories historically have come and gone like the seasons. sometimes, we're just holding out for better theories, thats all

Well, yeah, the creationists are when they expect Intelligent Design and other Creation myths to be taught as a science along side a rigorously tested scientific theory, or frankly in the case of Evolution proven natural law.

Because Evolution is a proven natural law. Survival of the fittest we see everyday, we know that species change, we know species adapt to new surroundings via survival of the fittest. We've used the Evolutionary mechanism artificially, you think those huge tasty black and white beasts are Cows? They are not, Cows are those skinny scrawny things you see holding up traffic in India. What we have is an animal that has been artificially bred by Humans deciding what characteristics were desirable, Humans deciding which animals were fittest and letting Evolution take over. Artificial Survival of the Fittest.

No Science and Religion don't have to be in conflict, but it's not Science causing this conflict. Some people are demanding that Creationism should be taught as a Science when it isn't a Science. Scientists aren't telling the Church that they should teach Quantum Mechanics at the pulpit. No one is telling anyone that preachers must give equal time to sermons preaching the non-existence of God.

So why is there a conflict? Because Science is attacking Religion? When was the last time you heard a Scientific theory for the non-existence of God? Science has nothing to do with God, neither does it want anything to do with God. Science isn't attacking any Religion in anyway, it's just doing what it does. Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians WANT this conflict because some of these Fanatical Christians WANT absolute control. They want a war on Science and at the end of the day they want a return to the good old days of Dark Age Europe.

Quote:
like i said, all we are saying is that we may not have the whole story yet

We are well aware that we don't have the story yet, but there's a big difference between knowing we don't have the whole story and saying "God did it, we can stop looking now" is valid Science.

But this is the fundamental difference between Religion and Science. Science recognises that it doesn't yet know, that's it's trying to find out and it's constantly refining it's view.

Religion says we're right you're wrong get over it. That's the end of the story.

Think about it. A Scientist has a theory, that theory doesn't fit the evidence it's abandoned. In religion they say "God moves in mysterious ways". That's fine for religion but it's not Science by any stretch of the Imagination, Science and Religion are not the same thing, Science is not a Religion.

Quote:
come on, destroy science? we are not a threat to you because we believe in a supreme intelligence(like a central processor); there are a lot of dimensions and planets and planes that we havent measured yet, we're just being cautious about what we state as ultimate truths. i feel obliged to consider what the ancients believed about our origins and see how it may all tie together with modern discoveries

Yes destroy Science, that's exactly what those on the Intelligent Design side want. I don't think all 'believers' want that, not even most, but the ones that want Intelligent Design taught as a Science, you bet.

Think about it. We accept the Intelligent Design is on a Scientific par with Evolution. Intelligent Design being entirely based at it's very core on something that is unpro

KANEMAN

Sunday, October 15, 2006 2:15 PM

Ciizen wrote..."Because Evolution is a proven natural law. Survival of the fittest we see everyday, we know that species change, we know species adapt to new surroundings via survival of the fittest. We've used the Evolutionary mechanism artificially, you think those huge tasty black and white beasts are Cows? They are not, Cows are those skinny scrawny things you see holding up traffic in India. What we have is an animal that has been artificially bred by Humans deciding what characteristics were desirable, Humans deciding which animals were fittest and letting Evolution take over. Artificial Survival of the Fittest."

What you have so "citizenly-like" described as "the proven natural law of evolution" is in fact natural selection. Natural selection does not support the theory of evolution at all. It is one of those widespread fallacies attributed to having children taught bogus science(Global warming, evolution) by teachers with Liberal arts degrees. And aren't those cows..Well,..still cows. Are the fruit flies that have been experimented on to show the effects of mutations after thousands of generations still, well,...fruit flies? All phenotypes of cows, humans, cats, and dogs have always been here. Yes, there are processes at work that makes one phenotype more visible than another at any given time. But to be here it had to be in the genome of a species to begin with. Yes, there was a study on the moth that's dominantly expressed light color was replaced by the darker phenotype because of natural selection. What you have to understand is that the dark phenotype was already present in the genome. It just became the dominantly expressed phenotype. No evolution was involved. In fact nothing has ever been proven to evolve.

CITIZEN

Sunday, October 15, 2006 3:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
What you have so "citizenly-like" described as "the proven natural law of evolution" is in fact natural selection. Natural selection does not support the theory of evolution at all. It is one of those widespread fallacies attributed to having children taught bogus science(Global warming, evolution) by teachers with Liberal arts degrees. And aren't those cows..Well,..still cows. Are the fruit flies that have been experimented on to show the effects of mutations after thousands of generations still, well,...fruit flies? All phenotypes of cows, humans, cats, and dogs have always been here. Yes, there are processes at work that makes one phenotype more visible than another at any given time. But to be here it had to be in the genome of a species to begin with. Yes, there was a study on the moth that's dominantly expressed light color was replaced by the darker phenotype because of natural selection. What you have to understand is that the dark phenotype was already present in the genome. It just became the dominantly expressed phenotype. No evolution was involved. In fact nothing has ever been proven to evolve.

I guess this is the argument fostered by someone with no grasp of science who was taught some new words to make their ignorance sound 'scientifical'.

Now as amusing as it is watching someone with no grasp of science tell us that what scientists say is 'bogus science', Natural selection my dear fool is part of Darwinian Evolution. Micro Evolution, look it up because you've just said it exists and that it doesn't in the same sentence. I understand perfectly the difference between Macro and Micro Evolution, it appears that you do not.

Cat's dogs cows etc have always been here? Well this is interesting. So your clever scientific theory as to why they don't appear in the fossil record prior to dinosaurs is?

The big difference between you're view and Sciences is that Science tries to fit the theory to the evidence, you want the evidence to fit the theory. In Science when a theory doesn't fit the evidence the Theory is wrong (and not fitting the evidence is different to having pieces missing, BTW) in you're outlook when the evidence doesn't fit you're preconceived idea, the evidence is wrong.

It's strange how there's fossil records showing a clear progression from Apes to modern Humans, but because one link in the chain is missing people who have a vested interest in attacking science for personal gain say Evolution has been disproved. We've got 1-2-3- -6-7-8-9-10, but because 4 and 5 are currently missing you say that proves 1,2,3,6,7,8 and 9 don't exist and 10 has always been here.

There's a word for that, it's delusional, but don't worry Science has discovered cures for delusion that don't involve having the Daemons cast out with fire

.

Now before you go on again about how there are no mechanisms to add data to a DNA chain you may want to read up on transposons and polyploidy (which interestingly enough is especially prevalent in plants which is why they have upwards of 100 Chromosomes where as Humans have 23).

But lets play a little game shall we, just for you to prove once and for all how right you are and how wrong you are.

Lets assume for a moment Evolution is just a theory. Now at the moment Evolution fits all the available evidence better than any other scientific theory. Now unfortunately I'm afraid the Scientific method requires you to come up with a better theory rather than merely saying "evidence is incomplete for that therefore it is wrong". So in order for you to prove yourself right and us wrong, scientifically so to speak, you have to supply us with a theory that fits the available data better than Macro and Micro Evolution.

You see until you can do that by telling us Evolution is wrong you're spouting crap and you have no credibility.

So, either your theory or your continued silence is to follow, yes?

Oh and before you accuse me of using the religious line, I'm not, I'm merely saying if you want to take on a scientif

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE