The Age-old Argument

[Magnus]

Because, FearlessLeader2 - you haven't quantified anything you have said, so there is no need for me to quantify anything either.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by PaleHorse76:
Science just cannot be wrong in most people's eyes. To those ppl I say look at all the sciencetific rules we have broken. The speed barrier. That used to be the fast a person could move.

Sorry, but this is a terrible example, PaleHorse. The speed of *sound*, which is what I assume you're talking about, was never a physical limit of how fast a person could travel as established by physics.

The speed of light on the other hand, is such a limit, and it has not and will not be broken (unless of course, the science behind it is found to be faulty, which is very doubful).

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Magnus:
Because, FearlessLeader2 - you haven't quantified anything you have said, so there is no need for me to quantify anything either.

Haven't quantifed...anything...?

Do you even know how to read? Or are you just an exceptionally lucky monkey pounding on a keyboard in some lab? I've done nothing BUT quantify. My every argument has been rooted in science, and your every argument has been rooted in rhetoric.

Seriously, wake up and smell what you;re shovelling. It'll take more than a deep breath and a lot of hot wind to shut me up.

Until you can do a better job of forming an argument than the average kindergartener, I'd recommend that you avoid embarrassing yourself and wasting our time by posting utter drivel in this forum.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
Sorry, but this is a terrible example, PaleHorse. The speed of *sound*, which is what I assume you're talking about, was never a physical limit of how fast a person could travel as established by physics.

The speed of light on the other hand, is such a limit, and it has not and will not be broken (unless of course, the science behind it is found to be faulty, which is very doubful).

Well, you're going to love this then...

http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury/Pockels&Wang&Objections.doc

If you don't want to take the time to sift through it, I'll summarize. The actual speed of light(all EM effectd actually) is the exact same as the speed of gravity, IE infinity. The perceived speed is actually due to the delay between the beginning of the reception, and the time when sufficient culumlative effect has built up in a sensor to be noticed.

And by the way, infinite velocity for light pretty much eliminates all the irregularites in quantum physics very nicely, and ties it all up in a nice neat, Occam's Razor friendly package. Makes you wonder what other time-cherished notions that scientists hold dear are flawed at their very core...

 

[Magnus]

Well, FL2, you are certainly gifted at being insulting, I will give you that. Not that it helps your arguments any. Name calling is the last bastion of failure.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Magnus:
Well, FL2, you are certainly gifted at being insulting, I will give you that. Not that it helps your arguments any. Name calling is the last bastion of failure.

Really? Well then what do you call stamping your foot and saying "cause I said so!"? The height of debate genius? My arguments need no help, they stand on their own. It's evolution that had its legs shotgunned out from under it a few posts back, work of mine that you have yet to reply in a more profound manner to than "oh yeah?".

Your reply to my devastating assault on two of the pillars of evolution, was to attack the Bible. You did not even attempt to refute my arguments, all you did was say the Bible is wrong. I only mentioned the Bible in passing in my arguments, and based none of them, NONE of them, on it.

 

[Magnus]

yes, FL2, your water pistols are making quite a dent in the science of evolution...

I think its great that after all these years the roles have finally been reversed and now the creationists are the ones who have the bureden of proof and not the eviolutionists!

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
...Makes you wonder what other time-cherished notions that scientists hold dear are flawed at their very core...

Quite likely many are, FL2. Why do you insist on implying that I in particular (in the "Do Gods exist?" thread for instance where you make assumptions regarding my "faith in science") as well as others who haven't been convinced by your anti-evolution arguments have some vested interest in seeing established scientific truths prevail?

I personally couldn't care less if the speed of light is found to be wrong. Likewise it wouldn't keep me up at night to learn that Darwin had it all wrong. In fact, I have a tendency to consider theories that many others place on the fringes--such as the "Aquatic Ape Theory" someone brought up recently in a thread--if it strikes a chord of truth in my logic circuits (ouch, sorry for the mixed metaphor

).

It might make you feel victorious to simply write us off as closed-minded believers in the 'religion of science' but the fact is you simply haven't convinced us yet. I admit, you've made some points I hadn't considered before. But you've also made a lot of irrelevant points--at times rudely to boot--and in the final balance, you simply haven't (yet?) managed to convince me.

Please don't imply that I or anyone else here is a moron because we do not see from entirely your perspective. Maybe--heaven forbid!--you are simply not the rhetorical genius you believe you are.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Magnus:
yes, FL2, your water pistols are making quite a dent in the science of evolution... <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif" border=0>

That wasn't water. All I had to do was piss on the pillar of sand your arguments were based upon, and they collapsed.

Originally posted by Magnus:
I think its great that after all these years the roles have finally been reversed and now the creationists are the ones who have the bureden of proof and not the eviolutionists! <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/mwaha.gif" border=0>

And I thank you for changing it back again...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
Quite likely many are, FL2. Why do you insist on implying that I in particular (in the "Do Gods exist?" thread for instance where you make assumptions regarding my "faith in science") as well as others who haven't been convinced by your anti-evolution arguments have some vested interest in seeing established scientific truths prevail?

A couple of good reasons:

1) Not having a god around makes atheism and moral relativism a lot more palatable, as you don't have to choke them down past the facts.

2) Scientists that have based their work on the assumption that evolution is correct have a lot to lose, especially in research grants, if it gets out that evolution in just the elaborate fraud that it is.

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
I personally couldn't care less if the speed of light is found to be wrong. Likewise it wouldn't keep me up at night to learn that Darwin had it all wrong. In fact, I have a tendency to consider theories that many others place on the fringes--such as the "Aquatic Ape Theory" someone brought up recently in a thread--if it strikes a chord of truth in my logic circuits (ouch, sorry for the mixed metaphor <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>).

Your claim of an open mind is suspect, given the credible amount of damage I have done to a theory you still choose to regard as fact.

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
It might make you feel victorious to simply write us off as closed-minded believers in the 'religion of science' but the fact is you simply haven't convinced us yet. I admit, you've made some points I hadn't considered before. But you've also made a lot of irrelevant points--at times rudely to boot--and in the final balance, you simply haven't (yet?) managed to convince me.

See, this is what I'm getting at. I have made excellent points, and only now, when people realise how reasonable I sound, and how unreasonable you and the rest of the oppostion are being, do I even get a slight nod and a 'hmmm, you've got something there'. And you wonder at my occasional snarls? I've displayed the patience of a saint, even I have limits. Thank you for finally giving a dog his bone.

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
Please don't imply that I or anyone else here is a moron because we do not see from entirely your perspective. Maybe--heaven forbid!--you are simply not the rhetorical genius you believe you are.

I couldn't possibly be. I haven't resorted to rhetoric. And while I did outright state that Magnus is a moron, it is only because he so openly and richly deserves it. I only say that because he, unlike you, has done nothing but gainsay my every argument, no matter how lucid, and often with openly contemptuous language.

Actually, I referred to him as an 'exceptionally lucky monkey pounding on a keyboard', but that really does a whole lot more than imply moron status, wouldn't you agree?

The way I figure it, if you're going to insult someone after being insulted, you should strive to do the best possible job. When he starts attacking my arguments instead of me, and cans the rhetoric, I will stop 'implying' that his intellect is on a par with the average nematode.

 

[Magnus]

LOL! Oh dear, FL2, if I am a 'moron' like you so eloquently state, then you are a fish who is dumber than even I, because you keep taking my bait! You amuse me...

 

[CeramicCyanide]

I think that god, or whatever the name for the highpower is, does exist, but that doens't mean evolution doesn't. You're confusing two thigns, religion and scient. Any theologian wil ltell you that the bible is mainly metophorical, ESPECIALLY genesis. I recently, being honest here too, had a chance to to go Italy to work doing a documentary piolit for The Discovery Channel (which concsist of travel, discovery, tlc and history channel) entitled "The Evolution of Belief." during it's shoting we were in the vatican and had an interview with his holiness. We asked him a question, which we were told to edit out of the final project, but which he answered. That question was is the story (and i empahsize story) of genesis to be takern literally or to be taken as a lesson in morality. The popem answered that the story of genesis wasn't literal at all, that it means more so that turing form god' directive is a gaurentee of hard and sad times. So therefore, if even the pope sayes genesis isnt' real, how can you argue that evolution doens't exist due to geneis and the story of creation.
The pope is infallible when speaking on matters of the church (there ar econditions to that but i forget what they are due to lack of keeping up with church law). Also i would think someone of his status would have a bit of insight in the matter.
(please don't let this whip up a fire storm on the side of those believing in creation. I've delt with people who beilve in this before and had this same argument, and unfortunitly they have demostrated behavior that isn't exactly honorable. in fact they usually resent to name calling and rhetoric. I mean no offense by these posts i make and if any is taken, accept my sincere apologies.)

------------------
Ceramic Cyanide

 

[FearlessLeader2]

The Pope is infallible in matters regarding the Christian faith? Does that go for Protestants too? How about Jehovah's Witnesses?

Believe me when I tell you that the Pope's opinion of the book he should consider the word of God does not impress me in the slightest. Without trying to Flame On(there's that line again), Catholcism is not for me, nor for many others. You cannot hold me to the Catholic scale.

By the way Ceramic CN, did you hear something?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

So...should I call up the Shriners, and apply for another parade permit? Another ten-day hiatus with no challenges...

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
Algernon said--
Fearless, It was Darwin's genius (so far so good; I remember I said that first time) that he was able to infer such a deep explanation of evolution from such little information compared with what we know today. He demonstrated the same powerful reasoning when he inferred how coral islands and coral reefs come about and what that implied about the geology (everyone should try to read his paper on that because it is so clearly presented) He did that before he had ever seen a coral island. If you tell us what parts of evolution science bother you I'll do my best to help.
___________________________________________

Oh, I see. So because he made some good guesses about coral reefs and geology, everything else he said is true, even without support of evidence. And here I thought there was some fallacious arguing going on...

As to the 'science' of evolution, I have two problems with it. It is, as I have noted, based on two main phenomenon, mutation, and natural selection.

Now both of these processes happen. I do not even slightly argue this point. Mutations occurs, and creatures with superior survival traits breed more successfully than their counterparts. GRANTED, GRANTED, and GRANTED.

HOWEVER(and we all knew it was coming, that or BUT), it has been shown, PROVEN, by EXPERIMENTATION, repeated experimentation at that, that mutations breed out of an organism's offspring, because DNA is self-repairing. Natural selection, while it does allow for variation within a species, has never been observed to transform a species to another species. In approximately 6,000 years of guided, unnatural, deliberate selection, man has still not managed to generate a dog that can't be successfully mated with a wolf(if the two can be convinced to perform). 6,000 years that have to count for untold millennia of natural selection, and no new species.

The two pillars of evolution, shattered in a few sentences. So tell me, Al, what is left for evolution? Show me the money. The theory doesn't have any legs left to stand upon. Forget Thermodynamics, the law of gravity will do just fine...

You are comparing 6,000 years of man meadling (which not all of it man was breeding animals with eachother I would only say like half that!)Against the MILLIONS of years it takes for the so called evolution to occur!
I belive that evolution still has some feet to stand on!(Its just half blown off!)



------------------
Why Create things when you know they must be destroyed!
I will Create A monument to nothingness!

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:


man has still not managed to generate a dog that can't be successfully mated with a wolf(if the two can be convinced to perform)

wow what exaclly do you get when you mate a dog and a wolf together!
because I thought that they were two diffrent species I think that a wolf and a dog could help prove evolution because they both have similer bone structures and Would have similer diets (if it wern't for man)but they also have there diffrinces so they are not the same thing!
I belive that those wolfs and dogs might of been the Same for a while but due to envirormental factors they both evoled diffrently by way of natural selection, over time each would become the animal they are today.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:6,000 years that have to count for untold millennia of natural selection, and no new species.

you say that because man has not seen in happen in about 6,000 years (which most of that time man did NOT classiffy species!)that it does not happen!
That is like going out to a street and saying I see no cars now so cars must NEVER come by!
This kind of stuff takes millions of years!

------------------
Why Create things when you know they must be destroyed!
I will Create A monument to nothingness!

[This message has been edited by Kefka (edited June 03, 2001).]

 

[Kefka]

posted by Fearlessleader2
HOWEVER(and we all knew it was coming, that or BUT), it has been shown, PROVEN, by EXPERIMENTATION, repeated experimentation at that, that mutations breed out of an organism's offspring, because DNA is self-repairing. Natural selection, while it does allow for variation within a species, has never been observed to transform a species to another species.

yea thats great that DNA is self-repairing and it can help keep the species the way it is longer unless the mutation helps the organisim to survive because then that mutation would become more and more common in the species because they would survive and pass on the CHANCE of having the mutation!
and if you get so many surviving with that mutation and so little surviving without that mutation then eventually by common sence you would think that mutation would become so common that the non mutated ones would eventually not be there!

It happens all the time with bactera and virises becuse a tiny thing changed with them changes them dramaticly(they mutate all the time and they dont revert to there old self!) the cold we have today is not the same cold we had in the 1900!
now we have colds that are Imiune to drugs used ta treat em before cause there evolving.

------------------
Why Create things when you know they must be destroyed!
I will Create A monument to nothingness!

[This message has been edited by Kefka (edited June 03, 2001).]

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Kefka:

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
In approximately 6,000 years of guided, unnatural, deliberate selection, man has still not managed to generate a dog that can't be successfully mated with a wolf(if the two can be convinced to perform). 6,000 years that have to count for untold millennia of natural selection, and no new species.

You are comparing 6,000 years of man meadling (which not all of it man was breeding animals with eachother I would only say like half that!)Against the MILLIONS of years it takes for the so called evolution to occur!
I belive that evolution still has some feet to stand on!(Its just half blown off!)

Well, I'm not sure yet if you support or laugh at evolution, but given that natural selection is random, and only useful by chance, and breeding(or eugenics, or whatever you want to call it when men breed animals for specific traits) results in the direct culling of unwantedorganisms, and selective breeding of desirable ones, I think any logical mind would accept that it is a highly accellerated form of selection.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Kefka:

posted by Fearlessleader2
HOWEVER(and we all knew it was coming, that or BUT), it has been shown, PROVEN, by EXPERIMENTATION, repeated experimentation at that, that mutations breed out of an organism's offspring, because DNA is self-repairing. Natural selection, while it does allow for variation within a species, has never been observed to transform a species to another species.

yea thats great that DNA is self-repairing and it can help keep the species the way it is longer unless the mutation helps the organisim to survive because then that mutation would become more and more common in the species because they would survive and pass on the CHANCE of having the mutation!
and if you get so many surviving with that mutation and so little surviving without that mutation then eventually by common sence you would think that mutation would become so common that the non mutated ones would eventually not be there!

It happens all the time with bactera and virises becuse a tiny thing changed with them changes them dramaticly(they mutate all the time and they dont revert to there old self!) the cold we have today is not the same cold we had in the 1900!
now we have colds that are Imiune to drugs used ta treat em before cause there evolving.

Ok, you see, what I said above...lemme try with smaller words. The THEORY was that good mutations would stay, and bad ones would die out. The experimental data obtained through laboratory analysis of deliberately mutated organisms proved otherwise. DNA is simply too resilient to keep ANY mutations, beneficial or detrimental. Apparently, someone was serious about dogs begetting dogs, cows begetting cows, and so on.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Kefka:
you say that because man has not seen in happen in about 6,000 years (which most of that time man did NOT classiffy species!)that it does not happen!
That is like going out to a street and saying I see no cars now so cars must NEVER come by!
This kind of stuff takes millions of years!

And selective breeding is a valid means of speeding up the research to get quicker results.

As to the wolf-dog cross-breed, we generally call a mix of two breeds of dog a mutt. Wolves ARE dogs, dogs ARE wolves. Is this getting clearer yet?