Oh.. so i must assume evolution is right

Where the f*** did i state i wanted a debate? Debates are no good. Whats the point of debats? The guy with the best debating skills win, not the guy with most knowledge about the subject.

I want Kent Hovind to give me evidence, not debate him.

Nor do i want to debate your automechanic.

About origins..., in your post you kinda made it look like you thought origins was about the theory of Abiogenesis.

Origins merely describes the mechanism of how evolution works, not how life started.

Originally posted by Jugg
Where the f*** did i state i wanted a debate? Debates are no good. Whats the point of debats? The guy with the best debating skills win, not the guy with most knowledge about the subject.

I guess you didn't say you wanted a debate. I merely inferred this when you stated:

The debate is over. Evolution is right.

My mistake.

I want Kent Hovind to give me evidence, not debate him.

Kent Hovind has nothing even resembling evidence, and is a fraud. As I mentioned earlier, it's doubtful that Kent Hovind even believes his own BS.

Nor do i want to debate your automechanic.

Great so your equivocating a Ph.D. in ME to being an auto mechanic? Real objective. I'd be willing to speculate that you would hesititate to call another PhD in ME an 'auto mechanic' were they not a Creationist.

Do you refer to your biology profs. as lab techs? What about your math profs., do you call them 'cashiers?' What you call your philosophy professors, BS artists? At least provide a person who obtained there PhD at the most prestigious technical in the US, if not the world with the respect he is due, even if you don't agree with his world view. It's the mature way to approach it.

About origins..., in your post you kinda made it look like you thought origins was about the theory of Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis wasn't even a concept when the Origin was written. Darwins 'warm little pond' comments elude to the fact that he had pondered the idea though. But in any case, no... the Origin isn't a treatsie on abiogenesis.

Origins merely describes the mechanism of how evolution works, not how life started.

Darwin had no idea how evolution worked. He had no concept of the hereditary information, etc. He merely speculated that pre-existing variation would provide a range of fitness in any given population, and that NS would select the fittest individuals. He had no idea about the basis of variation, how variation was transmitted, etc.

And I never said that the Origin was about how life started. I said it pertains to the both the origin of biology complexity, the origin of biodiversity, etc.

If you would consider the context I was writing in, I was grouping abiogenesis in the same category of information: biological origins. There are two categories of biological origins, the origin of life itself, and the origin of species. Thus it is totally appropriate to speak of ToE, and the Origin as being about biological origins.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by mattison0922
So you think a Ph.D. in ME is a person who changes peoples tires. Wow.

Sorry to scratch your bubble, but they certainly aren't qualified to contest what real research scientists have produced.

Why don't you take the debate challenge, tough guy? I'd check it out, and I seriously doubt that you'd reduce Walt to tears or hysterics, and I'd bet Walt would make you look like a fool. He's been studying this stuff, probably since you were still watching Power Rangers.

I've read what many creationist write, I've exposed their total ignorance many times, and all I got for it is the same old adolescent whinging self-importance, which is very embarrassing to witness in middle-aged men. Creationism is for teenagers, not grown-ups. If he'd really "studied this stuff" he'd have a real degree in it - but no, they never do.

And I never watched Power Rangers, baby.

Originally posted by JonN
Sorry to scratch your bubble, but they certainly aren't qualified to contest what real research scientists have produced.

Who is qualified?

I've read what many creationist write, I've exposed their total ignorance many times, and all I got for it is the same old adolescent whinging self-importance, which is very embarrassing to witness in middle-aged men. Creationism is for teenagers, not grown-ups. If he'd really "studied this stuff" he'd have a real degree in it - but no, they never do

So what are you waiting for? Take the challenge. Embarrass him.

Someone who had studied biology and at least knew what evolutionary theory actually is (a modest requirement that many creationists nevertheless fail) would be minimally-qualified to criticise the research.

You already told us, he picks and chooses who he is willing to use his "pitbull" antics on. As I have an MPhil not a PhD, I'm sure I'll be turned down - but I've already heard his entire act off other clowns, and I've also heard the crybaby tantrums I'll get if I ever point out he hasn't a clue about chemistry or any of the other fields creationists traditionally make fools of themselves in.

Incidentally, if you're going to bother with the pretence of being a "heathen", "open-minded" ID supporter who wants to prove it's not the same as bad old creationism, don't blow your cover by going and recommending a sad sack YEC like Walt Brown. Pouring scorn on Hovind isn't good enough. You guys need to get your entryist tactics improved if you want to be any good at subverting mainstream opinion.

Originally posted by runetang

Personally, I think apes evolved to a point where you have neanderthal, and it was from there that the essence of God was put into man, creating mankind in his likeness. Just look at us compared to Neanderthal, yes we know the scientific reasons that they were so brutish and ugly, but when compared side-by-side, us humans make them look like crap! We are so much more beautiful in every way. Hair only growing in large amounts from the top of the head? Beautiful tones of skin? Beautiful proportional faces? Beautiful intellgience, the gift of the writen word, and the beautiful languages? The beautful arts we perform? All of this tells me divinity had a hand in our creation and does indeed exist in its own right, in SOME kind of way.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by runetang]

apes and us have common ancestors , humans did not evolve from apes.

now for looks and proportions, i'm sure if a neanderthal saw you or me , his first question would be something like " when did THAT happen to you ?" pointing at our faces ,
Neanderthals would lock us up /kill us / display us in freakshows;disect us , call us evil monsters and then would throw "The beautful arts we perform" in the next neanderthal dumpster truck.That is of course only if they would have the same views as you.

In my eyes , You are "this close" to segregation/prejudice/racism.Reminds me of a group of people in the 30's 40's , who wanted to wipe off the face of the planet some other people because they just couldn't be allowed to live on , after all they were so inferior in so many aspects.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Originally posted by JonN
Someone who had studied biology and at least knew what evolutionary theory actually is (a modest requirement that many creationists nevertheless fail) would be minimally-qualified to criticise the research.

Interesting. So given that same standard, what position are you in to judge Behe's arguments. Have you actually studied Biochemistry? No. Well then apparently you can't comment on Behe's arguments. That is if you live up to these standards of yours.

You already told us, he picks and chooses who he is willing to use his "pitbull" antics on.

I told you no such thing. I simply stated that a member of the opposing debate must have a Ph.D. If you want to put a six year old child up there, I guess you could, and they could probably do all the debating, but at the very least, a Ph.D. would have to be present. It's not 'picking and choosing,' it's called setting a standard. He has his reasons for doing it, and whether or not you agree with his reasons is one thing, but he has them nonetheless.

As I have an MPhil not a PhD, I'm sure I'll be turned down

You must know someone with a Ph.D. who could show up and sit next to you for an hour or two. You've got a graduate degree you must know mulitple Ph.D.'s who would also enjoy 'reducing a creationist to hysterics and tears.' But yes, as I clearly stated you yourself will be turned because you don't have a Ph.D. Hell I'll show up and sit next to you, just so I can watch. Problem solved.

but I've already heard his entire act off other clowns, and I've also heard the crybaby tantrums I'll get if I ever point out he hasn't a clue about chemistry or any of the other fields creationists traditionally make fools of themselves in.

So make the challenge, you've got or the very least can get your Ph.D.

What are you waiting for? At the very least, contact him and see if brushes you off, or what. But I would suggest that you read the T & C first.

Incidentally, if you're going to bother with the pretence of being a "heathen", "open-minded" ID supporter who wants to prove it's not the same as bad old creationism, don't blow your cover by going and recommending a sad sack YEC like Walt Brown.

Look, I thought Jugg was looking to debate a creationist. He was looking to Kent Hovind. Now I know from personal experience that Kent Hovind is a moron, a charlatan, is actually personally an a-hole. Furthermore, I don't even think Kent Hovind believes 90% of what comes out of Kent Hovind's mouth.

On the other hand, Walt Brown does believe what he claims in his book, Walt Brown actually is very well read and knowledgable re: origins. Whether or not you agree with him is one thing, whether or not he knows his topic is another. Furthermore, Walt actually happens to be an okay guy. If someone does want to debate or otherwise involve themselves with a creationist, I generally recommend him. Because he's sincere, and I like him.

Though none of this speaks to what I personallly believe about his brand of Creationism. You don't see me up here offering up the hydroplate theory as evidence of a flood for good reason. Whether or not I believe it is irrelevant, whether or not Walt believes it is of significant consequence.

Additionally, your opinion of me isn't important.

Pouring scorn on Hovind isn't good enough.

I'm not trying to meet some arbitrary standard of yours. Kent Hovind as I mentioned IS an A@#@%^. And I'm not just saying that because I disagree with him.

You guys need to get your entryist tactics improved if you want to be any good at subverting mainstream opinion.

Well, I disagree with you. The ID by any measure is certainly growing. It has in fact, breached the borders of the US, and is present in Austrailia, the UK and some other places. Traffic at pro-ID websites like Uncommon Descent is climbing on a month to month basis, and new IDEA clubs are popping up on both high school and college campuses across the US. Whether or not you view that as a negative is one thing, but whether or not it's happening is undeniable.

Evolution of the Long Necked Giraffe

Originally posted by SKMDC1
Why is there something instead of nothing?

Why not?

Additionally, your opinion of me isn't important.

And neither is your opinion of me, which is why I was unmoved by all that frantic mugging you were doing the other day about my "credibility".

The ID by any measure is certainly growing.

Undoubtedly, but so is radical Islam. That doesn't entail that either movement have any worthwhile content to offer. Also, it is still insignificant compared to the mainstream of biological opinion. And science isn't determined by how many teenagers you can recruit to a campaign, it's done by people who work away for years and get research degrees in actual scientific subjects like chemistry and biology, not the non-scientific discipline of engineering.

As ever, you miss the point of my comments, and my reference to entryism concerned the way in which "intelligent design" is used merely as a cover for creationists to pass off creationist old hat as shiny new clothes. It's very similar to the way communism would use "agents of influence" to pose as "moderate", liberal people, in the hope that they would quietly shift "the middle ground" over to a bias toward the Left. It's just that your movement aren't yet as good at it as the old Left were.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
Evolution of the Long Necked Giraffe

So we have two arguments raised by you in the thread.

1) Something doesn't come from nothing

2) scientists can't adequately explain giraffe evolution

Are we meant to therefore infer supernatural creation?

Re: knowing someone with a PhD

Years ago at university I was acquainted with this chap, although I haven't been in touch with him for a long time, although I have got his book:

Tim Lewens' book on evolutionary biology

If you want something to read, then get that. It has a section on ID that reflects its relative importance in modern biology: ie. 2 and a half pages, out of 160.

As I don't live in America, Mr. Brown will have to come see me, if he's bothered.

Originally posted by JonN
Re: knowing someone with a PhD

Years ago at university I was acquainted with this chap, although I haven't been in touch with him for a long time, although I have got his book:

You have a master's degree and your familiar with only one Ph.D.? I'm sorry I find that hard to believe.

I don't think the Ph.D. has to be in biology per se. Walt's isn't. It just has to be a PhD.

Maybe I'll check it out... got so much other stuff on my reading list now.

If you want something to read, then get that. It has a section on ID that reflects its relative importance in modern biology: ie. 2 and a half pages, out of 160.

I generally read all of the books devoted to refuting ID. I seriously doubt that book can offer in two and half pages, anything that's not contained in the hundreds of other pages critical of ID, but I'll do some research on it.

As I don't live in America, Mr. Brown will have to come see me, if he's bothered.

I see so, it his job to come and see you. Nice MO, way to convienently bow out.

Did you contact him? He might come and debate you... wherever you are. If you're serious about 'reducing him to hysterics and tears'... you should at least contact him.

Originally posted by melatonin

So we have two arguments raised by you in the thread.

1) Something doesn't come from nothing

2) scientists can't adequately explain giraffe evolution

Are we meant to therefore infer supernatural creation?

No. You are meant to not give up asking questions just because the supposed "experts" say they have it all figured out. I don't have the answers, but neither do you... or the IDers or even Darwin. It's a lot more complicated than a simple Us vs. Them debate. It's not about creationism vs evolution (they aren't mutually exclusive at all to begin with), but rather about if we keep our minds open to new ideas or simply take the traditional thinking for granted and scoff at and ridicule anyone who presents a "new" idea.

Your response drips of a two-dimensional view of the Origins Debate. Either you accept Darwin or a Supernatural Creation. Period. No gray area. That's total bunk in my opinion. Maybe I believe in both, or neither.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
No. You are meant to not give up asking questions just because the supposed "experts" say they have it all figured out. I don't have the answers, but neither do you... or the IDers or even Darwin. It's a lot more complicated than a simple Us vs. Them debate. It's not about creationism vs evolution (they aren't mutually exclusive at all to begin with), but rather about if we keep our minds open to new ideas or simply take the traditional thinking for granted and scoff at and ridicule anyone who presents a "new" idea.

Your response drips of a two-dimensional view of the Origins Debate. Either you accept Darwin or a Supernatural Creation. Period. No gray area. That's total bunk in my opinion. Maybe I believe in both, or neither.

I was asking you a question. You made two one line posts with no qualification, I was attempting to gain an insight into what you were trying to show. For all I know, you were going to post twenty one line posts showing there are questions that do not have adequate answers.

The correct answer would be 'we're not sure', or 'the evidence we do have suggests...'.

Who was scoffing? I would be the first to tell you there are many people who accept ToE and have a faith...

So, what was the point of the one-liners? You're still being unclear as to what the point was. Just to show we don't have all the answers? Bit obvious really...

[edit on 21-9-2006 by melatonin]

You have a master's degree and your familiar with only one Ph.D.? I'm sorry I find that hard to believe.

Since I said nothing of the sort, you're not required to believe it, but let it be noted in the record that your English comprehension is so poor the meaning eluded you. See also: all those ridiculously wrong "so what you're saying..." comments you made on my posts the other day.

Tim's book gives little space to ID because it's not a big topic in biology, despite all the publicity budgets squandered on hyping the non-existent "ID revolution". He instead mainly talks about the sort of conceptual issues that might help to clarify your thoughts. He only needs 2.5 pages on Dembski because Dembski's fallacies are simple to expose.

I see so, it his job to come and see you. Nice MO, way to convienently bow out.

Is it "my job" to see him? Who pays the air fare? I already said, I've debated plenty of these fools online, I see no need to meet this other one unless he needs to resort to violence. That's the impression most creationists give, when you call them on their distortions: just red-faced middle-aged egotists falling apart at the seams at the truly appalling thought that they might not have learned everything there is to know when they did their mechanics degree. Your advert of him as a "pitbull" gave the game away.

One more thing: I asked you the other day for UNCONTROVERSIAL examples of "design inferences"... yet you still had to pad your answer with the disputed ones of Behe and Dembski's ideas. Doesn't that tell you the examples are a bit sparse on the ground, actually? Even when you sprinkle some fakes about?

[edit on 21-9-2006 by JonN]

Originally posted by JonN
Since I said nothing of the sort, you're not required to believe it, but let it be noted in the record that your English comprehension is so poor the meaning eluded you. See also: all those ridiculously wrong "so what you're saying..." comments you made on my posts the other day.

The discussion was more or less related to Walt Brown's T & C for debate, one of which is that an opposition team member must have a Ph.D. I questioned whether or not you knew anyone with a Ph.D..

You wrote:

Re: knowing someone with a PhD

Years ago at university I was acquainted with this chap, although I haven't been in touch with him for a long time, although I have got his book:

So you are only acquainted with a Ph.D. The point was do you know a Ph.D. who'd be willing to participate. You mention that you know, or were acquainted with one fellow.

And with respect to my other 'so what you're saying' comments, if they're so ridiculous why not take the time to expose them?

Tim's book gives little space to ID because it's not a big topic in biology,

I did look up your friends book, and I actually think I will add it to my reading list. Seems like it could be a good read.

Is it "my job" to see him?

No but you're the one saying he's going to be 'reduced to tears and hysterics,' by you, I say prove it.

Who pays the air fare?

How do you know he isn't game enough to debate you on line. You can reduce him to tears and hysterics online... maybe it's not in his T&C, I can't remember, but in any case, if you're so confident in your abilities, I say challenge him. If he backs out of your debate, what have you lost? And in fact you've gained, because you will have shown him unwilling to live up to his own challenge.

I already said, I've debated plenty of these fools online,

Perhaps you've got a link... something that will demonstrate your 'reducing creationists to tears and hysterics.'

I see no need to meet this other one unless he needs to resort to violence.

In another ridiculous 'so what you're saying comment:' So what you're saying is that you won't meet Walt to debate, but you'll meet him if he wants to fight?

That's the impression most creationists give, when you call them on their distortions: just red-faced middle-aged egotists falling apart at the seams

Good job. Very open minded of you, classifying and judging people you've never met. Great Attitude.

at the truly appalling thought that they might not have learned everything there is to know when they did their mechanics degree.

Is that you're jealous that a M.Phil is practically worthless, whereas a Ph.D. in ME is actually applicable to something in the real world? Is that why you have to belittle someone's degree? Because that's certainly what it seems like.

A Ph.D. in ME, which is applied science, is certainly more than an automechanics degree, and the fact that you're belittling an MIT education simply because someone thinks differently than you speaks volumes.

You're not in the US, so there's a chance that you didn't actually have to waste money on your BS artist's degree... your M.BS. that is.

Your advert of him as a "pitbull" gave the game away.

Oh yeah right, someones credibility is somehow destroyed by my metaphoric description. Yeah.

One more thing: I asked you the other day for UNCONTROVERSIAL examples of "design inferences"... yet you still had to pad your answer with the disputed ones of Behe and Dembski's ideas. Doesn't that tell you the examples are a bit sparse on the ground, actually?

I don't believe there are any uncontroversial examples of design inferences. The entire ID movement is controversial, and be default none of it's principals are uncontroversial.

Whether or not mainstream scientific opinion agrees with them isn't really relevant in my own mind. Mostly because mainstream scientific opinion has always resisted new ideas. Darwins idea itself was a hotly debated and controversial idea when it was introduced. Similar to the ID movement, there were claims of "pseudoscience" and "not being testable" and "not falsifiable." New ideas historically do not enjoy initial wide spread acceptance, as Hoyles disaparing description "The big bang" demonstrates. So no.... it doesn't particularly bother me that the ideas don't enjoy widespread appeal.

Even when you sprinkle some fakes about?

Okay, and which fake examples did I sprinkle about?

Originally posted by JonN
If he'd really "studied this stuff" he'd have a real degree in it - but no, they never do.

Just a further note re: Walt Brown's qualifications. In addition to his ME Ph.D. from MIT, he also studied geology extensively at Arizona State University. The bulk of Walt's Book is his own hypothesis, The Hydroplate Theory, a geology hypothesis.