Evolution? How?

Not an expression of opinion, rather, merely speculation . . . however, this is wonderful new evidence of your own lunacy--do you contend that "real life" was born with a full-blown imaginary friend delusion?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What is to the point here is that "real life" has attempted to contend that Kansas has a tradition of leadership in social reform--and utterly failed to make a case. First he mentions "bloody Kansas," as though the casual slaughter which "slave state" and "free state" advocates visited upon one another were evidence of social consciousness--he got shot down pretty damned quick on that one, and hasn't mentioned it since. He tried Brown versus Board of Education, the most egregious example of a state being mired in racist tradition--that one didn't fly either. So he jumps in with women's suffrage--specifically, a contention that Kansas can be said to have had a tradition of leadership in social reform because, allegedly, the right of some Kansas women to vote in some school board elections was the envy of women nationwide, as though any significant proportion of women nationwide were aware of the circumstance, or were impressed by it. Ah yes, yearning to vote in the local school board elections.

One swallow does not a summer make. "real life" has attempted to contend that Kansas has traditionally been a leader in social reform because it intends to contend that the recent creationism-inspired idiocy of the State Board of Education is yet another example of that alleged tradition. "real life" has utterly failed to make either case.

The Brown vs Topeka Board of Education decision in the 1950's was a hugely important step toward desegregating schools in many parts of the country. Everybody knows that.

And the fight in Kansas to establish a slave-free state is a proud chapter in that state's history. This also is well known.

The fact that it took a fight to accomplish it is nothing to be ashamed of. Some things are worth fighting for.

But, hey, anything to bash Kansas because you are tremendously afraid of the movement toward free and open inquiry in the schools, right?

The monopoly that evolution has had in the public schools for DECADES has failed to produce enough true believers in evolution to suit your tastes.

It has been funny, as well, to see some of the other evolution proponents here--- in one breath praising the public schools for teaching evolution exclusively and in the next breath bemoaning how poorly educated students are in the sciences when coming from those very same schools. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The Brown vs Topeka Board of Education decision in the 1950's was a hugely important step toward desegregating schools in many parts of the country. Everybody knows that.

The fact that Mr. Brown was obliged to fight that case all the way to the Supremes not only does not prove that Kansas was in the forefront of social reform, but is strong evidence that exactly the opposite is true.

Quote:

And the fight in Kansas to establish a slave-free state is a proud chapter in that state's history. This also is well known.

The slaughter the jayhawks and red legs visited upon one another, and thousands of innocents is nothing to be proud of, and your contentions about what is historically well-known are as false as your contentions about science.

Quote:

The fact that it took a fight to accomplish it is nothing to be ashamed of. Some things are worth fighting for.

It was the indiscriminate slaughter which makes it something to be ashamed of--but given the christian propensity for indiscriminate slaughter, i'm not surprised that you fail to graps such a distinction.

Quote:

But, hey, anything to bash Kansas because you are tremendously afraid of the movement toward free and open inquiry in the schools, right?

I've not done any bashing of Kansas--this is typical of your tactic of using lies to attempt to make a case, something at which you uniformly fail. I've only been engaged in refuting your silly and unsupported and unsupportable thesis that Kansas can be considered to have traditionally been at the forefront of social reform, in a pathetic attempt to cast the mindless adherence to imaginary friend superstition dogma as social reform.

Quote:

The monopoly that evolution has had in the public schools for DECADES has failed to produce enough true believers in evolution to suit your tastes.

It has been funny, as well, to see some of the other evolution proponents here--- in one breath praising the public schools for teaching evolution exclusively and in the next breath bemoaning how poorly educated students are in the sciences when coming from those very same schools. (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

This is a series of statements from authority without support, and for which authority no one here has any reason to accept that you have the right to lay claim.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Here, let's put in terms so simplistic that even a dedicated delusional christian could understand it: I wrote that A evolving into B was observable. Employing one of your favorite tecniques--the use of the lie--you attempted to claim that i'd written that the evolution of A into A was observable. You lied, and you knew it. It's a part of your technique.

A and B are both cichlids, correct?

So you were trying to make the argument that cichlids evolved into cichlids, correct?

Further, you were trying to argue that this evolution was "observable". I ask you again, who has observed this and when?

Since this supposed evolution took place thousands of years ago, you are inferring that this evolution took place. It is an inference based on circumstantial evidence.

(Note to Farmerman. Sorry FM. I know you hate it when I use that word. The Setanta made me do it.) Laughing

But understand my position, Setanta. Circumstantial evidence and inference are valid tools in science; let's just be upfront about our use of them. They are not the same as direct evidence and observation.

Have a good morning. I've got an appointment to keep. Catch ya on the flip side.

0 Replies

Farmerman has answered the details of the case. You continue to attempt to cast statements made by others in the simplistic terms which even idiotic delusional christians can understand (your object), despite the necessity to lie about what others have stated. You continue to try to sidestep the issue of the evolution of one species into another, because you got ripped to shreds in your attempt to claim that you use the same definition as others do.

You now have introduced "direct evidence"--a term i had not used. However, it is far more supportable than the use of "observable," so i think it quite appropriate.

I'm sure you'll be back to spread more distortions and lies later--after all, your object is not to communicate with us, it is to present an image to the casual reader here who might be naive enough to be fooled by your drivel.

0 Replies

C'mon, Setanta - you seem so defensive. Is this your best attempt at reasoned debate?

0 Replies

The perception of defensiveness is all in your mind, Snood. If you are familiar with "real life" and his method, then you will acknowledge that his constant tactic is to distort what others have written in aid of his creationist talking points. One of which he is particularly fond is to insist that someone demonstrate to him that an animal has evolved into some other kind of animal. He has disputed the definition of a species, while insisting that he has the same operational definition of species as the others in this thread. So, he willfully distorted my statement in a failed attempt to enlist it in aid of his "a fish is still a fish" crapola.

I really don't need your judgment at what constitutes my "best attempt at reasoned debate." If that is genuinely your concern, perhaps you might address yourself to the demonstrable propensity of "real life" to distort what others have written in an attempt to use their statements to support his theses--which theses he has never managed to support, because his object is to challenge and discredit others, not to provide any substantive evidence for his point of view.

Is that what you consider "reasoned debate?"

0 Replies

A proposition such as that put forward by real life and "reasoned debate" are mutually exclusive; the two cannot coincide.

A sidebar - interesting rl holds as paragon the defendant in the Brown vs Board of Education case - Kansas was doing no leading there, it got its butt kicked outta the way by The Supremes. Looks like a rematch coming up, and I see no reason Kansas' Board of Education might expect to do any better this time around.

0 Replies

Timber, I like your parallels. I was hoping that Pa would be the state where the stand would occur, but, damn common sense has stepped in and, I kind of doubt that the PA case will go farther .Since,the election has redefined the boards makeup, the entire case would now be rootless( Theres ony one side of the issue anymore).
I asked before, and never got any answer from the legal minds on these boards.
If, in Dover, the judge finds in favor of the school district (and its original board), would the new schoolboard provide a token defence to an appeal brought by the ACLU on behalf of the plainiffs? By providing a token defense , and getting the case in and out of the docket, it would go away in Pa, but leave the door open for further cases elsewhere (Like Kansas).I was wondering whether the "token defense" could even be accomplished.
The entire thing ultimately needs to be adjudicated by the SUpreme Court so that Creationism and then finally Intelligent Design together are excluded from science class instructions, then the Discovery groupies and ICR can go back to doing what they do best, fooling the gullible and robbing the old ladies of their savings "in the name of God".

PS snood. real life has been consistently and (IMHO, purposely) dense in hislanguage but very astute in his logic. Hes aware of the process of how evolution works but, even knowing that, he continues to demand "special" levels of proof for all but his side. If hed be more honest and just word his statements more precisely, he could be setting up a "falsification" argument about what evolution is.
So, I give him more credit than that, I assume hes just being smart enough to know where to draw his line.Otherwise wed tear him a new one on his debtae tactics.

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

let's just be upfront about our use of them. They are not the same as direct evidence and observation.

How do you differentiate the two? Give me some really important Creationist observations.
Im curious how we could miss all the evidence that supports your views.

0 Replies

Here's a blast from the past, on page 314 of this very thread...

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Oh, how do you know that?

It is written in the science books.

No. It's shown by physical evidence. The science books and theories are based on empirical evidence.

Ok so what is the empirical evidence for the Big Bang? Who observed it and what did he see?

What is the empirical evidence for life spontaneously generating from non-living chemicals? Who observed this?

What is the empirical evidence for one creature turning itself into another? Has anyone actually seen this occur?

Observation of an event itself is not required for a scientific theory to be considered valid. It never has been. An accepted scientific theory is simply the best naturalistic explanation for explaining the conditions we currently observe. If the acceptance is very strong within the community, then it is accepted as a fact. Such is the case with Evolution, and with the BB.

The empirical evidence for all the things you mentioned are the conditions of the natural world around us. Evolution, and Biogenesis and the BB are all valid models for how the conditions around us could have come to be. And at present, they are the only naturalistic explanations which fit the evidence.

If yoou want to start considering theories which are outside of naturalism, then that's fine, but they won't be "scientific" theories.

0 Replies

And again in the next page...

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Has anyone actually OBSERVED one creature to 'progress' to another? Don't waste your time checking, they haven't.

Has anyone actually OBSERVED a full grown redwood tree growing from a tiny seed. No, but everyone knows they grow from seeds because there's enough evidence for it. Same thing with Evolution.

RL, how many times are we going to have to hit you over the head with this stick before you get it?

0 Replies

I had me this mule once ... went through a buncha sticks. Pretty stout ones, at that. Never bothered the mule much. I think he sorta enjoyed the attention.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Here's a blast from the past, on page 314 of this very thread...

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Oh, how do you know that?

It is written in the science books.

No. It's shown by physical evidence. The science books and theories are based on empirical evidence.

Ok so what is the empirical evidence for the Big Bang? Who observed it and what did he see?

What is the empirical evidence for life spontaneously generating from non-living chemicals? Who observed this?

What is the empirical evidence for one creature turning itself into another? Has anyone actually seen this occur?

Observation of an event itself is not required for a scientific theory to be considered valid. It never has been. An accepted scientific theory is simply the best naturalistic explanation for explaining the conditions we currently observe. If the acceptance is very strong within the community, then it is accepted as a fact. Such is the case with Evolution, and with the BB.

The empirical evidence for all the things you mentioned are the conditions of the natural world around us. Evolution, and Biogenesis and the BB are all valid models for how the conditions around us could have come to be. And at present, they are the only naturalistic explanations which fit the evidence.

If yoou want to start considering theories which are outside of naturalism, then that's fine, but they won't be "scientific" theories.

Yes this was a classic dodge on Rosborne's part, to be sure.

A concise summary:

Ros: We've got empirical evidence of evolution!

RL: Cool. Show us the empirical evidence.

Ros: Well, you don't have to observe something for it to be scientific.

RL:(scratches head, checks MerriamWebster.com

Yup it still says

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience

RL shakes head , goes to bed chuckling)

0 Replies

eh, but there's a fair amount of empirical evidence of the BB: receding galaxies (red shift) and cosmic background radiation, for example, plus it was predicted by General Relativity. there are a few scientists who favor ID over evolution, but haven't heard of many cosmologists who question the BB.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

eh, but there's a fair amount of empirical evidence of the BB: receding galaxies (red shift) and cosmic background radiation, for example, plus it was predicted by General Relativity. there are a few scientists who favor ID over evolution, but haven't heard of many cosmologists who question the BB.

Receding galaxies might be considered circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted to support the Big Bang. But it is not empirical evidence of the event itself. Empirical evidence of the Big Bang would be if you or I saw it happen.

0 Replies

One horseshit statement after the other . . .

From the selectively edited definition provided by the alleged "real life":

"originating in or based on observation [b
or[/b] experience"

What is it about "or" that is so difficult to understand. One can observe the red shift of receding galaxies, and infer and event which caused them to move away from one another.

This from the same crew that want us to believe in their omnipotent imaginary friend without a scrap of evidence any stronger that the inferential contention that "the evidence is all around you."

This statement: "Empirical evidence of the Big Bang would be if you or I saw it happen."--is offered as a statement from authority, for which "real life" has no authority, and the which is a horseshit perversion of the term empirical.

0 Replies

Big Bird, if you are comparing the intellectual attainments of "real life" to those of a mule, you do the mule a disservice . . .

0 Replies

"The progress of Evolution from President Washington to President Grant was alone evidence enough to upset Darwin"
Henry Brooks Adams said this and I dont know whether to be upset or not.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Yes this was a classic dodge on Rosborne's part, to be sure.

A concise summary:

Ros: We've got empirical evidence of evolution!

RL: Cool. Show us the empirical evidence.

Ros: Well, you don't have to observe something for it to be scientific.

RL:(scratches head, checks MerriamWebster.com

Yup it still says

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience

RL shakes head , goes to bed chuckling)

You made this bogus argument before as well, and I answered it already. But I'll do it again: The definition of empirical relates to observation of evidence for an event, not necessarily observation of the event itself. Just like the Redwood Tree RL, just like the tree.

Now you're going to argue that the evidence can be interpreted different ways, and of course, we've been through that as well, asking that you provide any other "scientific" interpretation of the evidence, which you never have.

You are worse than Timber's mule.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know