Basic Evolutionist Time Sandwich

7/23/06 | self

[ToryHeartland]

Perhaps Karl Popper can help you.

Whoa buddy, hold your horses! And please do try to follow what I have posted to you, it is in your own interest. I suggest you re-read my post to which your copy & paste screed is a remarkable non-sequiter.

What I have been addressing in my posts to you is very straightforward: you are repeatedly posting items (not always with a nominated source) which demonstrably bear false witness. I have pointed out two specific instances (Crick and Darwin) where the material you have posted is completely inaccurate and deliberately intended to mislead. I do not believe it is your intent to publish falsehoods. I have no reason whatever to doubt your integrity and do not do so; where I have pointed out where material you published is demonstrably and deliberately falsified, I have done so in order to give you an opportunity to make an appropriate correction and to distance yourself from such erroneous material.

I have no reason to doubt your good intention and personal probity--but your continued refusal to distance yourself from material that is demonstrably dishonest does your credibility great harm.

I have shown you, in two instances, that the material you are quoting from creationist websites is every bit as dishonest as the forged documents Dan Rather waved around in a disgusting attempt to impugn President Bush's integrity. I think you owe it to yourself to acknowledge that the material I have indicated in your previous posts is in serious error; but that is ultimately a matter for your own conscience.

As for the latest wad of stuff you've posted in irrelevant reply; it is nearly as distorted and unreliable as your previous howlers. Read a lot of Popper, do you? Quite a number of crationists like to Mis-quote Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions in the mistaken belief it 'refutes Darwin', which is very interesting because there is quite a debate between the philosophies of Kuhn and Popper. You are declaring for Popper, we presume? Could you enlighten us as to why you favour Popper over Kuhn? But in your own words, please -- so we can at least be persuaded you actually read something other than creationist sound-bites.

To sum up: after your courtesy retraction of the misleading quotes in your previous posts which I have pointed out to you, please do enlighten us with your own personal readings and understanding of the contrasting schools of thought of Kuhn and Popper.

[ToryHeartland]

You beat me to it.

I'm looking forward to Kuhn v. Popper internal-creationist debate, myself!

[ToryHeartland]

I can tell you that he isn't a scientist. Why should we care what one shyster (I assume him to be one since he is passing his drivel off and clearly getting paid for it).

Karl Popper isn't the problem here.

The post you were responding to is a butchered and incoherent account of Popper by...Russell Kranz.

Nope, I'd never heard of Russell Kranz, either. Google would indicate he is a 7th Day Adventist--but that's about it.

[ToryHeartland]

What you said.

[freedumb2003]

These things just get too tangled.

[js1138]

These things just get too tangled.

Scientists are not used to dealing with blatant dishonesty, and often say things that are easy to quote out of context.

Darwin suffers from misuse more than most because he often began a discussion by making the best case for the opposition.

The business of natural selection being inaccessible to experimentation is ancient history anyway. Lots of methodologies in biology are new within the last decade or two.

[GoLightly]

Every CR/Ider thinks they are an expert on TToE just because they read Genesis.

Yer funny. Reason in, reason out & visa versa. While my understanding about many topics may be rusty and/or antiquated, my understanding about ToE came from science books. Do you need me to preface all of my posts to you with a strong disclaimer? WARNING, I make no claim to being an expert in many areas which I am interested.

I didn't say the whole story has been told, but that it is being told ("telling").

Noted.

One of hundreds of peer-reviewed articles showingf how DNA is confirming more aspects of TToE and filling in additional information.

No doubt.

You think God just shoved a bunch of nearly identical DBA in chimpanzees and humans?

Have you ever dealt with any design engineers? Disclaimer - I am not an engineer.

I don't make statements out of the blue, nor do I make "but it seems to me" statements when I am dealing in area which I am familiar with yet not an expert. I know I what I am saying is scientifically correct before I post.

Ditto. Do you think it is possible to see a push for any adjustment to the current continental drift model as life science gains greater hard evidence to back up its migration maps?

[ToryHeartland]

Sorry but you are wrong. Crick wrote a book,"Life Itself" discussing these matters.

You know, I've re-read your posts here, and I am still worried that you still really don't get what is important about your goof in post #65. So let's just briefly look at that one again, because I would really like you to see what you have unwittingly done.

In post #65, you stated:

Finally, Francis Crick, discover of DNA and a Nobel Prize winner said "the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule so as to make it absurd." Like many atheists he believes that extraterrestials sent living cells to earth.

I pointed out, in reply to your post, that the quote allegedly from Francis Crick is in fact from Fred Hoyle. It's very easy to see how you slipped up on the old copy & paste, because the misquote that is from Crick appears on lots and lots of Creationist websites (and often, next to Hoyle). That quote, which you intended, is:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle" and is indeed from his book Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature 1981, p. 88

OK, this is where the fun really starts. Copy part of this quote from Crick, say "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now" and Google it. You will hit quite a few pages, without exception Creationist websites, with this self-same quote from Nobel-prize winner Francis Crick appearing to proclaim his own Creationist creed. Pretty convincing, yes?

Well, read the book itself! Here is the full sentence, and the sentence immediately following:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

I have added the bolding to the end of the sentence which all of those Creationist websites omit.

Why do you suppose they abridge that sentence, and omit the one immediately following? Do you suppose they are trying to save bandwidth? Or could it just be that they are deliberately doctoring the quote, as shamelessly as Mr. Rather's forgeries, in order to misrepresent? In order, in fact, to lie?

You stated in your post #329, that you found

the simple biblical explanation of human existence does much greater justice to freedom, moral responsibility, equality. the dignity of man, conscience, truth and other values than any explanation based upon the survival of the fittest

I read the Bible, too. It is the basis of my own faith. I read it often and find therein wisdom, beauty, guidance, and comfort. And a grave injunction against bearing false witness.

And it as bearers of false witness that I charge the various creationist websites from which you and others have scooped up so much misleading nonsense to dump on this thread.

[freedumb2003]

Do you think it is possible to see a push for any adjustment to the current continental drift model as life science gains greater hard evidence to back up its migration maps?

Cross-disciplinary research is not unknown. I have seen life science and physical science interdisciplinary research studies done in various colleges and Universities (I worked at several Universities for a total of 20 years).

Yours is an intuiging idea.

Now I have to go backwards through the thread to see if we were argung (or intently discussing)!

[freedumb2003]

Complete the context bookmark.

Reminds me of a movie reviewer -- Medved? -- who was "quoted" in an ad as saying "this is the best movie I ever saw" when the rest of the quote was " ABOUT A CGI GIANT SNAKE" or something very similar. The rest of the review basically said he hated it.

[ToryHeartland]

I am not sure why you think credentials are necessary to assert the verifiable fact that these pictures were published in the original journal Science with a scale indicating that they are microscopic

Alas, as a demonstration on the importance of scale, I wanted to post here the link to the 'Meat or Accident? website--but it seems to exist no more. It was a quiz wherein one had to guess if a given photograph depicted something suitable for the table or should be shipped to emergency. It only worked because there was no indication of scale.

Pity how some neat stuff like that website just disappears.

[ToryHeartland]

Try the Google test on the Crick phrase -- you won't get the same count of creationist websites as I do, because I think Google filters results by country. If anything, you'll probably get more.

And none of those sites that I have looked at even bother to consider that Crick is writing about abiogenesis, not evolution....

It really is a game of whack-a-mole

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Placemarker

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Last summer, scientists trying to get a tyrannosaur leg bone out of a remote area by helicopter, broke the bone into two pieces, and this is what they found inside the bone:...That meat clearly is not 70 million years old; I've seen week-old roadkill which looked worse."

I seem to have heard that before...

"About a month and a half or two months ago, and this was on all the major newswires, there was a story about some people breaking a tyranosaur leg bone in half to get it onto a helicopter from a place from which there was no other way to get it out of, and finding soft tissue inside the bone.

This is what tyranosaur meat looks like: ...Does any of that look like it's 70 million years old to you? I mean, I've seen two-week-old roadkill which looked worse."

Now, where did I find that second quote? Oh, right here:

http://designeduniverse.com/christian_catastrophism/lofiversion/index.php?t45.html

Now, who was the poster there? Medved, aka Ted Holden, aka YOU.

How many times must you get banned before you get the message, Ted?

[GoLightly]

Dosen't work, unless you have determined that prayer ( like a placebo ) has no effect. You don't even need a test group for that - simply tell one group of patients that they are being prayed for by hundreds of people. If it works as a placebo, then they should do better.

My comment had to do with some eastern & "new age" beliefs, instead of current common western beliefs. Think in terms of reports by twins "knowing" when harm has come to their other twin, something nearly impossible to reliably document.

If you are in trouble and you call your parents to "deliver me from evil ( send me money )" you have some expectation that you MAY be "delivered", although you may not.

If you are in trouble and you call your parents to "deliver me from evil ( send me money )" you have some expectation that your parent MAY be tell you to get a job or to cut back on expenses. It may not be the kind of relief you wanted, but if you need that kind of attitude adjustment, sending immediate relief could be harmful to you.

If you DON'T call them, odds are they will not spontaneously decide to send you a check for no reason.

Is the only measure of your relationships material?

[GoLightly]

Now I have to go backwards through the thread to see if we were argung (or intently discussing)!

I poked you with a sharp stick.

[RS]

"My comment had to do with some eastern & "new age" beliefs,..."

Sorry, I suppose I should have used my phychic powers to guess that.



"...you have some expectation that your parent MAY be tell you to get a job or to cut back on expenses."

My parents taught me common sense when I was young - Do you normally use prayer in the hopes that God will bring you some ?

[GoLightly]

Sorry, I suppose I should have used my phychic powers to guess that.

Feel free to toss me a Darwin honerable mention. My typing is currently left handed hunt & peck, cuz I broke my right arm. Need further explanations of any of my short hand, just ask.

My parents taught me common sense when I was young - Do you normally use prayer in the hopes that God will bring you some ?

???

[RS]

Sorry about your arm ...

A plea to "deliver me from evil" is not a request for instructions as to how you could deliver yourself from evil ( common sense ) , or how to get along with evil - it is a cry of "Please get me out of this ! send lawyers, guns and money ! "

Prayer for someone's recovery may not be answered at all, but I certainly would not expect God to answer it with " go take him to a doctor. "

[RunningWolf]

Wow you used up 3 paragraphs that say essentially nothing and yet somehow you end up with your ubiquitous accusation/smear by way of the question and/or inference.

Whats the message Guitarman? Your message BTW. Or if you insist to speak for all sorts of groups and individuals (as you are wont to do) tell me what 'the message is' from them.

BTW there is a message is being sent loud and clear, but its not the message you might think it is. I doubt you or any other FR evolutionist can see it, or if seen will acknowledge it either.

Now as to the article, yet once again you never ever answered anything about the article ever in a direct forthright manner.

Now supposedly the tyrannosaurs-rex went extinct some tens of millions years ago (50, 70, 100) Finding any sort of soft tissue matter (forget whether or not it has properties of relatively non decayed meat) should call into question at least one and maybe more issues on the age of the bone or when the creature went extinct.

Now I will wait for your non-answer that ends with name calling or some smear/accusation. Go ahead, go for it, you know you have no bounds as to where you can or will go in order 'to demolish' anyone that disagrees with you '3 dogs crapping' Yeh I know you are damn proud of those images so you don't need to trumpet that anymore. They are however characteristic of your postings though.

W.