Discovery's Creation [The rise & fall of the Discovery Institute]

Seattle Weekly ^ | 01 February 2006 | Roger Downey

[unlearner]

"thanks for lecturing me on science, a field that despite 80 or so published papers, I'm totally ignorant about"

Well, science is what the debate is about isn't it? I guess someone without a science degree can not be right about a scientific issue, and someone with one can never be wrong. Correct? Based on your expertise, what standard of demarcation do you accept for what is and is not science? Supportability, falsifiability, utility, elegance, empiricism, realism, what?

"You think that because ribosomal 16S/23S yields a single phylogenetic tree, its common descent can't be falsified? So if we found an entirely separate and distinct tree, that wouldn't be falsification?"

No. I challenge the claim that common characteristics are equivalent to common heredity. Identifying common features is certainly useful, but interpreting them as irrefutable support for UCD is not. Taxonomic nomenclature is a useful paradigm for categorizing life, but that does not make it an infallible road map of history.

As far as falsification goes, finding life that has no DNA would work too. But that is beside the point. Why is the interpretation that common characteristics always imply common ancestry? How can you falsify this correlation between features and heredity? What if there are common features without common heredity? If you assume UCD axiomatically, it is impossible to identify where the correlation fails.

"No one said or even implied the latter. You've started lying: you must be getting desperate."

I'm not lying, and I resent the accusation. I have heard other evolution proponents claim common flaws prove heredity. Maybe you have not made such claims, but that is no reason to call me a desperate liar.

"We can always come up with multiple hypotheses consistent with any body of data... You've merely got another explanation."

OK. Then what is your standard of demarcation?

"My regular web page is linked on my profile."

I did not intend to imply that I was impeaching your credentials. I only mean that the quality of someone's arguments is a better measure for the purpose of debate. (That, and because your credentials are so much better than mine.) Anyway, I prefer to debate someone who knows what they are talking about. I would rather lose a debate and learn something , than win against someone who is ignorant of the subject any day.

I have made a couple of major concessions over the past couple of years in this debate. I have learned a lot from reading and participating. I am not completely closed minded even if I get a bit competitive.

[highball]

"Ask any lawyer - eyewitness testimony is the least reliable."

There goes our court system!

Panic is not necessary.

Lawyers have known for years that eyewitness testimony is not particularly reliable. Unless the court system you're talking about is the one from "Matlock," you needn't be concerned.

By the way, we still haven't seen that alternative "interpretation" of the fossil record that addresses the evidence. The one that you mentioned way back in post #72....

[Dimensio]

Use "View Replies".

And see a long list of creationists ranting and whining about Ichneumon's long posts without one of them dedicating a single sentence, or even a sentence fragment, to address one point of evidence mentioned in the post.

[Virginia-American]

I was on a jury, heard evidence in a hit-and-run. The witnesses: car was "blue", "dark", "green",...

The forensic evidence: Glass found at the scene exactly fit the broken places in the suspect's headlight.

The witnesses all were right, the car was "dark", it was night, no-one (except the drunk driver) was lying. But it was the forensics that removed any reasonable doubt.

[highball]

A great example of the relative worth of eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. Thanks!

[furball4paws]

This is going to be a biggie. Up to 20" now and it's still going strong. Now where is that teenage son?

[narby]

You've implied that God allowed them to write things that would later 'prove' to be untrue.

My original belief was that God "allowed them to write" a short symbolic story because to give a detailed scientific description to unschooled herders was a waste of valuable paper and they wouldn't understand it.

But since you've convinced me that Genesis must be read literally, and there's no way Genesis happened literally, then the only possible answer is that it was written by untrained herders because they were bored.

[balrog666]

But since you've convinced me that Genesis must be read literally, and there's no way Genesis happened literally, then the only possible answer is that it was written by untrained herders because they were bored.

Nah! It was a conspiracy among the goatherders to enslave the free minded.

[furball4paws]

Actually here, it is a blessing since all the rivers and lakes are fed by snow melt. If we get 2 feet here in the valley, the high country is getting at least 8 ft. Fresh water in the Summer makes the fishing good :)

[dread78645]

"Teenage son found after spring melt" placemark

[andysandmikesmom]

Of course you can point it out over and over again, and thereby you could also be accused of doing the same thing....You yourself are acting childish and wasting bandwidth with your constant complaining...You are doing exactly the same thing as what you accuse others of doing...perhaps you dont take up as much bandwidth, with your whining, but then again, waste is waste...

[furball4paws]

Hey, the school is only 1 block away, but he knows that his mother will be waiting for him with hot chocolate (which he likes) in one hand and the snow shovel (which he doesn't like) in the other. I may have to put on my snowshoes and go looking, and when I find him, he'll like that even less :)

[plain talk]

I've used far less space than a single Ich spam-post. I'll repeat it in case you missed it. :-) Greater use of links rather than spam-posting large amounts of text is logical and more efficient. Engineers understand that. On the other hand what possible purpose have your posts served other than to childishly whine about my suggestions?

[highball]

"I've used far less space than a single Ich spam-post."

I can't help but notice that you've failed to call Elsie a "spammer" based on her extremely long posts:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1569331/posts?page=265#265

Or is this really about intellectual disagreements, not the length of a post?

[plain talk]

see post #57

[highball]

see post #57

Okay, I did.

In post #57, you said:

Whether you saw it or not is irrelevant. I have responded at least once to a Creationist for exactly the same thing.

Bully for you.

However, I can't help but notice that when you're given an opportunity to actually do it on this thread (not just refer obliquely to having done it "at least once" in the past), you have declined to do so.

Yet you complain about Ichneumon's posts. You continue to use the word "spam." You have called the posts "Data packed as spam to shout down an opponent".

Interesting that you should throw insults like "spammer" when confronted with lengthy posts on one side of the issue, but not on the other. It does tend to indicate that your real beef is with the point of view itself, not how Ichneumon expresses it.

[andysandmikesmom]

I am not childishly whining...it has been pointed out to you exactly why, just posting links is often not useful...those who want the information, want it printed out in the post, because they dont want to be bothered with clicking onto the link(why this is so hard to do, is beyond me)...but Ichneumons lengthy posts are there, by request by many posters...you just dont seem to like that...perhaps you are afraid, that someone might actually read those posts and learn a thing or two?...

My purpose is to counter your baby whining....you can call my posts childish whining all you want...if it makes you happy, go on ahead...if that is all you have, then you come up empty on content...at least Ichneumon and Elsie and many others post lengthy posts which may inform others...that is their contribution...

Your contribution is to whine about those lengthy posts...my contribution is to point out your baby whining(hardly worthwhile suggestions, which has already been explained to you by other posters, didnt you read those posts, or did you just not comprehend?)...

Whether one posts a lengthy post, or provides a link to information, its all the same to me...

Yes, yes, I understand about engineers, my son is an engineer...big deal...that has little to do with the reasons why many people provide lengthy posts...but then,you have already been told why, havent you?

[plain talk]

pls see post #333

[andysandmikesmom]

I already did...

[hail to the chief]

Ummm, you were just responding to your friend's strawman quote, as if he was a living, breathing evolutionist.