More evolutionary lies.

[Lyion]

I'm getting a sense of Deja Vous.

Arlos, you aren't really in these discussions, but I respect your viewpoint. The problem is Tikker and Rust are broken records. They neither discuss nor debate.

Rust keeps repeating I don't understand, I don't understand, when I probably do much better than he does. I, at least, can look at both sides of an argument. Given his posts I'd say I understand the issue far better than he does. If he did, he would do better in his argument than post some chick's Macroevolution paper that a 5th grader could top in his/her science course as proof.

Most of what Rust is saying is his parroting from Talk.Origins newsgroup. Perhaps I should take you to task for using others quotes? Nah, that would be nitpicking and shallow and I'm here to voice my opinion, not to 'win at the Internetz'. Although you might want to attribute the 'Goddidit' quote as that is taken directly from a post, as well as much of what you are saying.

Tikker parrots Rust and says and I only talk about 'God'. The funny thing is I've never used God once in a post about Macroevolution, merely raised the point that its superflous which most Biologists agree, and which is why they have 10000 different 'ideas', such as Punctuated Equilibrium.

Arlos, Macroevolution has huge gaping wholes. Almost all scientists admit it. We've brought it up in the past to Rust, but he just hops up and down and tells us we're ignorant, and the Ph. D people we quoted are ignorant or misquoted, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Macroevolution is a debated topic and many have different views. Unfortunately there are some who are petulant in nature and cannot discuss varying viewpoints on message boards. Perhaps in the future it will be proven or disproven. The problem I have is when people try and portray it as 'fact' or close to 'fact' when it is not close to that.


Let's summarize for those who don't want to follow this bullshit

I'll keep saying there are gaping holes in Macroevolution, without referencing anything else. Tikker will keep referencing me saying God, even though I never do.

Rust will keep saying I don't understand, but never have actual discourse or admit I am right and there are huge holes in Macroevolution which every real scientist admits there are.

Both will keep insulting others, while Ganzo, Donnel, and I will try and have rational discussions but be unable due to their complete lack of tolerance.

That pretty much covers it.

[Rust]

Oh, and funny, BTW, since in this very thread Ganzo said he believes in evolution, yet you mark him as being in the anti-evolutionary camp.

-Arlos

I didn't say i belive in evolution, i said i belive in science. If science now sais evolution was method of creation, i'm not going to waste my time proving it right or wrong, because if it is right - it dosn't have argument with my faith, and if it's wrong - well science been wrong many times before, earth is flat was dogma and scientific fact before.

Actually, the 'flat earth' is Biblical in origin. Scholars from Eratosthenes onwards knew the earth was round. Columbus didn't go to prove the Earth was round, he went to prove you could sail due west and get to China and India. He was wrong, his math was off.

http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm

But in general all scientific theories are indeed eventually changed due to new evidence. That doesn't mean the current theory is going to be discarded - Newtonian physics are, strictly speaking, clearly wrong, but they are excellent approximations at low speeds. Likewise, there will doubtlessly be newer discoveries about biology but it's doubtful that they will disprove the basic theory of evolution. "Descent with modification" is a fact - it's been observed over and over again.

--R.

[Tikker]

For someone who never once mentions god, you reference creationism sites almost exclusively Lyion

[Rust]

I'm getting a sense of Deja Vous.

'Already you'?

Arlos, you aren't really in these discussions, but I respect your viewpoint. The problem is Tikker and Rust are broken records. They neither discuss nor debate.

On the other hand, I don't see Tikker using miquotes and lies to support his arguments, so he's one up on you.

Rust keeps repeating I don't understand, I don't understand, when I probably do much better than he does. I, at least, can look at both sides of an argument. Given his posts I'd say I understand the issue far better than he does. If he did, he would do better in his argument than post some chick's Macroevolution paper that a 5th grader could top in his/her science course as proof.

Yes, that's why you thought Harter's post about macroevolution was some kind of crushing attack. Because you clearly knew his arguments were faked to look convincing, just like the quotes you love to trot out are also faked to look convincing. Because you're an expert. Sure.

Most of what Rust is saying is his parroting from Talk.Origins newsgroup. Perhaps I should take you to task for using others quotes? Nah, that would be nitpicking and shallow and I'm here to voice my opinion, not to 'win at the Internetz'. Although you might want to attribute the 'Goddidit' quote as that is taken directly from a post, as well as much of what you are saying.

Tikker parrots Rust and says and I only talk about 'God'. The funny thing is I've never used God once in a post about Macroevolution, merely raised the point that its superflous which most Biologists agree, and which is why they have 10000 different 'ideas', such as Punctuated Equilibrium.

Which you clearly don't understand either, since P.E. is simply a theory about tempo and mode of evolution.

Arlos, Macroevolution has huge gaping wholes. Almost all scientists admit it. We've brought it up in the past to Rust, but he just hops up and down and tells us we're ignorant, and the Ph. D people we quoted are ignorant or misquoted, yadda, yadda, yadda.

How you can seriously claim that 'almost all scientists' think macroevolution has 'huge gaping wholes (sic)' is pretty much the hallmark of you knowing nothing about the subject. And I'll keep pointing out your sad, pathetic repeated use of Creationist quote mining as long as you have the idiocy to keep doing it. It's like being caught repeatedly stealing from the till on video and screaming how the camera is a vile attack on your civil rights. Except you seem unable to recognize your own hypocrisy.

Macroevolution is a debated topic and many have different views. Unfortunately there are some who are petulant in nature and cannot discuss varying viewpoints on message boards. Perhaps in the future it will be proven or disproven. The problem I have is when people try and portray it as 'fact' or close to 'fact' when it is not close to that.

Again, you demonstrate confusion about 'fact' and 'theory' here.

Let's summarize for those who don't want to follow this bullshit

I'll keep saying there are gaping holes in Macroevolution, without referencing anything else. Tikker will keep referencing me saying God, even though I never do.

Rust will keep saying I don't understand, but never have actual discourse or admit I am right and there are huge holes in Macroevolution which every real scientist admits there are.

Both will keep insulting others, while Ganzo, Donnel, and I will try and have rational discussions but be unable due to their complete lack of tolerance.

That pretty much covers it.

Actually, you'll continue to lie and misquote scientists who support macroevolution in order to make it look like they don't. You can try to have all the 'rational discussions' about your crank ideas about science, and some of us will continue to point out how you simply have no understanding of the subject, or for that matter, science in general.

You've never apologized to the board *once* for the repeated use of lies and misquotes to mislead people here into thinking your claims had any serious basis. You're a fraud who clearly has no qualms about lying to support your arguments, which is utterly repellent.

You're a very shallow thinker, Lyion. Arguments that reasonable people would laugh at, you think are somehow overwhelming. Go ahead and mindlessly repeat 'macroevolution is full of wholes' (sic), if it makes you feel smarter or something. It's a lie, but when did lying pose a moral problem for you? I'm shocked you think anyone should believe a damn thing you say, actually.

--R.

[Rust]

For someone who never once mentions god, you reference creationism sites almost exclusively Lyion

Well, they're such a rich source of quotations for him to use to smash the atheists, aren't they?

--R.

[Lyion]

I reference quotes for discussion and to personally learn. That is hardly saying 'Goddidit', or any of the other silliness you accuse me of. I fully admit some are good, and some are bad sites, and I always have. Rust uses 95% of his quotes from talk.origins which has a specific agenda. Funny, that seems fine to you.

Likewise, I've never said 'Evolution' was wrong or bad, as microevolution is indeed factual. I've never said 'Macroevolution' is wrong or bad, but again based on what I've learned and inferred it is very iffy, and not agreed upon even in the science community.

For some reason because you know a little of my personal faith you attack my scientific questions in a rather nasty manner and attribute things to me falsely. There are a few great examples in this thread.

[Markarado]

Rust, my friend, you are a moron ~ Simple as that

[Yamori]

Rust, my friend, you are a moron ~ Simple as that

Wow! Not only is he a Mindia fanboy, but he blows away opposing arguments with one swift and mightly blow! "You are a moron!"

Looks like we've got a real winner added to our ranks.. I'm excited and can't wait for his thoughtful contributions.

[Tikker]

Likewise, I've never said 'Evolution' was wrong or bad, as microevolution is indeed factual. I've never said 'Macroevolution' is wrong or bad, but again based on what I've learned and inferred it is very iffy, and not agreed upon even in the science community.

Lyion, if you actually posted something exactly like what you've just said here, no one would have an issue with it


But you post in absolutes a lot of the time

You link 3 or 4 creationist sites, then misquote(or take out of context) a scientist, then conclude that macroevolution is a fallacy

Just go back to your "mathematical probabilty rules out macroevolution" post for examples

You don't specifically mention God, but when you make the assumption that man is goal of evolution, that most definately is a reflection of your religions leanings (and there's nothing wrong with that, but you refuse to look at the possibility that man is just a byproduct of evolution, and not the end goal)

[Lyion]

Which was an actual valid quote from a mathematician, Tikker. What does that have to do with God? The only way it did was because you started ranting about God. Thats the whole point. We bring up things to discuss and certain people bring God into the equation.

Then afterwards you start to rant how Ganzo and I cannot discuss things without bringing religious connotations up. As I said, reread the posts in just this thread and it's apparent.

Should I just assume your Pro Macroevolution posts are done from an Atheist standpoint? I don't, and I'm interested in the discussion. Unfortunately, as I've said, you make everything into a religious war, despite the fact Ganzo nor I ever brought it into this <or various other> subjects.

We give you the benefit of the doubt. It'd be nice if you did the same.

[veeneedefeesh]

JESUS CHRIST AFTER 15 PAGES NO ONE HAS MOVED THIS TO THE HALL OF SHAME YET?!?!?!?!?!!?

really honestly guys you needx to agree to disagree because this is jsut getting re-dick-you-lus

[Agrajag]

Haha! You said "dick."

[Arlos]

Arlos, Macroevolution has huge gaping wholes.

Actually, the only way you'd think this is if you don't understand what it means.

Almost all scientists admit it.

This is manifestly untrue. The small fringe group scientists YOU consider canon think this, but I bet you that if you did a national poll of biologists, paleontologists, etc. that you'd find only a tiny fraction of them believe there's huge gaping holes in evolution.

admit I am right and there are huge holes in Macroevolution which every real scientist admits there are.

No, we're NOT going to admit that you're right, because you are *WRONG*.

Also, this is ANOTHER case of you doing EXACTLY what I've been harping on for the last several posts, trying to frame the conditions of the debate in order to further your case. By your definition, any scientist who doesn't admit there are "huge holes in macroevolution" is NOT a "REAL" scientist, and therefore, since all the REAL scientists agree with you, and the only opposition are NOT real scientists, ergo, you must be correct! Sorry, but that is, as I said, a complete crock of shit. Whether or not someone believes like you do has *NO* bearing on whether or not they are a "real" scientist. None. Stop trying to twist the debate like this. It's a fundamentally flawed technique, and leads to completely fallacious arguments. You know at least the basics of debate and logic, you know this, and I'll keep calling you on it any time you try it.

-Arlos

[Ganzo]

Oh, and funny, BTW, since in this very thread Ganzo said he believes in evolution, yet you mark him as being in the anti-evolutionary camp.

-Arlos

I didn't say i belive in evolution, i said i belive in science. If science now sais evolution was method of creation, i'm not going to waste my time proving it right or wrong, because if it is right - it dosn't have argument with my faith, and if it's wrong - well science been wrong many times before, earth is flat was dogma and scientific fact before.

Actually, the 'flat earth' is Biblical in origin. Scholars from Eratosthenes onwards knew the earth was round. Columbus didn't go to prove the Earth was round, he went to prove you could sail due west and get to China and India. He was wrong, his math was off.

http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm

But in general all scientific theories are indeed eventually changed due to new evidence. That doesn't mean the current theory is going to be discarded - Newtonian physics are, strictly speaking, clearly wrong, but they are excellent approximations at low speeds. Likewise, there will doubtlessly be newer discoveries about biology but it's doubtful that they will disprove the basic theory of evolution. "Descent with modification" is a fact - it's been observed over and over again.

--R.

While i apretiate link to something i read in 3rd grade, i will chalenge you to prove " the 'flat earth' is Biblical in origin" statement

[Tikker]

Which was an actual valid quote from a mathematician, Tikker. What does that have to do with God? The only way it did was because you started ranting about God. Thats the whole point. We bring up things to discuss and certain people bring God into the equation.

Then afterwards you start to rant how Ganzo and I cannot discuss things without bringing religious connotations up. As I said, reread the posts in just this thread and it's apparent.

Should I just assume your Pro Macroevolution posts are done from an Atheist standpoint? I don't, and I'm interested in the discussion. Unfortunately, as I've said, you make everything into a religious war, despite the fact Ganzo nor I ever brought it into this <or various other> subjects.

We give you the benefit of the doubt. It'd be nice if you did the same.

The bolded part is exactly what I'm getting at Lyion
the quote you used was out of context
Not only was it out of context, you missed the point of it

You keep looking at evolution as a method of getting from single cell organism to man, that there is some sort of intelligent design that was put into place that would result in the creation of man, no?

All I've ever asked, is that you remove the assumption about intelligent design. when there is no specific goal, the results are just simply the results, it doesn't matter how improbable it was to get to that point, it just worked that way


I understand that looking from your point of view, that in order to end up as man, it's highly unlikely that it would happen randomly


we all get that part (that if there was a goal[man] there must be a plan and planned [ID/creation and god])

You just make a lot of assumptions in your logic that are based on your faith. You don't have to directly mention God, or your faith for it to have an impact on the discussion

[Rust]

Oh, and funny, BTW, since in this very thread Ganzo said he believes in evolution, yet you mark him as being in the anti-evolutionary camp.

-Arlos

I didn't say i belive in evolution, i said i belive in science. If science now sais evolution was method of creation, i'm not going to waste my time proving it right or wrong, because if it is right - it dosn't have argument with my faith, and if it's wrong - well science been wrong many times before, earth is flat was dogma and scientific fact before.

Actually, the 'flat earth' is Biblical in origin. Scholars from Eratosthenes onwards knew the earth was round. Columbus didn't go to prove the Earth was round, he went to prove you could sail due west and get to China and India. He was wrong, his math was off.

http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm

But in general all scientific theories are indeed eventually changed due to new evidence. That doesn't mean the current theory is going to be discarded - Newtonian physics are, strictly speaking, clearly wrong, but they are excellent approximations at low speeds. Likewise, there will doubtlessly be newer discoveries about biology but it's doubtful that they will disprove the basic theory of evolution. "Descent with modification" is a fact - it's been observed over and over again.

--R.

While i apretiate link to something i read in 3rd grade, i will chalenge you to prove " the 'flat earth' is Biblical in origin" statement

Well, the Israelites were basically a bunch of shepherds, so it's not shocking they were ignorant about astronomy.

The Bible talks about the Earth repeatedly as having corners, set on pillars, with the heavens like a tent above it. As I understand it, both the Egyptians and the Babylonians had a similar cosmology, so it's not too hard to figure out how the Israelites got the idea.

I'm not going to assume this site link is authoritative, but most of the arguments he makes are pretty commonly understood. I mean, heck, look up the Flat Earth Society link some time. They claim the Earth is flat based on Scripture.

The Bible has a lot of good moral ideas, but it's a crappy science text.

--R.

[Ganzo]

Quoting psalms saying "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable" and reading from it that earth is flat is funny. Psalms are David's poetry, he also said there "If i forget you Jerusalem, let my eyes go blind and my heart dry out." yet to this day no one died from abandoning Judaism. Not to mention when David sais earth(eretz) he speaks of Israel not planet. To this day jews do not call Israel anything but Eretz. So when it's said fixed immovable it means Israel will not be moved somewhere else. See he wrote those after receving prophecies that people will move to Babylon.

Everything else is even worse. Guy plays with words to fit his ideas. Takes things out of context and quotes poetry of psalms and prophets literarly.

And where does it say this

The Bible talks about the Earth repeatedly as having corners, set on pillars, with the heavens like a tent above it.

[Rust]

Quoting psalms saying "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable" and reading from it that earth is flat is funny. Psalms are David's poetry, he also said there "If i forget you Jerusalem, let my eyes go blind and my heart dry out." yet to this day no one died from abandoning Judaism. Not to mention when David sais earth(eretz) he speaks of Israel not planet. To this day jews do not call Israel anything but Eretz. So when it's said fixed immovable it means Israel will not be moved somewhere else. See he wrote those after receving prophecies that people will move to Babylon.

Everything else is even worse. Guy plays with words to fit his ideas. Takes things out of context and quotes poetry of psalms and prophets literarly.

And where does it say this

The Bible talks about the Earth repeatedly as having corners, set on pillars, with the heavens like a tent above it.

Hey Ganzo, I just point out that people have claimed the Bible says the Earth is flat - they do. They're rather obviously *wrong*, and it's easy to show the Earth is not flat, but when did some people listen to evidence saying the Bible is wrong? Greek scholars knew the Earth was round from before the birth of Christ, around 300 BC. The bulk of the Old Testament predates this, however, right? So maybe it's just metaphor when the Bible says the heavens are a vault over the earth, or when Genesis says there is water above the firmament, and God opened windows to let water in to cause the Flood - apparently also a Babylonian idea that water is above the heavens, probably picked up in the Exile along with the entire Noah story.

It's not the Bible's fault some nuts believe they have to take every word of it as inspired and literally true even when a child can prove it in error; that's just people being stupid.

--R.

[Ganzo]

What i'm saying is it dosn't say anywhere in bible that earth is flat. Just because illiterate wackos misquote pasages to fit their ideas it does not mean book sais it.

Bible says the heavens are a vault over the earth

it dosnt, Shamaim is Sky not Heaven. And saying Sky is vault over earth is not incorect.

and God opened windows to let water in to cause the Flood

opening skhina(not window) is always used when God`s contact with this world mentioned, ether when he speaks or acts. It is not big portal that water pours out of, but spiritual conection to God

[Eziekial]

How about we all just admit we have NO FUCKING IDEA how things have come to be and we all must have some type of FAITH to come to grips with our own reasons for existance? Be that a religion, a science, or a comet named hale-bopp; does it even matter if we can't be civil to one another and have a calm, adult-like discussion?

[Gidan]

How about we all just admit we have NO FUCKING IDEA how things have come to be and we all must have some type of FAITH to come to grips with our own reasons for existance? Be that a religion, a science, or a comet named hale-bopp; does it even matter if we can't be civil to one another and have a calm, adult-like discussion?

Or lack of reason for existance

[Eziekial]

Or lack of reason

[Wrath Child]

Hey Ganzo, I just point out that people have claimed the Bible says the Earth is flat - they do. They're rather obviously *wrong*

And you're clearly one of them! You stated as fact that the Bible is the origin of the flat earth theory- "Actually, the 'flat earth' is Biblical in origin" - and then duck for cover when your "proof" is shredded within seconds.

I'm really surprised you didn't offer this up this classic gem as proof of your theory:

Isaiah 11:12. 'And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.'

Rust:The "four corners"? AHA! SEE? I told you it was in the Bible! Now didn't I? DIDN'T I??? AAARRRRAAAAHH!

What I love about you evolutionist wackos is how you respond to anyone who questions any aspect of evolution. You grit your teeth, clench your fists and mightily declare all non-true believers to be unsightly heretics! Sound familiar?

Rust/Tikker/Arlos, meet Mindia!

[mofish]

No, doesnt sound familiar at all. What you dont seem to get is this. No one has a problem with genuine scientific inquiry into the TOE. If something is wrong, great. New discovery.

What people do have a problem with is bad science being used as a bad cover for an attack on well established science that is only being launched because some people feel a particular piece of science disagrees with their dogma. Transparent.

Well, transparent to most people.

Evolutionist wackos? Christians believe that God flooded the earth and saved two of every animal and stuck them on a boat, and they repopulated the world. And then God sent his son to be killed, but didnt really want him to be killed, but his son and God are the same person, along with some ghost. Oh yeah, and the earth was created in 7 days, and woman was created from a rib torn out of the first man. And dinosaurs didnt really exist.

And people who believe the millions of pieces of evidence pointing toward evolution are wackos?

[Arlos]

Oh, and don't forget, that according to the strict creationists, Earth was created on October 27th, Sunday, at 9am in 4004 BC.

Never mind the fact that we have buildings on Malta that are older, and just ignore the cave paintings that are 20,000 years old, or all the evidence of habitation in the americas going back about 13,000 years. We evolutionists are making all that up!

-Arlos