Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   On this day in 1831, a young Charles Darwin sets sail and does not win an award   (wired.com) divider line 139
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2492 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2010 at 2:54 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-12-27 11:04:58 PM  
jingks:

Shhhh... this is the Bevets and FloydA show.


i105.photobucket.com

;-)

I rarely engage Bevets because he is unwilling to debate honestly. I sometimes (like now) get tipsy enough to be willing to wade through his lies just to demonstrate to everyone watching that he is dishonest.

But now, I think I'm going to go eat some fried chicken and watch TV. I'll check back later to see Bevets' ham-handed attempt to avoid answering a simple question.
 
2010-12-27 11:11:13 PM  
andrewmoriarty:

Eugenics has more in common with 19th century Creationism then it does Evolution.

The creed of Eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution. ~ Francis Galton
 
2010-12-27 11:15:57 PM  
Bevets: blurp blurp blurp


Which of the 14 points is the atheist one?
 
2010-12-27 11:17:11 PM  
FloydA: I rarely engage Bevets because he is unwilling to debate honestly. I sometimes (like now) get tipsy enough to be willing to wade through his lies

I can't see that anyone would be convinced of anything by the various quotes. It's like reading the page before the introduction to an argument. The argument never comes. Quotes are great to illustrate points or to lend a little authority to an argument. But post after post of just quotes? There's no argument there, no substance to respond to. It leaves us to have to guess at the point the quoter is making, and why should we do his work for him? If he has a point, let him state it. If he isn't stating a point, I see no reason to humor him with a response. Clearly I have to drink some more.
 
2010-12-27 11:19:52 PM  
Bevets: The creed of Eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution. ~ Francis Galton

Poor application of science does not invalidate the science. ~ Jingks
 
2010-12-27 11:25:53 PM  
Bevets: Gordon Bennett:

Come on, Bevets, join in the discussion with your own words.

The All-Powerful Atheismo:

Yeah no kidding, Bevets.

I have found that farkers who complain about my style of posting do so merely as a pretext to avoid the substance of my argument.


As your arguments contain no substance, your finding is demonstrably erroneous.

Because you are willing to state demonstrablelies as a means of advocating your position, no claim that you issue is credible.
 
2010-12-27 11:31:50 PM  
"I am not a theist. I am not an agnostic. I am not an atheist.

I choose the way of the way before I was born and after I am dead. I am unburdened.

I yam what I yam."

-Koan by Zen Master Popeye
 
2010-12-27 11:37:51 PM  
Bevets: Bevets:

Origin of man now proved. --Metaphysics must flourish. --He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke. ~ Charles Darwin

Bevets:

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

FloydA:

I can only conclude that you do not dispute actual evolution, and your argument is solely an attempt to mislead others by portraying evolution as something that it is not.

I dispute your atheism (and I am disappointed you have missed that point)


Atheism is not relevant to the current subject of discussion. Your attempt to alter the subject of discussion is dishonest.
 
2010-12-27 11:40:14 PM  
Bevets: andrewmoriarty:

Eugenics has more in common with 19th century Creationism then it does Evolution.

The creed of Eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution. ~ Francis Galton


Except Galtonian Eugenics was based on the work done by prominent Creationists, not Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin did not believe that Natural selection would work on Human societies.

Fyi, merely posting a one-liner doesn't make it so.
 
2010-12-28 12:04:49 AM  
The BevetsQuotes™ fall under the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority. It's not different than buying Nike shoes because Michael Jordan says so. Just do it!
 
2010-12-28 12:24:32 AM  
The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: The BevetsQuotes™ fall under the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority. It's not different than buying Nike shoes because Michael Jordan says so. Just do it!

not necessarily. If we are having a discussion of whether God exists and I give you a quote from Einstein mentioning God, that might be an illogical appeal to authority. That is, if I was making the argument "Einstein was a genius. Einstein talked of God as if God existed. Therefore God must exist."

If, on the other hand, we were discussing whether or not Einstein believed in God, there would be no logical fallacy in quoting Einstein mentioning God. Of course then we'd have to look at all of his other quotes to see what he meant by the one quote and to put it into context. But the quotes wouldn't be a fallacious Appeal to Authority.

The thing is, we are left to decide Bevet's purpose in using the quotes and then decide for ourselves how the quotes advance the argument. So they might be illogical Appeals to Authority or they might be reasonable evidence. But why the heck should we be the ones to make his argument for him? If he doesn't care enough to construct the argument then I won't bother. He can't defend the context of his quotes and it's no fair to pick on people who can't articulate or defend a point.
 
2010-12-28 12:30:01 AM  
thatguyjoe: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: The BevetsQuotes™ fall under the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority. It's not different than buying Nike shoes because Michael Jordan says so. Just do it!

not necessarily. If we are having a discussion of whether God exists and I give you a quote from Einstein mentioning God, that might be an illogical appeal to authority. That is, if I was making the argument "Einstein was a genius. Einstein talked of God as if God existed. Therefore God must exist."

If, on the other hand, we were discussing whether or not Einstein believed in God, there would be no logical fallacy in quoting Einstein mentioning God. Of course then we'd have to look at all of his other quotes to see what he meant by the one quote and to put it into context. But the quotes wouldn't be a fallacious Appeal to Authority.

The thing is, we are left to decide Bevet's purpose in using the quotes and then decide for ourselves how the quotes advance the argument. So they might be illogical Appeals to Authority or they might be reasonable evidence. But why the heck should we be the ones to make his argument for him? If he doesn't care enough to construct the argument then I won't bother. He can't defend the context of his quotes and it's no fair to pick on people who can't articulate or defend a point.


Actually, what Bevets is doing is known as either Begging the Question, or the Gish Gallop.

Either prove intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, Bevets. If evolution doesn't exist, these guys have been furthering the conspiracy for 12 years. Go prove them wrong with quotes!

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
 
2010-12-28 12:31:44 AM  
Evolution has nothing to say about God. Religion has plenty to say about science, including evolution, most of it demonstrably false. God hasn't had much to say about either one, ever.
 
2010-12-28 12:43:09 AM  
hardinparamedic: Actually, what Bevets is doing is known as either Begging the Question

I just don't see enough of an argument to beg a question or appeal to authority. Everyone else seems to be willing to decide what it is he's trying to argue with his quotes. While I could take a stab at guessing, I'm not going to. If someone wants to make an argument I am willing to hear it. If they won't commit to their position at least enough to STATE their position, I just can't be bothered.
 
2010-12-28 02:53:56 AM  
Few contributions to human knowledge rival the those of Darwin's theories, and in my opinion none surpass it. The explanatory scope of the theory is staggering. Humans are animals, mysteriously different in a few ways from our closest primate relatives but so similar in many others. The anatomy, function and behavior of any animal or plant can be understood with reference to the environments of its ancestors. Simple processes of heredity, demography and time is all that's needed to produce all the diversity and complexity of life, all without any conscious design or intent. But most importantly, that attempts to define "ideals" or "kinds" are hopeless; there is no such thing as an archetypical "human" or "horse" or "turtle", and our attempts to create such are illusory and fluid. Populations are constantly changing, minute by minute, in ways we simply don't have the resources or the brainpower to understand. Even though Darwin knew only a sliver of what we know now about genes, biodiversity, and behavioral ecology, we still call the modern research "Darwinian" because it works from the general ideas that he came up with, in the language he developed for it.

Religiously-minded objectors are right to fear this view of the world, because it renders obsolete simplistic narratives about who we are and where we came from. And it doesn't give us easy answers about ourselves. By analogy, we've discarded pretty paintings for half of a jigsaw puzzle we'll probably never be able to finish. And the sad truth is that humans aren't really good at thinking on geological timescales, or conceptualizing the unfamiliar processes of evolution, for basically the same reasons we suck at orienting in a zero-gravity environment. But no other scientific discovery has so profoundly altered the scientific, social, religious, and philosophical branches of knowledge as the consequences of the voyage of the Beagle.
 
2010-12-28 03:09:08 AM  
kosumi: Few contributions to human knowledge rival the those of Darwin's theories, and in my opinion none surpass it.

Mendel could kick Darwin's ass. He has monk skills.
 
2010-12-28 04:08:20 AM  
Bevets bears false witness (taking quotes out of context) and has contempt for God, in trying to show that God is too weak to create evolution. On top of it, he can't do anything but take quotes out of context, and never offers anything that comes from his own mind.

Either he is a completely delusional Christian, or he does this on purpose to make all people that believe in Christianity look completely delusional.

One day he will have to face God, as a liar whom is contemptuous of God's abilities.

I actually look forward to seeing you in hell, Bevets, just so I can laugh in your face =)
 
2010-12-28 06:26:33 AM  
Origin of man now proved. --Metaphysics must flourish. --He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke. ~ Charles Darwin

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine


FloydA:

I can only conclude that you do not dispute actual evolution, and your argument is solely an attempt to mislead others by portraying evolution as something that it is not.

Bevets:

I dispute your atheism (and I am disappointed you have missed that point)

thatguyjoe:

Everyone else seems to be willing to decide what it is he's trying to argue with his quotes. While I could take a stab at guessing, I'm not going to. If someone wants to make an argument I am willing to hear it. If they won't commit to their position at least enough to STATE their position, I just can't be bothered.

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

HTH
 
2010-12-28 06:49:57 AM  
Bevets: When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. ~ Cicero

It's not abuse when your sources are highly unreliable and are seriously discredited in nearly every field of science and academia.

Reset your premises and start again.
 
2010-12-28 07:26:13 AM  
Bevets: Ladies and Gentleman, we have here a fine example of a farker who would like VERY MUCH to present a counter argument -- if only there was one to offer.

It's very very hard to present a counter argument when you have yet to offer one in the first place, Bevets. But if I had to wager a guess, I would say that you believe that evolution is the main thrust of atheism, a belief system in opposition to religious orthodoxy. Of course this is all wrong, but that doesn't stop you from pretending it is anyway.

All your quotes have been soundly discredited, thrashed, overturned, refuted, and explained away by countless farkers over the years. Yet you still post these quotes as if they are winning arguments and above question, like religious scripture. They've been addressed. They've been defeated. And you ignore their faults, their failings, and their irrelevant positions and keep posting them expecting them to win over the hearts and minds of Farkers, when really the exact opposite effect is achieved. And lately you've begun to realize the utter futility of your mission and are beginning to address us directly, but you're still too lazy to concoct a cohesive argument, instead relying on quotes from who-cares and links to who-knows where. Makes the discussion very disjointed when your websites is so ignorable.

But why? Do you like the abuse? Do you think its working? If you post a quote ten times, and people explain to you ten times why its wrong and why your argument is faulty, posting it an 11th time is not going to magically win the debate. You're going to have to offer up a counter-argument or a different argument. But you never do. You're like a fly hitting your head on the glass over and over again expecting it to move.

The rest of us are just putting up more glass.
 
2010-12-28 07:34:20 AM  
Ishkur:

All your quotes have been soundly discredited, thrashed, overturned, refuted, and explained away by countless farkers over the years. Yet you still post these quotes as if they are winning arguments and above question, like religious scripture. They've been addressed. They've been defeated.

When a valid criticism of Darwinism is first proposed, it is dismissed without an adequate response, either on some technicality or with some irrelevancy or by simply being ignored. As time passes, people forget that Darwinists never adequately met the criticism. But Darwinism is still ruling the roost. Since the criticism failed to dislodge Darwinism, the criticism itself must have been discredited or refuted somewhere. Thereafter the criticism becomes known as "that discredited criticism that was refuted a long time ago." And, after that, even to raise the criticism betrays an outdated conception of evolutionary theory. In this way, the criticism, though entirely valid, simply vanishes into oblivion. ~ William Dembski
 
2010-12-28 07:44:58 AM  
FloydA: I rarely engage Bevets because he is unwilling to debate honestly

I just find his thought processes fascinating. How can someone so benightedly intelligent be so consistently wrong about everything for so long, and still be convinced he's right, even when presented with the clear facts right in front of him. The level of cognitive dissonance is off the chart. I'm not really interested in his arguments insomuch as the leaps of logic used in coming up with them.
 
2010-12-28 07:46:53 AM  
Bevets: William Dembski

Dembski's Law:

In any sufficient discussion involving evolution, the propensity for someone to mention a specious study or quote from the Discovery Institute (ie: Dembski, Meyer, Behe, etc.) approaches one.

The Discovery Institute is a right-wing thinktank founded by Christian fundamentalists (it even has a not-so-subtle, cross-like appearance for a logo) and funded by the Republican Party, used to lobby for Creationist thought and doctrine. It popularized the term "Teach the Controversy" in what they refer to as the Wedge Strategy, by insisting that the public debate on evolution is unsettled and that there are valid alternative theories (but really just one: Creationism). The Discovery Institute is not a scientific research body. It is a Public Relations firm. Most of its money goes into marketing and publishing, not science.

For these reasons, The Discovery Institute is NOT a scientific institution. It has not done any science. It has NO accredited papers, journals or research, and its modus operandi is to finance specious studies -- usually in layman book form, the lowest form of science -- to advocate theological agendas.

Meyer, Dembski, Behe, Johnson and everyone else at the Discovery Institute are essentially frauds, and ID is fringe, speculative nonsense, God in scientific clothing, fringe crackpot junk pseudoscience, the phrenology of biology.
 
2010-12-28 12:02:27 PM  
Ishkur:

The Discovery Institute is NOT a scientific institution. It has not done any science. It has NO accredited papers, journals or research, and its modus operandi is to finance specious studies -- usually in layman book form, the lowest form of science -- to advocate theological agendas.

Bevets:

When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. ~ Cicero

Ishkur:

All your quotes have been soundly discredited, thrashed, overturned, refuted, and explained away by countless farkers over the years. Yet you still post these quotes as if they are winning arguments and above question, like religious scripture. They've been addressed. They've been defeated.

Bevets:

When a valid criticism of Darwinism is first proposed, it is dismissed without an adequate response, either on some technicality or with some irrelevancy or by simply being ignored. ~ William Dembski

Ishkur:

The Discovery Institute is NOT a scientific institution. It has not done any science. It has NO accredited papers, journals or research, and its modus operandi is to finance specious studies -- usually in layman book form, the lowest form of science -- to advocate theological agendas.

I do that deliberately. I like forcing people I don't respect -- and whom I know I don't have any chance of changing their opinion because they're so closeminded -- to spend stupid extra minutes searching and sifting and crufting together replies ~ Ishkur
 
2010-12-28 12:24:09 PM  
Bevets:

FloydA:

I can only conclude that you do not dispute actual evolution, and your argument is solely an attempt to mislead others by portraying evolution as something that it is not.

Bevets:

I dispute your atheism (and I am disappointed you have missed that point)



I understand quite well that you don't like atheism. What I don't understand is why you keep arguing against evolution. They are not the same thing.

Atheism is an absence of belief in God or gods.

Evolution is the differential persistence of variant alleles in a gene pool that occurs over the course of generations, by means of those 14 mechanisms I posted above.

If you want to argue about atheism, go right ahead. If you want to argue about evolution, that's fine too. But conflating the two as though they were synonymous is simply false. Acceptance of evolution does not require atheism and atheism does not require acceptance of evolution. You have been informed of this, multiple times. Please take note of it this time.
 
2010-12-28 12:41:58 PM  
Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:


Origin of man now proved. --Metaphysics must flourish. --He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke. ~ Charles Darwin

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:


Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

FloydA:

Acceptance of evolution does not require atheism and atheism does not require acceptance of evolution.

Where do you suppose Dr Provine came up with such a silly idea?
 
2010-12-28 01:00:14 PM  
Bevets:

Bevets:

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

FloydA:

Acceptance of evolution does not require atheism and atheism does not require acceptance of evolution.

Where do you suppose Dr Provine came up with such a silly idea?



Why should I care?

Once again, you are missing your target. If you want to argue about atheism, go for it. Evolution is those 14 points I posted. None of those 14 points even mention atheism.

I care not one tiny whit what Provine's opinion of atheism might be. At all. No amount of out of context quotes will change that.

If you want to argue against evolution, pick one or more of those 14 points and criticize it.

If you want to argue about atheism, leave evolution out of it.

It's that simple.
 
2010-12-28 01:40:03 PM  
Bevets: When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. ~ Cicero

It's not ad hominem when it's true. If someone is a consistent liar, there is no basis for relying on his expertise, even when he tells the truth (hint hint).

Reset your premises and start again.

Bevets: It has NO accredited papers, journals or research, an

In reference to what you quoted here: All of this is wrong (pdf).

I would also like you to read the following scientific paper (pdf) by number theorist Jeffrey Shallit, on Dembski's theories. Read the whole thing, if you have the time. I know you won't (nor would you understand it), tho, so here's the important parts:

"Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."

"We have argued that Dembski's justification for "intelligent design" is flawed in many respects. His concepts of complexity and information are either orthogonal or opposite to the use of these terms in the literature. His concept of specification is problematic and ill-defined. Dembski's use of the term "complex specified information" is inconsistent, and his proof of the "Law of Conservation of Information" is flawed. Finally, his claims about the limitations of natural causes and computation are incorrect. We conclude that there is no reason to accept his claims."
 
2010-12-28 03:29:26 PM  
I think you guys broke Bevetsbot.
 
2010-12-29 06:47:11 AM  
Origin of man now proved. --Metaphysics must flourish. --He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke. ~ Charles Darwin

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine


FloydA:

Bevets is, as usual, distorting the work of an honest and decent man by taking words out of context for rhetorical ends, because Bevets is a dishonest and malevolent man.

Bevets:

Perhaps this would be an opportunity for you to clarify exactly how these quotes are misleading.

When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. ~ Cicero


FloydA:

He even knows that his own style of "debate by contextectomy" is logically flawed, and he has been able to point out the problems with that style of argument when other people have used it in reply to him. Therefore, he is not only spreading false information, but he is doing so willfully and consciously.

Bevets:

Ladies and Gentleman, we have here a fine example of a farker who would like VERY MUCH to present a counter argument -- if only there was one to offer.

FloydA:

Acceptance of evolution does not require atheism and atheism does not require acceptance of evolution.

Bevets:

Where do you suppose Dr Provine came up with such a silly idea?

FloydA:

Why should I care?

I care not one tiny whit what Provine's opinion of atheism might be. At all.


Far more crucial than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know. ~ Eric Hoffer

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick

The Truth will set you free. ~ Jesus
 
2010-12-29 12:32:39 PM  
Bevets:

You're still not getting it.

"Atheism" is not a mechanism of evolution. If you want to argue against atheism, feel free. But stop calling it evolution. Evolution is those 14 points. If you want to argue against evolution, you have to argue against that list. Arguing against atheism does absolutely nothing to challenge evolution, and vice versa.

Evolution would still be real even if there were no atheists at all.

Do you understand this?
 
2010-12-29 02:54:45 PM  
Bevets:

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

Bevets:

Origin of man now proved. --Metaphysics must flourish. --He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke. ~ Charles Darwin

Bevets:

Darwin did more to secularize the Western world than any other single thinker in history. ~ Niles Eldredge

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine


FloydA:

Acceptance of evolution does not require atheism and atheism does not require acceptance of evolution.

Bevets:

Where do you suppose Dr Provine came up with such a silly idea?

FloydA:

Why should I care?

I care not one tiny whit what Provine's opinion of atheism might be. At all.


FloydA:

"Atheism" is not a mechanism of evolution. If you want to argue against atheism, feel free. But stop calling it evolution. Evolution is those 14 points. If you want to argue against evolution, you have to argue against that list. Arguing against atheism does absolutely nothing to challenge evolution, and vice versa.

Evolution would still be real even if there were no atheists at all.


Readers of my article and the responses may have noticed that where I attacked Darwinism and the establishment of naturalism, Thomas Jukes and William Provine responded with a spirited defense of evolution. The choice of words is important, because "evolution" is a vague term with immense power to confuse...The important claim of "evolution" is that life developed gradually from nonliving matter to its present state of diverse complexity through purposeless natural mechanisms that are known to science. Evolution in this sense is a grand metaphysical system..."Evolution" also designates some relatively modest modifications in biological populations that result from environmental pressures. Bacterial populations evolve resistance to antibiotics: evolution causes dark moths to preponderate over light moths when the background trees are darkened by smoke. These examples have nothing to do with whatever creative process formed bacteria and insects in the first place, but since the same word is used to designate both limited adaptive modification with fixed boundaries and the whole naturalistic metaphysical system, it is easy to give the impression that naturalistic evolution (all the way from microorganism to man) is a "fact."...To borrow Irving Kristol's prescription, "Our goal should be to have biology and evolution taught in a way that points to what we don't know as well as what we do." I would only add that it would help if we could get the science educators to define that word "evolution" precisely and use it consistently. ~ Phillip Johnson

'Evolution' is a slippery word. I would say 'Minor changes within species happen', but Darwin didn't write a book called 'How Existing Species Change Over Time'. He wrote a book called 'The Origin of Species'. He purported to show how the same process leads to new species, in fact, every species. And the evidence for that grand claim is, in my opinion, almost totally lacking. ~ Jonathan Wells
 
2010-12-29 03:01:45 PM  
Bevets: Bevets:
I would only add that it would help if we could get the science educators to define that word "evolution" precisely and use it consistently. ~ Phillip Johnson

'Evolution' is a slippery word. ~ Jonathan Wells


Their ignorance of the definition of the term "evolution" cannot reasonably be used as an argument against the value of the term.

You have been told, right here in this very thread, that "Evolution is the differential persistence of variant alleles in a gene pool that occurs over the course of generations, by means of those 14 mechanisms I posted above."

I told you.

You replied to the post, so I know you read it. Therefore you do not have the excuse of ignorance that I am willing (for the sake of argument) to grant Johnson and Wells. From them, it may be simple ignorance. From you, it is dishonesty.

If you have to lie to try to advance your point, your point is not worth supporting.

Good bye.
 
2010-12-29 03:05:06 PM  
Bevets: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick

You really shouldn't be quoting this, since its a good argument against the existence of a supernatural deity. But then again, Philip K. Dick isn't a scientist or a theologian, so what the hell would he know?

/did you read that pdf report smashing Dembski's theories to dust?
//are you going to stop quoting Dembski now that he's been outed as a liar and a charlatan?
///no. You'll forget this thread ever happened, and post the same stupid quotes in the next thread. And guess what we'll do in reply?
 
2010-12-29 03:06:32 PM  
Bevets: Phillip Johnson

Is from the Discovery Institute.

The Discovery Institute is a right-wing thinktank founded by Christian fundamentalists (it even has a not-so-subtle, cross-like appearance for a logo) and funded by the Republican Party, used to lobby for Creationist thought and doctrine. It popularized the term "Teach the Controversy" in what they refer to as the Wedge Strategy, by insisting that the public debate on evolution is unsettled and that there are valid alternative theories (but really just one: Creationism). The Discovery Institute is not a scientific research body. It is a Public Relations firm. Most of its money goes into marketing and publishing, not science.

For these reasons, The Discovery Institute is NOT a scientific institution. It has not done any science. It has NO accredited papers, journals or research, and its modus operandi is to finance specious studies -- usually in layman book form, the lowest form of science -- to advocate theological agendas.

Meyer, Dembski, Behe, Johnson and everyone else at the Discovery Institute are essentially frauds, and ID is fringe, speculative nonsense, God in scientific clothing, fringe crackpot junk pseudoscience, the phrenology of biology.
 
2010-12-29 09:37:49 PM  
Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:


Origin of man now proved. --Metaphysics must flourish. --He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke. ~ Charles Darwin

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

FloydA:


Bevets is, as usual, distorting the work of an honest and decent man by taking words out of context for rhetorical ends, because Bevets is a dishonest and malevolent man.

Bevets:

Perhaps this would be an opportunity for you to clarify exactly how these quotes are misleading.

Bevets:


When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. ~ Cicero

Bevets:

Ladies and Gentleman, we have here a fine example of a farker who would like VERY MUCH to present a counter argument -- if only there was one to offer.

FloydA:

I can only conclude that you do not dispute actual evolution, and your argument is solely an attempt to mislead others by portraying evolution as something that it is not.

FloydA:

Acceptance of evolution does not require atheism and atheism does not require acceptance of evolution.

Bevets:

Where do you suppose Dr Provine came up with such a silly idea?

FloydA:


Why should I care?

I care not one tiny whit what Provine's opinion of atheism might be. At all. No amount of out of context quotes will change that.


Bevets:

Evolution in this sense is a grand metaphysical system..."Evolution" also designates some relatively modest modifications in biological populations that result from environmental pressures. Bacterial populations evolve resistance to antibiotics: evolution causes dark moths to preponderate over light moths when the background trees are darkened by smoke. These examples have nothing to do with whatever creative process formed bacteria and insects in the first place, but since the same word is used to designate both limited adaptive modification with fixed boundaries and the whole naturalistic metaphysical system, it is easy to give the impression that naturalistic evolution (all the way from microorganism to man) is a "fact."...I would only add that it would help if we could get the science educators to define that word "evolution" precisely and use it consistently. ~ Phillip Johnson

'Evolution' is a slippery word. I would say 'Minor changes within species happen', but Darwin didn't write a book called 'How Existing Species Change Over Time'. He wrote a book called 'The Origin of Species'. He purported to show how the same process leads to new species, in fact, every species. And the evidence for that grand claim is, in my opinion, almost totally lacking. ~ Jonathan Wells


FloydA:

Their ignorance of the definition of the term "evolution" cannot reasonably be used as an argument against the value of the term.

You have been told, right here in this very thread, that "Evolution is the differential persistence of variant alleles in a gene pool that occurs over the course of generations, by means of those 14 mechanisms I posted above."

I told you.

You replied to the post, so I know you read it. Therefore you do not have the excuse of ignorance that I am willing (for the sake of argument) to grant Johnson and Wells. From them, it may be simple ignorance. From you, it is dishonesty.

If you have to lie to try to advance your point, your point is not worth supporting.

Good bye.


Is Dr Provine also ignorant of the term?

...

For anyone still reading, here is a trip down memory lane:

If you can fake sincerity,
you can
fake pretty much anything. ~ Kerpal32
 
2010-12-29 09:51:35 PM  
Bevets:

Is Dr Provine also ignorant of the term?



Is Dr. Provine here?

He is welcome to defend his claims. That's not my job. I defend my statements, you should defend yours.

Your statements, unfortunately, are completely indefensible because you are a liar.

I imagine it feels pretty horrible to be you. But I assure you that you can change. You don't have to lie all the time, you can start being honest. We will forgive you if you do.

We're only trying to help you.
 
2010-12-29 10:05:14 PM  
Hey Bevets,

Some of your links are broken there, so I wasn't able to follow them and accurately get the full gist of your argument. Would you mind posting them again for everyone's benefit, and double check to make sure they're valid so we don't run into the same problem.

Thanks a bunch!
 
2010-12-29 10:30:35 PM  
Bevets: ~ Kerpal32

Addendum:

Kerpal has made it clear that he has no desire to engage in polite discussion or treat others with respect. As a result, I have placed him in my "ignore" file for his pathological rudeness.

Please refrain from quoting him in your posts to me, unless you wish to accept his rudeness and hostility as your own.
 
Displayed 39 of 139 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report