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.

(Why evolution is true)   Creationist lists biologists who don't accept natural selection. Another biologist writes them and asks them if that is so. "Annie Hall" hilarity ensues he publishes the replies   (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com) divider line 179
    More: Obvious, Annie Hall, Discovery Institute, selections, Marshall McLuhan, multicellular organisms, innovations, Michael Lynch, Rick Warren  
•       •       •

10047 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Dec 2012 at 12:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



179 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-13 10:31:48 PM

I drunk what: Bondith: Oh bugger, they're trolling each other now. Maybe they'll cancel each other out and leave the rest of us alone.

actually that one is a bit more of a one way monologue, but i try to be polite




Yeah "polite"! Sure...that's the ticket! You keep telling yourself that.

Actually, ISers like you two gentlemen are good for business. Great "springboards" to get my ultimate Truth out there to these otherwise corrupted farkers.

But you see IDW... *chuckles nervously as he leers around to see if anyone notices his ineptitude* you keep thinking that everyone sees my Nature/God theory as the greatest universalist abstractionism ever, and I will keep this flock turned towards HIS light. All the while you can do your best to twist God's message. Whatever, I'm easy.
 
2012-12-14 08:46:57 AM
nobody wants to talk about Science? ok, later

vactech: You keep telling yourself that.


sorry i can't hear you, because i'm awesome-clever-smart which means you're on ignore

everyone look at what a laughing stock he is ;)
 
2012-12-14 08:55:10 AM

I drunk what: nobody wants to talk about Science? ok, later

vactech: You keep telling yourself that.

sorry i can't hear you, because i'm awesome-clever-smart which means you're on ignore

everyone look at what a laughing stock he is ;)



No one gets you quite as wound up as mamoru does. Not sure what happened there, but it is amusing to see you thrash whenever he shows up in a thread.
 
2012-12-14 09:04:58 AM

I drunk what: so it would seem that you owe me an apology

/ready when you are


*crickets*

if you don't respond by the time this thread closes, we will accept your answer of:

"i regretfully decline"

as for the only unresolved issue, if e_e is still around and wishes to throw you a bone, and give you one thing to be right about, i'd be happy to inquire him about what his actual position on this topic is... *readies crowbar*

...even though you weren't able to invest the slightest bit of effort on your part

/i wouldn't hold my breath

peace be with you
 
2012-12-14 09:26:41 AM

guestguy: No one gets you quite as wound up as mamoru does. Not sure what happened there, but it is amusing to see you thrash whenever he shows up in a thread.


i wouldn't quite say thrash, however you are correct some people go the extra mile to make it on my shiat list

and i'm quite sure i've already explained this multiple times before,

back in the day, when i fell for trolls more often (when i was a tad less jaded and waaaay too patient) i made the terrible mistake of wasting days, threads, endless walls of text (and we all know how much IDW hates those things), on that sorry good for nothing wretch

he actually literally TROLLED me into thinking that he was a sincere intellectually curious civilized human being

we had conversed back and forth for an average amount of time, and one day in the middle of a VERY long series of posts, with no snark or sarcasm from me, he then posts to another person in the thread (and did not even have the decency to inform me directly) that: lulz that IDW is such laughing stock cuz i haz him on ignore TROLOLOLOLOL, I TROL HIM!

so yes, even though by that time i had already been prepared to deal with complete and utter disappoint (this was ironically around the time that KB, FloydA, etc... were forming the IB) needless to say, i was a little more miffed than usual seeing how i was IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONVERSATION with him

i wasn't even sure why he wasn't responding... i just assumed like most cases, that what i said struck a nerve and that person is no longer interested in continuing the discussion

but to pull the old lulz I TROL U bit?? not cool

but hey, who am i to judge? looking back on it now, i'm sure it earned him all sorts of street cred with his beloved Idiot Brigade, so clearly it was worth it after all...

there is a special place in Hell reserved for this type

at least FloydA is able to remain civil, though i utterly detest his whole purpose in life, i respect him 1,000 times more than those good for nothing trolls (which still doesn't say much)
 
2012-12-14 10:23:35 AM

I drunk what: guestguy: ***snip***


I will say, on a scale of 1-Entertaining, you crank that shiat to 11.
 
2012-12-14 10:28:57 AM

roc6783: I drunk what: guestguy: ***snip***

I will say, on a scale of 1-Entertaining, you crank that shiat to 11.


*ahem*

I drunk what: if you don't respond by the time this thread closes, we will accept your answer of:

"i regretfully decline"


tick tock tick tock

/not kidding
//you know the magic word
 
2012-12-14 11:16:35 AM

I drunk what: i have a question about #12 if anyone is interested


Then ask it
 
2012-12-14 11:28:43 AM

I drunk what: as for the only unresolved issue, if e_e is still around and wishes to throw you a bone, and give you one thing to be right about, i'd be happy to inquire him about what his actual position on this topic is... *readies crowbar*


If you want me to respond to something it helps if you quote my full name in bold, so I get an e-mail alert. I don't always keep up with these threads continuously. Either way, since you are responding to yourself in that thread, I have no idea what the original statement or person you are referring to there. Or what I am supposed to be giving my opinion on.

Oh and as for you're whole Idiot Brigade nonsense. FloydA isn't a "hateful atheist." Despite what you want to force on others with your overly broad usage, he, myself, and many others, when we use the term Creationist/creationist are not referring to all theists of any stripe. It is a narrower subset of YEC, OEC, and ID (of the Discovery Institute variety). See usage of the term Creationism in legal proceedings and academic texts since about the Scopes trial or so and the various Supreme Court cases in the US that are relevant.

I've been participating, with him and others, in these threads since 2005. About the time the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial kicked off.

Yes, there are plenty of anti-theist, anti-Christian trolls in these threads as well. I find it best to ignore them. But not everyone attacking Creationism (how I and others use it) and Intelligent Design (again how it is typically used in this context) are attacking theism or belief in general.
 
2012-12-14 12:35:40 PM

entropic_existence: I drunk what: i have a question about #12 if anyone is interested

Then ask it


where in the fossil record do we find sufficient evidence to explain the diversity of life (namely the sudden appearance of the phyla during the cambrian explosion)?

also does this lack of any supporting evidence bother any evolutionists who claim to subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution which clearly focuses on concepts such as Universal Common Ancestry, and any associated claims-beliefs resulting from this premise?
 
2012-12-14 12:48:11 PM

entropic_existence: Despite what you want to force on others with your overly broad usage, he, myself, and many others, when we use the term Creationist/creationist are not referring to all theists of any stripe. It is a narrower subset of YEC, OEC, and ID (of the Discovery Institute variety). See usage of the term Creationism in legal proceedings and academic texts since about the Scopes trial or so and the various Supreme Court cases in the US that are relevant.


ok humpty dumpty, let's do it the hard way

we'll go real slow so everyone can keep up:

1. is the wiki def. i posted earlier in this thread, acceptable for any discussion?

2. for now, don't worry about how other people are using it, just establish what it means first, then we can come back to other's views later

3. if you are using some other def. of "creationist" than the commonly used def. please provide it now, however please do not confuse yourself by introducing subsets of that def., nor historical analysis of this word, unless it has direct bearing on the proposal of your current version of this word

tl;dr

Is this a creationist? (a simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice):

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. ~wiki

and therefore...

A Creationist is a person who has the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
 
2012-12-14 01:13:54 PM

I drunk what: namely the sudden appearance of the phyla during the cambrian explosion)?


I'll field this one boys. I am a master theologian, but I dabble in Agrophysics.

The Cambrian Explosion is a cosmological theory (as documented by Newton), holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent "explosion" (of the cambrian type) of a very small agglomeration of cambrian matter of extremely high density and temperature.

Again IDW, you are way off here as no respected scientasist currently believes this to be a valid explanation for the now defunct theory of abiogenesis.
 
2012-12-14 01:49:52 PM

vactech: I drunk what: namely the sudden appearance of the phyla during the cambrian explosion)?

I'll field this one boys. I am a master theologian, but I dabble in Agrophysics.

The Cambrian Explosion is a cosmological theory (as documented by Newton), holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent "explosion" (of the cambrian type) of a very small agglomeration of cambrian matter of extremely high density and temperature.

Again IDW, you are way off here as no respected scientasist currently believes this to be a valid explanation for the now defunct theory of abiogenesis.


Ok, now you're...parodying yourself? I'm so confused.
 
2012-12-14 02:11:39 PM

I drunk what: we'll go real slow so everyone can keep up:


The question isn't whether your usage of the word creationist is right or wrong, I've not said that it is incorrect after all. What I have said is that you appear to want to be deliberately obtuse. You insist on ONLY recognizing the broadest possible usage of the term:

A Creationist is a person who has the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.

In order to extend that to apply to basically any sort of theist, at least any theist of the Abrahamic variety.

It isn't that this is incorrect, it is that there do exist more narrow definitions of the term which are in common usage. I would argue that, in the context of "discussions" around evolutionary biology, those usages are in fact more common and more appropriate.
 
2012-12-14 02:12:40 PM

Bondith: Ok, now you're...parodying yourself? I'm so confused.


I tend to skip his posts. I don't tend to actually ignore many people on Fark, but there are definitely people whose posts I generally skip over.
 
2012-12-14 02:13:05 PM

Bondith: vactech: I drunk what: namely the sudden appearance of the phyla during the cambrian explosion)?

I'll field this one boys. I am a master theologian, but I dabble in Agrophysics.

The Cambrian Explosion is a cosmological theory (as documented by Newton), holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent "explosion" (of the cambrian type) of a very small agglomeration of cambrian matter of extremely high density and temperature.

Again IDW, you are way off here as no respected scientasist currently believes this to be a valid explanation for the now defunct theory of abiogenesis.

Ok, now you're...parodying yourself? I'm so confused.


Alright fine, maybe aeophysics isn't my thing. But at least I am trying. All you've managed to do is thread shiat and levy ad homogeneous attacts my way. Bravo Bondith, bravo.
 
2012-12-14 02:30:51 PM

I drunk what: where in the fossil record do we find sufficient evidence to explain the diversity of life (namely the sudden appearance of the phyla during the cambrian explosion)?

also does this lack of any supporting evidence bother any evolutionists who claim to subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution which clearly focuses on concepts such as Universal Common Ancestry, and any associated claims-beliefs resulting from this premise?


Well I've been over this a few times. The problem is it is a long and complicated subject. The tl;dr version is that evolutionary biologists are not troubled by the Cambrian Explosion for a variety of reasons. It is an interesting time period worthy of study but it is not inconsistent with what we know about evolution or the theory itself. It is also worth noting that the "sufficiency" above describes the sufficiency of evolutionary theory, not the sufficiency of the fossil record. The fossil record represents one line of evidence, not the sum total of the evidence.

Here are the cliff notes in point form:

1) The "Cambrian Explosion" refers almost exclusively to the development of animal life, which is actually a minuscule fraction of life that has existed on Earth, and is even only a minuscule fraction of life that currently exists on Earth. It would be like if we were talking about only animals we were focusing on the "explosion" in rodent species.

2) The fossil record is not the be-all and end-all of the evidence for evolutionary biology. It is basically our most prominent early evidence because we can see it, and we have had the technology to observe and make sense of it for a long-time. It is still useful, we still learn lots of amazing things from it, but we also have other lines of evidence and methods for studying evolution.

3) Similar explosions of diversity are not unknown in the fossil record, generally after large extinction events. And there is plenty of evidence that such an event occurred before the Cambrian as well.

4) We see a tremendous amount of diversification AND extinction going on during the period. Which is consistent with rapid diversification as organisms fill new niches and compete, with entire phyla dieing off as well.

5) Changes in geochemistry AND the development of hard body parts means we expect to see more fossils starting during this period compared to earlier time periods, as more fossils will be formed and those fossils will be easier to find, study, and identify

6) While not 100% conclusive there is good evidence that at least some of the ediacaran fauna that predate the Cambrian are related to later Cambrian forms

7) It isn't really that "sudden." It isn't like someone snapped their fingers and poofed all of the phyla into existence at one time-point.
 
2012-12-14 02:35:14 PM

vactech: Bondith: vactech: I drunk what: namely the sudden appearance of the phyla during the cambrian explosion)?

I'll field this one boys. I am a master theologian, but I dabble in Agrophysics.

The Cambrian Explosion is a cosmological theory (as documented by Newton), holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent "explosion" (of the cambrian type) of a very small agglomeration of cambrian matter of extremely high density and temperature.

Again IDW, you are way off here as no respected scientasist currently believes this to be a valid explanation for the now defunct theory of abiogenesis.

Ok, now you're...parodying yourself? I'm so confused.

Alright fine, maybe aeophysics isn't my thing. But at least I am trying. All you've managed to do is thread shiat and levy ad homogeneous attacts my way. Bravo Bondith, bravo.

 
2012-12-14 02:36:35 PM

vactech: Alright fine, maybe aeophysics isn't my thing. But at least I am trying. All you've managed to do is thread shiat and levy ad homogeneous attacts my way. Bravo Bondith, bravo.


image.legios.org 

Preview is my friend.
 
2012-12-14 02:44:51 PM

DarwiOdrade: vactech: Alright fine, maybe aeophysics isn't my thing. But at least I am trying. All you've managed to do is thread shiat and levy ad homogeneous attacts my way. Bravo Bondith, bravo.

[image.legios.org image 320x187] 

Preview is my friend.


Thank You. Thank you very much.

phew tough crowd.
 
2012-12-14 03:35:29 PM

entropic_existence: What I have said is that you appear to want to be deliberately obtuse. You insist on ONLY recognizing the broadest possible usage of the term:


as an Middle Earth Creationist (theistic evolutionist flavor) i haven't the foggiest idea what you mean...

perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

FloydA: Professional creationists are, without exception, liars. They are aware that the things they are saying are false.

The majority of creationists are simply not knowledgeable about the topic, and repeat what they have been told because they have never sought out the relevant information.

If you are a creationist, you are either uninformed (most) or dishonest (the few professional creationists), but either way, you are mistaken.


though, just for shiats and giggles, i am curious what a "professional" creationist is? I'm a Professional Engineer, is it sorta like that? do they also have to take an incredibly difficult exam to obtain their licensure? ... and have cute little stamps like us?

i was browsing the classifieds the other day, but i wasn't able to locate any job openings for a "professional creationist", are you sure such things exist?

but i digress, back to your original concern. you feel that i'm not using the terms properly (broad vs. precise) yet I am the ONLY one in this thread that is properly doing such

YOU are the ones that wish to pretend that you can use the broad term but secretly mean a particular subset or specialty, and then get all fussy when someone complains about it, funny that

I am well aware of the different brands of Creationism, ranging from YECs to OECs to anti-evolutionists or deistic evolutionists, etc.. and so on, yet your little tar baby pal there just lumps them altogether into one nice little condescending-slandering package and suddenly you don't have any problem with it:

d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net

which i find particularly interesting. seeing how someone just finished white knighting for that cause in this very thread:

entropic_existence: Don't toss all scientists who are Christians (or other religions) in the same pot. I know plenty who are both good scientists, good people, and not hacks and snake-oil sales-people.


0.0 isn't he great? so compassionate, so caring (brave)

/srsly we were quite touched
//warm fuzzies

entropic_existence: In order to extend that to apply to basically any sort of theist, at least any theist of the Abrahamic variety.


what difference does this make? ... and aren't you forgetting some other groups? no love for the deists...?

speaking of which, aren't you an agnostic deist?
 
2012-12-14 04:00:49 PM

I drunk what: ok humpty dumpty


and just so we're clear this isn't a racial slur cuz you're a whitey cracker, this is my token for your desire to stick with the alice theme

paulgerhards.com

but skip everything else i just said and answer this one question:

Are you an agnostic deist? yes or no
 
2012-12-14 04:17:52 PM

I drunk what: entropic_existence: What I have said is that you appear to want to be deliberately obtuse. You insist on ONLY recognizing the broadest possible usage of the term:

as an Middle Earth Creationist (theistic evolutionist flavor) i haven't the foggiest idea what you mean...

perhaps you have me confused with someone else?


No, you get offended anytime anyone uses the term Creationist, making it seem as if they are attacking all theists. It happens again and again, thread after thread.

I drunk what: though, just for shiats and giggles, i am curious what a "professional" creationist is? I'm a Professional Engineer, is it sorta like that? do they also have to take an incredibly difficult exam to obtain their licensure? ... and have cute little stamps like us?

i was browsing the classifieds the other day, but i wasn't able to locate any job openings for a "professional creationist", are you sure such things exist?


It should be rather obvious the types of people he is referring to. Some of them do have other jobs but the Discovery Institute and associated groups do actually employ people full-time, as do other similar centres. Clearly he is referring to people like say Paul Nelson, who is a Discovery Institute fellow.

I drunk what: but i digress, back to your original concern. you feel that i'm not using the terms properly (broad vs. precise) yet I am the ONLY one in this thread that is properly doing such

YOU are the ones that wish to pretend that you can use the broad term but secretly mean a particular subset or specialty, and then get all fussy when someone complains about it, funny that

I am well aware of the different brands of Creationism, ranging from YECs to OECs to anti-evolutionists or deistic evolutionists, etc.. and so on, yet your little tar baby pal there just lumps them altogether into one nice little condescending-slandering package and suddenly you don't have any problem with it:


I didn't say you weren't using it properly, I said you were being obtuse. What I continue to point out is context. Context that makes it bleedingly obvious, except to people choosing to be deliberately obtuse, what someone means when they use the term. FloydA, myself, and others have used the term in the manner it has been used in this context for decades. It is how it has been used in court cases and by the groups themselves when trying to inject things like "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" into school curricula. It is generally obvious, based on history, that when he said Creationist it included YEC, OEC, and ID (of the discovery institute variety) and not say, theistic evolution a la Kenneth Miller, who was a witness at the Dover trial. So no, he wasn't "lumping them all in together." I can pretty confidently state that given about 7 years of these threads since the Dover trial for instance.

I drunk what: which i find particularly interesting. seeing how someone just finished white knighting for that cause in this very thread:


Again, context. See, I can discriminate between when someone says Creationist, in a thread about evolution, and Christian because I take in to consideration the historical context of how the term has been used, in this context, for decades.

I drunk what: what difference does this make? ... and aren't you forgetting some other groups? no love for the deists...?


I didn't feel like typing it. Feel free to throw it in. It wasn't exactly germane to my point.

I drunk what: speaking of which, aren't you an agnostic deist?


Not exactly no. I think it would be a somewhat nicer, more comforting alternative. I'm comfortable with the idea, and I occasionally lean in that direction. But I also occasionally lean towards atheism. I mostly just live my life as an agnostic, and I don't particularly care one way or the other as it doesn't impact how I live my life. I'd rather just try and be a good person for its own sake. And I mostly don't care what other people's religious beliefs are or how they chose to worship.
 
2012-12-14 04:18:45 PM

I drunk what: but skip everything else i just said and answer this one question:

Are you an agnostic deist? yes or no


Too late. Besides the answer is "its complicated" with a touch of "doesn't really matter"
 
2012-12-14 04:37:53 PM
oy vey, e_e

... so stubborn, is it that time of the month again?


I summon abb3w (chronicler of teh farks)

in the mean time here is some interesting reading, filed under "theistic evolutionist" of all places...?

Deism
See also: Deism
Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason, rather than on faith or revelation. Most deists[who?] believe that God does not interfere with the world or create miracles. Some deists[who?] believe that a Divine Creator initiated a universe in which evolution occurred, by designing the system and the natural laws, although many deists believe that God also created life itself, before allowing it to be subject to evolution. They find it to be undignified and unwieldy for a deity to make constant adjustments rather than letting evolution elegantly adapt organisms to changing environments.

One recent convert to deism was philosopher and professor Antony Flew, who became a deist in December 2004. Professor Flew, a former atheist, later argued that recent research into the origins of life supports the theory that some form of intelligence was involved. Whilst accepting subsequent Darwinian evolution, Flew argued that this cannot explain the complexities of the origins of life. He also stated that the investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved."[31] He subsequently clarified this statement in an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005: "What I was converted to was the existence of an Aristotelian God, and Aristotle's God had no interest in human affairs at all."[32][relevant? - discuss]

so then e_e, you wanna save us some time and just answer the question:

Do you believe the universe is the creation of a supernatural being (or "deity" if you will)?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice...

/please keep your answers to yes or no

if no, please present what belief you do have

//we will just wait patiently here
 
2012-12-14 07:38:41 PM
i just heard about the conn. shooting, and don't feel like talking anymore
 
2012-12-14 11:29:19 PM

guestguy: No one gets you quite as wound up as mamoru does. Not sure what happened there, but it is amusing to see you thrash whenever he shows up in a thread.


Mamoru winds me up too, if you know what I mean!

And YOU know...

...

...what I mean.
 
2012-12-15 01:00:14 AM

guestguy: No one gets you quite as wound up as mamoru does. Not sure what happened there, but it is amusing to see you thrash whenever he shows up in a thread.


I put him on ignore, denying him the attention he craves.

I used to try to converse with him as well as a few others that were as (if not more, if you can believe that) insufferable, but have long since given it up as futile, as he has little grasp of logic and no understanding of science, nor any apparent desire to learn. Instead he'd rather play word games and twist meanings to suit his points, whatever they may be, and generally carry on acting like a childish ass. So, on to ignore he went.

And it's amazing how much better threads about science in general and evolution in particular have become. ;)

cthellis: Mamoru winds me up too, if you know what I mean!


But apparently not enough to earn a quote in your profile. :(

;D
 
2012-12-15 11:09:50 AM

mamoru: But apparently not enough to earn a quote in your profile. :(

;D


I'm sorry! Truth be told, the links started getting torn up at one point, and I kept swearing to fix it and never got around to it, so I stopped adding to it as well.

Hmm...

Perhaps SOME day...!

Hehe.
 
Displayed 29 of 179 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report