Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Evidence

Expand Messages
  • lflank@xx.xxx
    I know ... But you do have the time to criticize things that you don t understand, huh . . . . So, if you would, could you list all the ... Potassium/argon
    Message 1 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      I know
      >
      > I should go to the library (the one with all the
      >
      > book, as you like to say) but I really don't have
      >
      > time.



      But you do have the time to criticize things that you don't
      understand, huh . . . .



      So, if you would, could you list all the
      >
      > different ways to date the earth




      Potassium/argon dating. Rubidium isochron dating.
      Dendrochronology. Polar ice cap core dating. Paleomagnetism
      dating. Electron spin resonance dating. Thermoluminescence.
      Protein racemization dating.

      All of these depend on different methods. All of them give the same
      dates. Wanna explain why?



      , list the
      >
      > transitional fossils,



      Pachyrachis, Ambulocetus, Ichthyostega, Archaeopteryx,
      Triadobatrachus, Australopithecus, Diarthrognathus,
      Probainognathus, Caudipteryx. Those will do for starters.



      and maybe an example or two
      >
      > of "macro-evolution".



      Macro-evolution is defined by biologists as "evolution above the
      species level". If you go to the "observed speciations" file at the
      talk.origins archive, you can see nice long list of observed example
      of macro-evolution.

      The creationists have their own private definition of "macro-
      evolution"--they define it as "evolution between 'kinds'." Since they
      can't tell us just what the heck a "kind" is, their private definition
      doesn't mean diddley doo. I've never had a creationist yet, in over
      15 years, give me any definition of a "kind" such that I could not
      point to an OBSERVED EXAMPLE of evolution "between kinds".

      Care to give it a go?


      Or better yet, you always
      >
      > say to define kind



      Something that no creationist has ever yet done . . . . .



      and you can show how they are
      >
      > linked, how about something big like mammals and
      >
      > reptiles.


      The therapsid fossil series links reptiles and mammals. It begins,
      anatomically and chronologically, with ordinary reptiles, goes
      through animals like Diarthrognathus (which among other things
      has two jaw joints, one reptilian and one mammalian) and ends up
      (morphologically and chronologically) with primitive mammals like
      Morganucodont.


      Another good link is the one between reptiles and birds. It starts
      with ordinary theropod dinosaurs like Velociraptor, goes to
      dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx, an ordinary theropod with feathers
      covering its head and running along its spine, then goes to
      Caudipteryx, another ordinary theropod with long feathers on its
      arms, then to Archaeopteryx, a theropod dinosaur with functional
      wings, and then to Confuciornis, a bird with a toothless bill and
      functional wings.



      I guess I understand if you don't want
      >
      > to do it,



      Why would I not want to do it. This is basic elementary biology, the
      kind that creationists should take the time to learn about before they
      criticize things they don't understand.


      but don't you thing it would be good to
      >
      > just lay out some evidence for all the lurkers?



      The lurkers can go to any library and learn all they want. So can
      creationists. But like you, they prefer to not spend the time, and just
      continue to criticize things they don't know anything about.



      ====================================================
      Lenny Flank
      "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

      Check out my herp photos:
      http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421
      Creation "science" debunked:
      http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437
    • Michael Suttkus
      ... No, there are too many of them. Try: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html and especially:
      Message 2 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        jarofclay@... wrote:

        >So, if you would, could you list all the different
        >ways to date the earth,

        No, there are too many of them. Try:

        http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

        and especially:

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

        >list the transitional fossils,

        A comparable list would be to list the people in the
        United States with an 'e' in their name. It doesn't
        fit very well in a post.

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
        lists just some of the vertebrate transitional forms.

        >and maybe an example or two of "macro-evolution".

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html


        ===
        "Go to sleep each day knowing someone was glad you got up
        that morning."
        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
      • Mason DeLonay
        Well, thanks for your help even though I do have to be insulted just to get any from you. The insults are fine though they mean less and less when you repeat
        Message 3 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, thanks for your help even though I do have to be insulted just to
          get any from you. The insults are fine though they mean less and less when
          you repeat the same ones with the exact same phrase over and over.
        • shellshell
          Maybe the insults should evolve a bit ! Darren -- ... Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com
          Message 4 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Maybe the insults should evolve a bit !

            Darren
            --

            On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 07:54:25 Mason DeLonay wrote:
            >From: "Mason DeLonay" <jarofclay@...>
            >
            > Well, thanks for your help even though I do have to be insulted just to
            >get any from you. The insults are fine though they mean less and less when
            >you repeat the same ones with the exact same phrase over and over.
            >
            >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
            >
            >You can WIN $100 to Amazon.com by starting a new list at ONElist.
            >Drawing is held each week through September 17. For details go to:
            ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/Teaser116 ">Click Here</a>
            >
            >------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >


            Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com
            Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com
          • elareau
            Not that Lenny needs anyone to defend him (he is quite up to the task himself), but my guess is that Lenny has been at this a long time. After a while, you
            Message 5 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Not that Lenny needs anyone to defend him (he is quite up to the task
              himself), but my guess is that Lenny has been at this a long time. After a
              while, you drop the pretense of suffering fools gladly. I know from my own
              experience that nothing is more frustrating than to provide hard evidence
              that counters such beliefs as astrology, psychic surgery, and yes,
              creationist science, only to have the believers reject the HARD EVIDENCE and
              tenaciously cling to their scientifically unsupported beliefs. Dealing with
              the willfully ignorant tends to piss me off, too. If you're already online,
              it doesn't take much effort to click the mouse and go to the many sites
              provided by Lenny and the others. And a good, brisk walk to the local
              library does wonders for one's circulation. Besides, in light of the
              backwards decision made in Kansas, I'd say the kid gloves are off...

              Regards,


              Ed

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Mason DeLonay <jarofclay@...>
              To: DebunkCreation@onelist.com <DebunkCreation@onelist.com>
              Date: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 10:54 AM
              Subject: Re: [DebunkCreation] Evidence


              >From: "Mason DeLonay" <jarofclay@...>
              >
              > Well, thanks for your help even though I do have to be insulted just to
              >get any from you. The insults are fine though they mean less and less when
              >you repeat the same ones with the exact same phrase over and over.
              >
              >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
              >
              >You can WIN $100 to Amazon.com by starting a new list at ONElist.
              >Drawing is held each week through September 17. For details go to:
              ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/Teaser116 ">Click Here</a>
              >
              >------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
            • Rocky Mills
              ... It seems that learning science may the crux of creationist fear. Upon learning how nature works I believe there may be a subconscious unease that their
              Message 6 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                > tenaciously cling to their scientifically unsupported beliefs.
                >
                It seems that learning science may the crux of creationist fear.
                Upon learning how nature works I believe there
                may be a subconscious unease that their creationist
                beliefs and religious doctrine cannot be applied to reality.
                Denial and ignorance of science only pollute
                religious beliefs and distort spiritual experiences.
                Creationists may tremendously benefit to study how
                the world really works and apply such knowledge
                to enhance their beliefs.

                Most religions are not built on research on the mechanics
                of the universe. Religion is more about the inner workings of
                the soul. From my reading and upbringing there are no physics,
                biology and other sciences detailed in scriptures. Why claim so?
              • lflank@xx.xxx
                ... 15 years. I ve heard all their bullshit ad nauseum. It never changes. Debunk it a gazillion times, and you ll still have to listen to it for the
                Message 7 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  > my guess is that Lenny has been at this a long time.


                  15 years. I've heard all their bullshit ad nauseum. It never changes.
                  Debunk it a gazillion times, and you'll still have to listen to it for the
                  gazillion-and-first time. They are like cancer. Eternal. They never
                  go away.


                  Besides, in light of the
                  > backwards decision made in Kansas, I'd say the kid gloves are
                  off...




                  I quite agree. They have no desire to be "nice" to us---if they had
                  their way we'd all be preaching their pap for them. I see no need to
                  be "nice" to them either. I treat them the same way I treat Nazis,
                  Klansmen and Leninists, and for much the same reasons.

                  They are all full of shit. If pointing that out to them hurts their little
                  feelings, too bad.



                  ====================================================
                  Lenny Flank
                  "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

                  Check out my herp photos:
                  http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421
                  Creation "science" debunked:
                  http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437
                • lflank@xx.xxx
                  ... How dreadful. I notice though that you didn t answer any of my questions and didn t present any valid scientific data against evolution. Yet again.
                  Message 8 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > From: "Mason DeLonay" <jarofclay@...>
                    >
                    > Well, thanks for your help even though I do have to be insulted just to
                    > get any from you. The insults are fine though they mean less and less when
                    > you repeat the same ones with the exact same phrase over and over.



                    How dreadful. I notice though that you didn't answer any of my
                    questions and didn't present any valid scientific data against
                    evolution. Yet again.




                    ====================================================
                    Lenny Flank
                    "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

                    Check out my herp photos:
                    http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421
                    Creation "science" debunked:
                    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437
                  • lflank@xx.xxx
                    ... To what insults are you referring . . . ? Please quote them and be spcific. I can t find any in the last message I sent. All I see are some valid
                    Message 9 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Well, thanks for your help even though I do have to be insulted just to
                      > get any from you. The insults are fine though they mean less and less when
                      > you repeat the same ones with the exact same phrase over and over.
                      >


                      To what "insults" are you referring . . . ? Please quote them and be
                      spcific. I can't find any in the last message I sent.

                      All I see are some valid observations, and some questions that
                      you've not answered (again).



                      ====================================================
                      Lenny Flank
                      "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

                      Check out my herp photos:
                      http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421
                      Creation "science" debunked:
                      http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437
                    • Mason DeLonay
                      ... I m sorry you are correct they weren t so much insults as they were attacks, my bad. Things like: But you do have the time to criticize things that you
                      Message 10 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >To what "insults" are you referring . . . ? Please quote them and be
                        >spcific. I can't find any in the last message I sent.

                        >All I see are some valid observations, and some questions that
                        >you've not answered (again).

                        I'm sorry you are correct they weren't so much insults as they were attacks,
                        my bad. Things like:

                        "But you do have the time to criticize things that you don't understand, huh
                        . . . ."

                        Which would make more sense if *I* ever attacked evolution to begin with.

                        "All of them give the same dates. Wanna explain why?"

                        No, I don't, I'm sorry if I just wanted to ask some honest questions about
                        evolution. Little defensive aren't we Lenny? But I know being nice wins no
                        points and you've dealt with creationists for 15 years and they're just like
                        the Nazis and whatever else.

                        "The lurkers can go to any library and learn all they want. So can
                        creationists. But like you, they prefer to not spend the time, and just
                        continue to criticize things they don't know anything about."

                        Wait.....did I already use this one? No that's right it's the exact same
                        attack in the very same post.
                      • lflank@xx.xxx
                        ... That is not an attack . it is a simple statement of fact. You claim you don t have time to go to the library and learn about evolution. Yet you DO have
                        Message 11 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > I'm sorry you are correct they weren't so much insults as they were attacks,
                          > my bad. Things like:
                          >
                          > "But you do have the time to criticize things that you don't understand, huh
                          > . . . ."
                          >


                          That is not an "attack". it is a simple statement of fact. You claim
                          you don't have time to go to the library and learn about evolution.
                          Yet you DO have the time to criticize it when you obviously don't
                          understand it. Hmmm.


                          > Which would make more sense if *I* ever attacked evolution to begin with.
                          >

                          Don't be obtuse with me.



                          > "All of them give the same dates. Wanna explain why?"
                          >
                          > No, I don't


                          I didn't think you would.


                          , I'm sorry if I just wanted to ask some honest questions about
                          > evolution.



                          Don't bullshit me, Mason. I wish I had a dollar for every fundie who's
                          given me the "I'm not really a creationist, I just have some honest
                          questions about evolution", and then go on to parrot every one of
                          ICR's boilerplate arguments. I could retire to the bahamas by now.
                          I've seen your song and dance before. Better done, too.



                          > "The lurkers can go to any library and learn all they want. So can
                          > creationists. But like you, they prefer to not spend the time, and just
                          > continue to criticize things they don't know anything about."
                          >
                          > Wait.....did I already use this one? No that's right it's the exact same
                          > attack in the very same post.


                          And once again it is not an "attack"---it is a simple statement of
                          fact. YOU were the one who told us you don't have time to learn
                          about the subject. Which of course doesn't prevent you from giving
                          your Holy Judgement of it.



                          ====================================================
                          Lenny Flank
                          "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

                          Check out my herp photos:
                          http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421
                          Creation "science" debunked:
                          http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437
                        • Jason Erickson
                          ... I can certainly understand where the frustration comes from. I ve had discussions with fundamentalists (you can t have a debate with someone unless they
                          Message 12 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > From: lflank@...
                            >
                            >
                            > > my guess is that Lenny has been at this a long time.
                            >
                            >
                            > 15 years. I've heard all their bullshit ad nauseum. It never changes.
                            > Debunk it a gazillion times, and you'll still have to listen to it for the
                            > gazillion-and-first time. They are like cancer. Eternal. They never
                            > go away.
                            >

                            I can certainly understand where the frustration comes from. I've had
                            "discussions" with fundamentalists (you can't have a debate with someone unless
                            they know something of the topic) about the age of the earth and been told that
                            even though I know more about Geology than they do (I'm a Ph.D student in
                            Geophysics) that I'm still wrong and they're right. No arguments, no evidence,
                            just the famous "I'm right, you're wrong, so nya nya nya" defense. Truly a
                            marvel of modern logic.

                            It's frustrating dealing with someone who is ignorant. It's frustrating dealing
                            with someone who is arrogant. Dealing with someone who is both would try the
                            patience of anyone.
                          • Mason DeLonay
                            ... First of all, I never critized evolution. The only time that would even give that impression is when I asked you to respond to specfic creationist
                            Message 13 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >That is not an "attack". it is a simple statement of fact. You >claim you
                              >don't have time to go to the library and learn about >evolution. Yet you
                              >DO have the time to criticize it when you >obviously don't understand it.
                              >Hmmm.

                              First of all, I never critized evolution. The only time that would even
                              give that impression is when I asked you to respond to specfic creationist
                              arguements from http://www.reformed.org that I posted here. Second, which
                              takes longer to research evolution or to critize something? You do both so
                              I would think you would know.

                              >Don't bullshit me, Mason. I wish I had a dollar for every fundie >who's
                              >given me the "I'm not really a creationist, I just have some >honest
                              >questions about evolution", and then go on to parrot every one >of ICR's
                              >boilerplate arguments. I could retire to the bahamas by >now. I've seen
                              >your song and dance before. Better done, too.

                              I have been around creationist and I have heard their arguements. Not
                              knowing any biology I had no clue how to respond to them. So I had you
                              respond to specific examples from the previously mentioned website. Maybe I
                              was wrong to just want to be able to argue creationists without knowing all
                              the hard facts. However, that does not change the fact that I am not a
                              creationist.

                              >And once again it is not an "attack"---it is a simple statement of
                              >fact. YOU were the one who told us you don't have time to learn
                              >about the subject. Which of course doesn't prevent you from giving
                              >your Holy Judgement of it.

                              When did I cast my "Holy Judgement" on it? Why don't you be specific and
                              use some examples?
                            • Mason DeLonay
                              ... First of all, I never critized evolution. The only time that would even give that impression is when I asked you to respond to specfic creationist
                              Message 14 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >That is not an "attack". it is a simple statement of fact. You >claim you
                                >don't have time to go to the library and learn about >evolution. Yet you
                                >DO have the time to criticize it when you >obviously don't understand it.
                                >Hmmm.

                                First of all, I never critized evolution. The only time that would even
                                give that impression is when I asked you to respond to specfic creationist
                                arguements from http://www.reformed.org that I posted here. Second, which
                                takes longer to research evolution or to critize something? You do both so
                                I would think you would know.

                                >Don't bullshit me, Mason. I wish I had a dollar for every fundie >who's
                                >given me the "I'm not really a creationist, I just have some >honest
                                >questions about evolution", and then go on to parrot every one >of ICR's
                                >boilerplate arguments. I could retire to the bahamas by >now. I've seen
                                >your song and dance before. Better done, too.

                                I have been around creationist and I have heard their arguements. Not
                                knowing any biology I had no clue how to respond to them. So I had you
                                respond to specific examples from the previously mentioned website. Maybe I
                                was wrong to just want to be able to argue creationists without knowing all
                                the hard facts. However, that does not change the fact that I am not a
                                creationist.

                                >And once again it is not an "attack"---it is a simple statement of
                                >fact. YOU were the one who told us you don't have time to learn
                                >about the subject. Which of course doesn't prevent you from giving
                                >your Holy Judgement of it.

                                When did I cast my "Holy Judgement" on it? Why don't you be specific and
                                use some examples?
                              • McGovern
                                ... Over the summer months I ran into a couple members of the Idaho Christian Coalition in their attempts to save the local bar crowds. (Now there s futility
                                Message 15 of 28 , Sep 1, 1999
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Jason Erickson wrote:
                                  >
                                  > I can certainly understand where the frustration comes from. I've had
                                  > "discussions" with fundamentalists (you can't have a debate with someone unless
                                  > they know something of the topic) about the age of the earth and been told that
                                  > even though I know more about Geology than they do (I'm a Ph.D student in
                                  > Geophysics) that I'm still wrong and they're right. No arguments, no evidence,
                                  > just the famous "I'm right, you're wrong, so nya nya nya" defense. Truly a
                                  > marvel of modern logic.

                                  Over the summer months I ran into a couple members of the Idaho
                                  Christian
                                  Coalition in their attempts to "save" the local bar crowds. (Now there's
                                  futility at its best!) Anyhow, I engaged in a nice little theological
                                  debate with one of them for a short while before he threw out the best
                                  line I think I've ever heard a fundy utter. His response to a question
                                  of mine was a blunt: "Jesus tells me I don't have to talk to you." I've
                                  seen the same willful ignorance that you speak of above, but this one
                                  just floored me.

                                  Just my eight farthings...

                                  -Aphex <--crawling out of the woodwork

                                  P.s. Lenny, excellent job!
                                  --
                                  _ _ _______________________________________________________
                                  \ A / | mcgovern@... -><-Eris-><- ICQ: 2204091 |
                                  \ / | "We must question the story logic of having an all- |
                                  E X P | knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans |
                                  / \ | and then blames them for his own mistakes." |
                                  _/ H \_ | -//- Gene Roddenberry -\\- |
                                • Kimba Spencer
                                  ... knowing any biology I had no clue how to respond to them. So I had you respond to specific examples from the previously mentioned website. Maybe I was
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Sep 2, 1999
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 07:25 PM 09/01/1999 -0700, you wrote:
                                    >I have been around creationist and I have heard their arguements. Not
                                    knowing any biology I had no >clue how to respond to them. So I had you
                                    respond to specific examples from the previously >mentioned website. Maybe
                                    I was wrong to just want to be able to argue creationists without >knowing
                                    all the hard facts. However, that does not change the fact that I am not a
                                    creationist.

                                    Are you saying that you aren't the same "jarofclay" that hounds the skeptix
                                    list with
                                    creationist nonsense?


                                    Kimba Spencer

                                    Justice & Associates
                                    kimba@...
                                    (562) 799-6111
                                    (562) 799-6119 fax
                                  • Mason DeLonay
                                    ... This is the only list I m on so I would have to say I m not. Also, on hotmail alone there is also jarsofclay and jar_of_clay (I get stuff intended for
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Sep 3, 1999
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      >Are you saying that you aren't the same "jarofclay" that hounds the skeptix
                                      >list with creationist nonsense?

                                      This is the only list I'm on so I would have to say I'm not. Also, on
                                      hotmail alone there is also jarsofclay and jar_of_clay (I get stuff intended
                                      for them quite a bit), so there are plenty of other jarsofclay.
                                    • Kimba Spencer
                                      ... OK. What s Jar of Clay mean anyways? Kimba Spencer Justice & Associates kimba@justice-assoc.com (562) 799-6111 (562) 799-6119 fax
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Sep 3, 1999
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 08:17 AM 09/03/1999 -0700, you wrote:
                                        >From: "Mason DeLonay" <jarofclay@...>
                                        >
                                        >>Are you saying that you aren't the same "jarofclay" that hounds the
                                        >>skeptix list with creationist nonsense?
                                        >
                                        >This is the only list I'm on so I would have to say I'm not. Also, on
                                        >hotmail alone there is also jarsofclay and jar_of_clay (I get stuff
                                        >intended for them quite a bit), so there are plenty of other jarsofclay.

                                        OK. What's "Jar of Clay" mean anyways?


                                        Kimba Spencer

                                        Justice & Associates
                                        kimba@...
                                        (562) 799-6111
                                        (562) 799-6119 fax
                                      • Tuktoyak@xxx.xxx
                                        Jars o clay? usually taken from the inference found within Isaiah,64:8 But now,o lord,thou art our father,we are the clay,and thou art our potter, and we are
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Sep 3, 1999
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Jars o' clay?
                                          usually taken from the inference found within Isaiah,64:8


                                          "But now,o lord,thou art our father,we are the clay,and thou art
                                          our potter, and we are all the work of thy hand." (KJV)


                                          very nice lyrical symbolism-but extremely poor biology
                                        • Liz Craig
                                          As Lenny says, the only reasonable stance is agnosticism: we don t know, and we may never know. Liz ... The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Nov 22, 2000
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            As Lenny says, the only reasonable stance is agnosticism: we don't
                                            know, and we may never know.

                                            Liz

                                            --- LucasPA@... wrote:

                                            > My real problem with atheism and amateur atheists is that, when they
                                            > move out of science into theology/epistemology, in their attempts to
                                            > exclude the evidence of theists, they really screw up science.
                                            >
                                            >


                                            =====
                                            ---------------------------------------------


                                            The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder.-- Ralph W. Sockman

                                            __________________________________________________
                                            Do You Yahoo!?
                                            Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
                                            http://shopping.yahoo.com/
                                          • lflank@ij.net
                                            ... The only ones who do know are dead, and they aren t talking. But again I point out that all of this is offtopic for this list. Maybe there s a god. Maybe
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Nov 22, 2000
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On 22 Nov 00, at 11:16, Liz Craig wrote:

                                              > As Lenny says, the only reasonable stance is agnosticism: we don't
                                              > know, and we may never know.



                                              The only ones who do know are dead, and they aren't talking.


                                              But again I point out that all of this is offtopic for this list. Maybe
                                              there's a god. Maybe there's not. But this isn't the place to
                                              discuss it.



                                              =======================================================
                                              Lenny Flank
                                              "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

                                              Check out my reptile page:
                                              http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
                                              Suncoast Serpentarium
                                              http://www.geocities.com/suncoastserpentarium/
                                              Creation "Science" Debunked:
                                              http://www.geocities.com/lflank
                                            • Winston Colon-Moran
                                              Sorry Lenny, I have gotten a bit off track here and encouraged the atheism/religion topic. I just want others to know that I do not think atheism, in the
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Nov 22, 2000
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Sorry Lenny,
                                                I have gotten a bit off track here and encouraged the atheism/religion
                                                topic. I just want others to know that I do not think atheism, in
                                                the form that I hold it, asserts the lack of existence of a deity, and
                                                I apologize to others if they thought that this was what I was
                                                asserting.

                                                No more atheist talk from me Lenny. I feel some pressure on my neck.
                                                Is that Lenny getting ready to chop my head off? Yikes!

                                                Thanks for keeping us ALL honest.
                                                Peace!
                                                Winston
                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: lflank@... [mailto:lflank@...]
                                                Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 2:24 PM
                                                To: DebunkCreation@egroups.com
                                                Subject: Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: Evidence


                                                On 22 Nov 00, at 11:16, Liz Craig wrote:

                                                > As Lenny says, the only reasonable stance is agnosticism: we don't
                                                > know, and we may never know.



                                                The only ones who do know are dead, and they aren't talking.


                                                But again I point out that all of this is offtopic for this list.
                                                Maybe
                                                there's a god. Maybe there's not. But this isn't the place to
                                                discuss it.



                                                =======================================================
                                                Lenny Flank
                                                "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

                                                Check out my reptile page:
                                                http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
                                                Suncoast Serpentarium
                                                http://www.geocities.com/suncoastserpentarium/
                                                Creation "Science" Debunked:
                                                http://www.geocities.com/lflank

                                                -------------------------- eGroups
                                                Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
                                                eLerts
                                                It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
                                                http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/3/_/448532/_/974920787/
                                                ---------------------------------------------------------------------_
                                                ->
                                              • Brian van
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Nov 24, 2000
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  <<<From: LucasPA@...
                                                  Subject: Re: Evidence

                                                  And personal experience is fundamental to the search
                                                  for truth.
                                                  Personal experience -- testimony -- is the basis for
                                                  ALL our
                                                  knowledge. Science limits itself to a subset of
                                                  personal experience --
                                                  experience of the physical universe that can be
                                                  repeated by anyone
                                                  under approximately the same circumstances.>>>

                                                  ---Yes. The reason why people use your experimental
                                                  results without checking them first, is beacause they
                                                  know they can in principle check them any time they
                                                  want to, using the your description of your equipment
                                                  and procedure. Your claims in other words have a
                                                  built-in lie detector, which makes them more reliable
                                                  than if you had simply claimed to have seen the Virgin
                                                  Mary descend from a cloud, or something like that.

                                                  <<<That limitation makes science very reliable.
                                                  However, it says
                                                  nothing about the reliability or unreliability of
                                                  other testimony.
                                                  For instance, all we have is eyewitness testimony that
                                                  Hannibal
                                                  brought elephants over the Alps. We accept that as
                                                  truth. BUT THERE
                                                  IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AT ALL, ONLY TESTIMONY.>>>

                                                  ---I am no expert on either science or philosophy or
                                                  history, but it seems to me that we don't in fact
                                                  accept Hannibal's elephant adventure as truth. We
                                                  tentatively accept it as what probably happened, based
                                                  on what little evidence we have, namely historical
                                                  records. And the claims can still to some extent be
                                                  tested, by for instance trying to get hold of other
                                                  records, studying the Alps to see whether there are
                                                  any places where elephants could in principle cross
                                                  them, etc. If it turns out that the claims aren't
                                                  extremely extraordinary, we have less trouble
                                                  accepting them than if the historical records had
                                                  claimed that Hannibal descended from the heavens on
                                                  flying elephants. But we can probably never know it
                                                  with 100% certainty.

                                                  <<<What you are doing is trying to exclude eyewitness
                                                  testimony for your
                                                  own faith purposes. It's obvious that, if eyewitness
                                                  testimony is
                                                  generally accepted as reliable, atheism is screwed.>>>

                                                  ---I won't go into the theological argument; Lenny has
                                                  banned it and I am not interested in the first place.
                                                  But I don't think eyewitness testimony is in fact
                                                  "generally" accepted. I think it would depend on
                                                  whether the testimony has a built-in lie detector,
                                                  like your experimental results, on how extraordinary
                                                  the evidence seem to be, whether it is internally
                                                  consistent etc. And even if it passes all the tests,
                                                  it is still only accepted tentatively.

                                                  <<<The fact remains that even "physical evidence" in
                                                  court consists of
                                                  eyewitness testimony of what the physical evidence is.
                                                  The court
                                                  doesn't go run the DNA gels themselves, do they? No,
                                                  they accept
                                                  that the physical evidence is not faked. They accept
                                                  the eyewitness
                                                  testimony that the physical evidence is genuine.>>>

                                                  ---They don't. Laywers for the opposition will
                                                  thoroughly cross-examine the witnesses and might of
                                                  course also bring in their own witnesses who might
                                                  make opposing statements. I suppose it might differ
                                                  from country to country, but to the best of my
                                                  knowledge, few courts in Western countries will simply
                                                  take a witness' word for anything. It is of course
                                                  true that once the forensic expert has been thoroughly
                                                  cross-examined and his testimony is found to be
                                                  internally consistent etc., he will probably be
                                                  believed even though the judge hasn't run the DNA gels
                                                  by himself. But the fact remains that if there is
                                                  enough doubt, neither judge nor jury necessarily have
                                                  to believe forensic or any other evidence. How else
                                                  did O.J manage to get away with murder?



                                                  __________________________________________________
                                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                                  Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
                                                  http://shopping.yahoo.com/
                                                • LucasPA@aol.com
                                                  ... Maybe ... A noble sentiment. But if you are in the creationism/evolution debate you can t avoid it. Both sides of the theism/atheism debate try to
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Nov 27, 2000
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In DebunkCreation@egroups.com, lflank@i... wrote:
                                                    > But again I point out that all of this is offtopic for this list.
                                                    Maybe
                                                    > there's a god. Maybe there's not. But this isn't the place to
                                                    > discuss it.

                                                    A noble sentiment. But if you are in the creationism/evolution debate
                                                    you can't avoid it. Both sides of the theism/atheism debate try to
                                                    (mis)use science to justify their philosophical position. If you
                                                    ignore those misuses, then you contribute to the misuse of science.
                                                    What this board tends to do is concentrate ONLY on the misuses by
                                                    creationists and let the misuses by atheists slide. That is not doing
                                                    science any favors.

                                                    The best you can do is rap either side on the knuckles when it steps
                                                    on science.

                                                    "in my opinion, for a nonreligious professor to interject his own
                                                    philosophy into the classroom in this manner is as offensive as it
                                                    would be for a fundamentalist professor to pass off his philosophy as
                                                    science." Eugenie Scott in the essay Creationism in The Flight from
                                                    Science and Reason, New York Academy of Sciences, volume 775, 1995,
                                                    pg 519.

                                                    "Because creationists explain natural phenomena by saying "God
                                                    performed a miracle," we tell them that they are not doing science.
                                                    This is easy to understand. The flip side, though, is that if science
                                                    is limited by methodological materialism because of our inability to
                                                    control an omnipotent power's interference in nature, both "God did
                                                    it" and "God didn't do it" fail as scientific statements.
                                                    Properly understood, the principle of methodological
                                                    materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing
                                                    our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act. I could say,
                                                    speaking from the perspective of my personal philosophy, that matter
                                                    and energy and their interactions (materialism) are not only
                                                    sufficient to understand the natural world (methodological
                                                    materialism) but in fact, I believe there is nothing beyond matter
                                                    and energy. This is the philosophy of materialism, which I, and
                                                    probably most humanists, hold to. I intentionally added "I believe"
                                                    when I spoke of my personal philosophy, which is entirely proper. "I
                                                    believe," however; is not a phrase that belongs in science.
                                                    We philosophical materialists may all be methodological
                                                    materialists, but the converse isn't true. Gregor Mendel was a
                                                    methodological materialist who didn't accept the philosophy of
                                                    materialism. I think we make a grave error when we confuse
                                                    philosophical views derived from science--even those we sup port--
                                                    with science itself. ... Creationists are perfectly happy if only 10%
                                                    of the population (the percentage of nontheists) accepts evolution. I
                                                    am not. I want people to understand and accept the science of
                                                    evolution; whether or not someone builds from this science a
                                                    philosophical system that parallels mine is logically and
                                                    strategically independent. An ideology drawn from science is not the
                                                    same as science itself." Science and Religion, Methodology, and
                                                    Humanism, Eugenie C Scott, NCSE Executive Director; Reports of the
                                                    National Center for Science Education 18: 15-17, Mar/Apr. 1998.

                                                    "Nor do I think we can afford these stupid culture wars, with people
                                                    like Phillip Johnson getting upset that his version of God seems
                                                    threatened because scientists have discovered that life developed
                                                    over 3.5 billion years ago on the planet and feel that they can
                                                    explain how that happened through purely natural causes. Nor can we
                                                    afford the arrogant intolerance of the scientists who claim that
                                                    their science -- evolution in particular -- demonstrates
                                                    unequivocally that there is no God." Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of
                                                    Evolution and the Failure of Creationism pages 168-169.
                                                  • Liz Craig
                                                    ... I don t want to step into the middle of a firestorm here. I just would like to comment as one who has been in the front lines of the evo/creo wars. The
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Nov 27, 2000
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      --- LucasPA@... wrote:
                                                      > --- In DebunkCreation@egroups.com, lflank@i... wrote:
                                                      > > But again I point out that all of this is offtopic for this list.
                                                      > Maybe
                                                      > > there's a god. Maybe there's not. But this isn't the place to
                                                      > > discuss it.
                                                      >
                                                      > A noble sentiment. But if you are in the creationism/evolution debate
                                                      >
                                                      > you can't avoid it. Both sides of the theism/atheism debate try to
                                                      > (mis)use science to justify their philosophical position.

                                                      I don't want to step into the middle of a firestorm here. I just would
                                                      like to comment as one who has been in the front lines of the evo/creo
                                                      wars. The prominent atheistic scientists (Dawkins, Gould, Provine,
                                                      Sagan) do provide plenty of ammo for creationists when they step over
                                                      the line and say their study of science convinces them there is no
                                                      deity.

                                                      The materialism vs. theism issue is a non-issue as far as the world of
                                                      science is concerned and has nothing to do with the practice of
                                                      science. However, in the outside world, where ID creationists are
                                                      peddling their wares (deliberately sidestepping the review of the
                                                      scientific community), the issue is huge.

                                                      I agree with both Lenny and Lucas that ID and other forms of
                                                      creationism can be debunked on scientific grounds alone. But in the
                                                      forum of public opinion, the science is way over people's heads. The
                                                      IDiots are meeting them at their own level of ignorance and telling
                                                      them what they want to hear: the world is going to hell in a
                                                      handbasket, and it's all the fault of these pointy-headed atheistic
                                                      scientists who tell us we're nothing but animals. So let's LYNCH
                                                      SCIENCE and teach religion in schools!

                                                      Since IDiots have chosen to mix philosophy, theology and science
                                                      together into their own pseudoscientific stew, it is becoming
                                                      increasingly difficult to debunk their claims without discussing the
                                                      non-scientific aspects of the matter. In effect, the science
                                                      (non-science) is secondary, only providing a justification for the
                                                      "cultural war" IDiots are waging. On re-reading the Wedge Strategy
                                                      today, that once again became crystal-clear to me.

                                                      Not criticizing your format, Lenny. Just saying the line is harder and
                                                      harder to draw, thanks to the IDiots.

                                                      Liz

                                                      =====
                                                      ---------------------------------------------


                                                      The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder.-- Ralph W. Sockman

                                                      __________________________________________________
                                                      Do You Yahoo!?
                                                      Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
                                                      http://shopping.yahoo.com/
                                                    • Swift, Gordon
                                                      ... From: LucasPA@aol.com [mailto:LucasPA@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 2:40 PM To: DebunkCreation@egroups.com Subject: [DebunkCreation] Re:
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Nov 27, 2000
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        -----Original Message-----
                                                        From: LucasPA@... [mailto:LucasPA@...]
                                                        Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 2:40 PM
                                                        To: DebunkCreation@egroups.com
                                                        Subject: [DebunkCreation] Re: Evidence


                                                        --- In DebunkCreation@egroups.com, lflank@i... wrote:
                                                        > But again I point out that all of this is offtopic for this list.
                                                        Maybe
                                                        > there's a god. Maybe there's not. But this isn't the place to
                                                        > discuss it.

                                                        A noble sentiment. But if you are in the creationism/evolution debate
                                                        you can't avoid it. Both sides of the theism/atheism debate try to
                                                        (mis)use science to justify their philosophical position. If you
                                                        ignore those misuses, then you contribute to the misuse of science.
                                                        --------------------------
                                                        Gordon:
                                                        The minute the talk turns to God or Atheism, it is no longer a science
                                                        discussion. Science doesn't give a rats ass about beliefs. As a sidenote,
                                                        when atheistic scientists state that science has led them to atheism, it is
                                                        almost always stated as a personal belief. I have never seen an atheist
                                                        scientist attempt to legislate atheism into a public school.
                                                      • Brian van
                                                        ...
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Nov 29, 2000
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          <<<<From: LucasPA@...
                                                          Subject: Re: Evidence

                                                          Both sides of the theism/atheism debate try to
                                                          (mis)use science to justify their philosophical
                                                          position.>>>

                                                          ---That might well be. But this is not a
                                                          theism/atheism debate list. The creationists
                                                          themselves claim that their ideas have nothing to do
                                                          with any religion, and can be justified from a purely
                                                          scientific viewpoint.

                                                          <<<What this board tends to do is concentrate ONLY on
                                                          the misuses by creationists and let the misuses by
                                                          atheists slide. >>>

                                                          ---Which atheists are you talking about? Virtually
                                                          nobody on this list is an atheist, not even Lenny. I
                                                          find your posts interesting, but why do you keep on
                                                          talking about theism versus atheism? What on earth
                                                          does that have to do with science?



                                                          __________________________________________________
                                                          Do You Yahoo!?
                                                          Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
                                                          http://shopping.yahoo.com/
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.