> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:39:11 -0800 (PST), > "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 4, 11:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > >> >Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > >> >accurate.
> >> >Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > >> >the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > >> >Forrest?
> >> >Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > >> >correct?
> >> >Ray
> >> The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth they are.
> >Actually, the "versions" are rather close. The issues in dispute are > >the relative contributions of various factors to the mechanism of > >evolution.
> While they may be "close" in some respects there exists a deep chasm > between the two (with regard to the emergence of biological novelty) > that neither has been successful in bridging.
FALSEHOOD #1
Utter nonsense. Gould and Eldridge proposed no new mechanism for evolution. Their hypothesis is about rates of evolution, not the mechanisms of evolution.
> Gould and Eldredge made quite clear for 35 years that the reductionist > gradualism espoused by Darwin and Dawkiins is more or less > contradicted by the fossil record.
FALSEHOOD #2 They presented their argument, but it has not had much impact on the science of palaeontology because the nature of the fossil record is such that any interpretation of rates of evolution can also be explained by other processes.
> "Stasis" is the rule; there is > not one single unambiguous example of a nascent structure---NOT ONE.
FALSEHOOD #3 How about the evolution of the avian wing from the forelimb of theropod dinosaurs? That's an evolutionary transition richly represented in the fossil record.
> Darwin found it very troubling given the necessity that purely > naturalistic processes proceed in linear-like overlapping steps. That > is, the fossil record should abound with nascent structures and show > continuity between populations.
..and he provided an explanation for this.
> The fossil record contradicts this > without exception.
FALSEHOOD #4 ...as the example of the avian wing demonstrates.
> Gould and his camp agreed about 110 years later
> when the fossil record still showed discrete populations and not > overlappong ones.
FALSEHOOD #5 No, Gould and Eldridge didn't. I suggest that you read their papers on the subject.
> More to follow if time permits.
So you want to add more falsehoods to the falsehoods you have already posted?
> T Pagano wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:39:11 -0800 (PST), > > "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" > > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 4, 11:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: > >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > >>>> Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > >>>> accurate. > >>>> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > >>>> the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > >>>> Forrest? > >>>> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > >>>> correct? > >>>> Ray > >>> The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth they are. > >> Actually, the "versions" are rather close. The issues in dispute are > >> the relative contributions of various factors to the mechanism of > >> evolution.
> >>> Varying "positions and interpretations" is simply a kind way of saying > >>> that there is no general agreement among atheists > >> FALSEHOOD #1 > >> ..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
> >> Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
> >>> about specific > >>> observable, testable mechanisms causing genuinely novel > >>> transformational change. > >> There is no universal agreement amongst scientists either. However, > >> there are very large area in which there is agreement.
> > Notice here that Forrest doesn't deny the charge that there is no > > specific, observable, testable mechanism causing transformational > > change.
> > The whole dispute with Darwinism is its claim to explain the creation > > of biological novelty and it is concerning this very aspect that there > > is no agreement among atheists. Darwin (and Dawkins with him) > > argued that the staggering impossibilities faced by the creation of > > biological features whose function we still don't understand is > > explained by a simple naturalistic reductionist gradualism.
> > The Gouldians counter by showing that the fossil record doesn't show > > the naturalistic continuity of fossil populations that such a > > gradualism would entail. Unfortunately all Punc Eq does is attempt > > to theorize about the initial conditions that "might" lead to the > > emergence of novelty; it does not offer any genetic or biochemical > > mechanisms that can be searched for or tested.
> Again, you don't appear to have any idea about the views of either > Dawkins or Gould. Pity. While Gould flirted with macromutation on > occasion, in PE the transformation of populations happens gradually in > the standard Darwinian way.
You could not be anymore wrong (as usual). PE says the rate of mutation is highly accelerated. This is not the standard Darwinian way.
> > Furthermore even Punc Eq doesn't explain why the fossil record NEVER > > captured a single example of a nascent structure in the fossil record.
> What explains that is that when shown a nascent structure you refuse to > agree that it's nascent.
> > Finally while this may seem like small potatoes to > > "stick-a-fork-in-me-I'm-done" Forrest the whole theory hinges upon it.
> Wrong as usual. Common descent would be clear even in the absence of a > mechanism.
False.
Without mechanism (causation) the alleged effect is imaginary.
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Nov 6, 8:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 1:04 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 5, 11:19 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 12:30 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> > > > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 4, 8:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > > > > > > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > > > > > > accurate.
> > > > > No, I said that Mayr's book "What evolution is" should be called "What > > > > > Mayr says evolution is".
> > > > Then anyone can say the same about Dawkins book or Gould's book or > > > > Fisher's book, etc.etc.?
> > > Of course
> > > > > Evolution is a phenomenon of nature. Evolutionary theory seeks to > > > > > explain *how* this phenomenon operates.
> > > > Not exactly correct. Natural selection is a phenomenon of nature.
> > > No, exactly correct. Evolution is a phenomenon of nature. Natural > > > selection is a theoretical explanation for the mechanism of evolution.
> > > > > As is the case with all > > > > > theories on all branches of every science, it is subject to revision > > > > > or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. This process of > > > > > sceptical criticism means that different researchers may have > > > > > different views over how the evidence should be interpreted. Such > > > > > disputes are resolved by further research.
> > > > So you were implying that Mayr's view is somehow defective?
> > > No, I was stating very clearly that science advances because different > > > researchers have different views over how the evidence should be > > > interpreted.
> > > > Gould was attacked by orthodoxy.
> > > No, he wasn't. He was attacked by other scientists who disagreed with > > > him over the interpretation of the evidence.
> > > > Your claims about Mayr presuppose him > > > > to be like Gould?
> > > No, I my "claims" about Mayr presuppose him to be a scientist.
> > > > Both Mayr and Gould defended Darwin till the day they died. Both > > > > called their explications "Darwinian." With this said what is your > > > > beef with Mayr?
> > > I don't have a "beef with Mayr". However, in his popular book "What > > > Evolution is" he presented a somewhat onesided view of evolution.
> > He admitted as much in the Preface and he explained why.
> Quite so. > Why do you think I "have a beef with Mayr" when I am merely repeating > what Mayr himself wrote?
Mayr would not agree with your denigrations of his work (obviously). This reply shows how dishonest that you are.
> > > > For the record: Gould maintained ToE with punctuated equilibria to be > > > > modified Darwinism.
> > > Quite so. Perhaps you can explain why creationists such as Tony Pagano > > > insist on lying about this?
> > I am not interested in your private "get Tony Pagano" agenda.
> Perhaps not, but it's a reflection on creationist morality that they > don't care if one of their own is a persistent liar.
Slandering Tony Pagano is explained as being caused by frustration due to the inability to refute anything that he says. It is the Darwinian way (howlerism).
> > > > Gould NEVER claimed any scientific existence > > > > outside of Darwin----NEVER.
> > > Gould never claimed any "scientific existence" at all. However, he > > > repeatedly referred to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural > > > selection as an incomplete model for evolution.
> > > > The same is true with Mayr. I suspect your > > > > displeasure with Mayr is petty.
> > > My word, Ray! I doubt very much that Mayr would have claimed that his > > > personal views on evolution were holy writ and beyond revision or > > > rejection if that is what the evidence demands.
> > > You have a very peculiar idea of the nature of science, and how > > > scientists work.
> > > RF
> > Silly.
> > No scholar agrees with his critics.
> > Ray
> You are not a scholar, Ray, and have no more idea of what constitutes > good scholarship than you do about science.
> RF- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Non-sequitur.
You are angry. I have exposed your non-sense claims about Ernst Mayr. You are a total nobody denigrating a dead Harvard Professor----how cowardly.
And I am relieved to be rejected by a person who thinks apes evolved into men over the course of millions of years and that nature produced itself. To be accepted or endorsed by Richard Forrest (or any evolutionist) would be the greatest insult imaginable----glad I didn't get it.
> On Nov 6, 5:24 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > Reddfrogg wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 12:59 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > Reddfrogg wrote: > > > snip
> > > > > Most scientists have some religious beliefs, and a certain amount are > > > > > atheist, just like any sub population of humans.
> > > > But what is the religion most scientist are 'into'?
> > > I haven't polled scientists to ask. I know there are some scientists > > > who are deeply religious and some that are not.
> > Ask the ones who are 'deeply religious' what is their religion, then > > come back here and tell us....(at your own risk)..
> Why would it matter to you?
> > > > > > > > whatever you grew up beliving...
> > > > > > > I grew up believing reality was more trustworthy than the nonsense I > > > > > > > heard the adults around me spouting. But I had to teach myself that.
> > > > > > > Did you grow up believing that lying was good?
> > > > > > I'm incapabble of lying.
> > > > > Then why do you do it? Your previous statement is a lie itself.
> > > > You mean when George Washing said "I cannot tell a lie", he was lying > > > > then?"
> > > Of course, Washington never said that. That was a made up story by > > > Parson Weems. Washington was, after all a politician.
> > You just changed my history...is Pluto a planet?
> Pluto is now considered a "minor planet". That doesn't change the > fact that it orbits the sun.
> >Or did my teacher lied to me too about that?
> I have no idea what your teacher told you. The object known as > "Pluto" was considered a planet until recently, when astronomers > decided it was too small to fit the definition.
> > Isn't it possible I don't have the 'lying gene'?
> No, since lying is not a genetic trait. Moreover, you've lied right > in this newsgroup.
> > Through evolution...I have a defective gene > > and the rest of yous are a bunch of lyers? You got the lying gene...you're soo lucky.
> > My girlfriend asked me the other day (cause I go to dance clubs by myself) > > "Why don't I go to this other club instead?" > > I told her, "The other club has less girls! I go to this one because it has 'more girls', and > > the more girls there are, the more fun I have!!"
> > She said, "That's true, the club you go to *does* have more girls."
> > Now, I don't know what other guys would have said, but I doubt it was what I responded with... > > they would probably have said...it's colder there, or the drinks cost more, or anything else.. > > but I have this 'truth' problem...I cannot tell a lie..I'm incapable of lying. Maybe I have a > > bad gene somewhere...but there are some out there who seem to believe..that it is an impossibility > > "not to lie"...it's not in human nature.
> Yet you continue to lie in this very newsgroup. Go figure.
What lie have I said? I have a long history of Usenet postings. I have *never* posted a "lie" in my entire history of Usenet postings. Where is the....evidence? I might have posted something that might be inacurate, incorrect or untrue, but not to my knowledge was I aware of it...I could've gotten wrong information from some one or somewhere, but I never with intent, lied.
> > > > > > > > Of course you might like the Darkins New Testament....he seems to > > > > > > > > use a dectective like Columbo or Scotland Yard Sherlock Holmes to > > > > > > > > investigate the crime 'evolution' for evidence...
> > > > > > > Good detectives and scientists have much in common, yes. Also > > > > > > > scientists and historians.
> > > > > > Bad detectives and scientists have much in common...
> > > > > Such as?
> > > > Fake evidence.
> > > Do you have any evidence of scientists routinely using fake > > > evidence? Do you know what happens to scientists who are found > > > falsifying their data?
> > > >Planting a gun...bogus scientific results...
> > > Again, do you have any evidence that scientists routinely engage in > > > such activity? A scientist who fakes evidence loses his or her > > > carreer, and most likely will never again be able to get funding. > > > There are strong disincentives for scientists to fake their work.
> > I didn't use the word "routinely"..
> Then why bring it up at all? If you agree that scientists don't > normally fake their data, then why did you suggest they did?
> > Why doesn't he just simply say... > > "If you don't believe that 'evolution is a fact', you're going to burn in Hell!!!!"
> Because Dr. Dawkins doesn't believe in Hell, or that evolution is a > matter of belief. Evolution is a scientific fact, not a religious > belief. if you prefer to remain ignorant, I suspect that Dr. Dawkins > will leave you to your ignorance.
> > You read the last 4 or 5 paragrahs, it is apparent, it is unequivocal...it all fits together..
> Ie. it's your biased opinion, based on your dislike of science.
> > that Richard Darwkins is trying to *indoctrinate* 'evolution'.
> Again, that's your uninformed opinion.
> > That is, his Greatest "Show" on Earth!
> > He is the P.T. Barnum of Evolution!
> > The Starmaker
> > STEP RIGHT UP LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ... > > and let me tell you about all the wonders you're going to see inside my evolution!
> > There is a sucker born every minute --
> Do you have any evidence that Dr. Dawkins has falsified any of the > evidence he presents?
His book is the evidence. Just as you would say the Bible is evidence it's a fake.
> > Reviewer Olson, a relentless Darwinist himself, has to complain of Dawkins, > > "Implying that your audience is stupid does not qualify as a great new angle."
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:06:50 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
<papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 10:35 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: > > Last and not least atheism and purely naturalistic evolutionism are > > completely consistent and inseparable. > Yeah, maybe that's why most Christians accept the fact of evolution. > Duh.
He didn't say evolution: he said "evolutionism." What ever evolutionism is, I reject it also.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Discussion subject changed to "Atheism and Evolutionism are both consistent AND inseparable. Conflating them was Dawkins's idea; Is Dawkins Dishonest?" by Desertphile
<not.va...@address.net> wrote: > Subject: Atheism and Evolutionism are both consistent AND inseparable
Okay, I give up: what the fuck is "evolutionism?"
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
On Nov 7, 10:18 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 3:49 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
[SNIP....]
> > >FALSEHOOD #1 > > >..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
> > >Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
> > Notice that the intellectually bankrupt Forrest doesn't produce any > > quotes from ANY Pope that purely naturalistic evolutionism is true or > > should be believed by Catholics.
> My word, Tony! Talk about moving the goalposts! > The Pope accepts the findings of science in respect of biological > evolution.
You are ignoring what he said, Richard.
The current Pope, as one would expect, has said the universe is an "intelligent project." This means, as one would expect, that he accepts Intelligent causation operating in nature.
If the Pope accepts evolution then it is a counterfeit evolution because evolution since Darwin rejects Intelligent causation (Creationism).
The same is true with Michael Behe: he accepts a counterfeit evolution based on the fact that he accepts Intelligent causation. If Intelligence is acting in nature the same is called Creationism-ID. If Intelligence is not the same is called Darwinism or evolution.
Basic stuff, Richard.
And when the Pope "endorses" evolution he is attempting to placate those who would make this into a divisive issue. The Pope wants to please both sides and he wants the issue to go away for the sake of unity and the Gospel.
Darwinists are too stupid to understand that the Pope is giving them lip service. He has outsmarted you guys and your attempt to put him on the spot (just like when the Pharisees attempted to put Jesus on the spot with their "question" about paying taxes to Caesar). Like all Popes, as one would expect, Benedict is strict old school Creationist. If you think otherwise then that's exactly what he wants.
> By *your* standards that makes him an atheist. > You previously claimed that he made statements in support of > evolutionary science for political reasons - i.e. he lied.
> > Care to try?
> > Furthermore the Pope may not remove, modify or ignore the Church's > > denial of polygenesis (to site one example) which contradicts > > evolutionism. Polygenesis is itself enought to deny darwinism.
> Not according to the Pope. > What do you know about Catholic Theology that he doesn't?
> > Lastly whether the Pope is atheist or not is irrelevent. Catholic > > Doctrine does not originate with the Pope, the Pope has no authority > > to change doctrine, and he is not the guarrantor of its > > verisimilitude.
> T Pagano wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:39:11 -0800 (PST), > > "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" > > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 4, 11:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: > >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > >>>> Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > >>>> accurate. > >>>> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > >>>> the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > >>>> Forrest? > >>>> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > >>>> correct? > >>>> Ray > >>> The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth they are. > >> Actually, the "versions" are rather close. The issues in dispute are > >> the relative contributions of various factors to the mechanism of > >> evolution.
> >>> Varying "positions and interpretations" is simply a kind way of saying > >>> that there is no general agreement among atheists > >> FALSEHOOD #1 > >> ..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
> > I might be mistaken in my conflation but I am hardly dishonest about > > it. Forrest is desparate and intellectually bankrupt. Such is the > > inevitable result of adherence to atheism.
> You are indeed mistaken. Your dishonesty lies mostly in a complete > failure to address counterarguments, or to remember from post to post > that you have ever been challenged.
> > The facts are clear and indisputable that the class of people labeled > > "atheist" and the class labeled "evolutionist" are almost completely > > overlapping.
> No they aren't. Where do you get your facts? I'm willing to agree that > in my experience almost all atheists are evolutionists,
Very rare admission of self-evident truth by Harshman.
> but the reverse > is clearly not true. There are millions of evolutionists who are > theists, including your very own pope.
The Pope is a pseudo-evolutionist since he accepts Intelligent causation (as one would expect).
> Sure, if by "not many" you mean hundreds of millions.
> > Furthermore my > > compatriots and I have made a considerable effort over these many > > months at showing that every evolutionist in the forum is either an > > outright atheist, a closet atheist, or a practical atheist. So far NO > > exceptions.
> You have compatriots? And it's really hard to be proud of a "not true > scotsman" argument.
> > The high priest Dawkins has made this unbundantly clear in the forward > > to his bible, "The Blind Watchmaker"-----'Darwin made it possible for > > one to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist.' Will Forrest > > publish a peer reviewed work categorizing Dawkins as dishonest for his > > conflation? Forrest would never think of criticizing the high priest > > of evolutionism.
> You don't appear to understand what "conflation" means. Dawkins says > that evolution allows atheism. (I don't agree, by the way.) He doesn't > say it requires atheism. You are suffering from one of the simplest > logical fallacies, arguing from A implies B to B implies A.
> > Last and not least atheism and purely naturalistic evolutionism are > > completely consistent and inseparable.
> Why? Because you say so? Is Francisco Ayala an atheist? Ken Miller? > Francis Collins?- Hide quoted text -
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:24:27 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Nov 4, 1:29 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > >> >Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > >> >accurate.
> >> >Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > >> >the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > >> >Forrest?
> >> >Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > >> >correct?
> >> There is nothing at all to stop anyone from saying anything, including > >> being harshly critical of (other) scientists interpretation of how > >> things work. The issue is that such criticism is completely ignored > >> unless the criticizer can present cogent evidence to support the > >> alternative position.
> >> What you must understand (if such a thing is possible) is that there > >> is an enormous difference between disagreeing with the technical > >> details of a theory and saying that simply because there are disputes > >> about such technical issues that the enormous body of evolutionary > >> theory is somehow thereby called into question.
> >> When Dawkins or Gould or anyone else presents popularizations to > >> explain the working of the well accepted and unquestioned body of > >> evolutionary biology, you cannot criticize it unless you have a better > >> alternative theory. However if Dawkins or Gould or anyone else makes > >> particular technical claims about particular technical points, then > >> criticism is quite commonplace. Gould certainly suffered severely in > >> this way and wrote an enormous book, the famous "boat anchor" to try > >> to justify his own particular slant on evolution.
> >So the foundation and framework cannot be changed unlike the details? > >This is exactly what Gould 2002 says----repeatedly. It is exactly what > >Darwin said and predicted: his foundation and framework would remain > >but all the details will fall. Of course Darwin's prediction has come > >true.
> >Richard Forrest casually tossed Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr away as > >if he was an authority and Mayr was him. If Mayr can be tossed or > >dismissed then others can do the same. I seriously doubt that Ernst > >Mayr held any position outside of Darwin's foundation and framework. > >In fact I know for a fact that he did not.
> >When the evolutionist asks the Biblical creationist "How do we know > >whose interpretation of scripture is correct?" I usually give the > >answer that you gave in regards to ToE: the foundation and framework > >of Biblical interpretation is not in dispute----just details or > >peripheral matters.
> >> It is also true that ideas in evolution develop over time and what > >> some extremely famous and influential evolutionary biologist > >> (including Darwin) may have said some decades or a century and a half > >> ago may now be out of date.
> If you criticize the details, all you need do is present evidence that > the details are wrong and produce a better explanation.
> If you criticize the foundation, the entire structure, you are > required to show that the whole thing is wrong and produce a better > explanation. The entire structure has been validated for such a long > time by so many totally different areas of science -- fossils and > morphology and biochemistry and development and molecular biology and > ... and it all agrees with the observations of geology and physics and > chemistry and cosmology and .... That means that criticizing the > foundation itself is going to be a monumental task. That is all I > meant. But anybody is free to do so if they choose. It is just that > if they can't shoot down the entire thing, the framework will persist.
> Richard Forrest is free to cast aside anyone he pleases, although I > strongly doubt he has ever done any such thing. And you and I are free > to ignore Richard Forrest's casting. That is the way the world works.
> For some reason, an enormous number of people side with Richard > Forrest and almost nobody sides with you. That is also the way the > world works.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
The fact that Richard Forrest attempts to isolate Ernst Mayr indicates that RFs view of evolution is flawed or subjective.
>> On Nov 6, 5:24 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > Reddfrogg wrote:
>> > > On Nov 6, 12:59 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > > > Reddfrogg wrote: >> > > snip
>> > > > > Most scientists have some religious beliefs, and a certain amount are >> > > > > atheist, just like any sub population of humans.
>> > > > But what is the religion most scientist are 'into'?
>> > > I haven't polled scientists to ask. I know there are some scientists >> > > who are deeply religious and some that are not.
>> > Ask the ones who are 'deeply religious' what is their religion, then >> > come back here and tell us....(at your own risk)..
>> Why would it matter to you?
>> > > > > > > > whatever you grew up beliving...
>> > > > > > > I grew up believing reality was more trustworthy than the nonsense I >> > > > > > > heard the adults around me spouting. But I had to teach myself that.
>> > > > > > > Did you grow up believing that lying was good?
>> > > > > > I'm incapabble of lying.
>> > > > > Then why do you do it? Your previous statement is a lie itself.
>> > > > You mean when George Washing said "I cannot tell a lie", he was lying >> > > > then?"
>> > > Of course, Washington never said that. That was a made up story by >> > > Parson Weems. Washington was, after all a politician.
>> > You just changed my history...is Pluto a planet?
>> Pluto is now considered a "minor planet". That doesn't change the >> fact that it orbits the sun.
>> >Or did my teacher lied to me too about that?
>> I have no idea what your teacher told you. The object known as >> "Pluto" was considered a planet until recently, when astronomers >> decided it was too small to fit the definition.
>> > Isn't it possible I don't have the 'lying gene'?
>> No, since lying is not a genetic trait. Moreover, you've lied right >> in this newsgroup.
>> > Through evolution...I have a defective gene >> > and the rest of yous are a bunch of lyers? You got the lying gene...you're soo lucky.
>> > My girlfriend asked me the other day (cause I go to dance clubs by myself) >> > "Why don't I go to this other club instead?" >> > I told her, "The other club has less girls! I go to this one because it has 'more girls', and >> > the more girls there are, the more fun I have!!"
>> > She said, "That's true, the club you go to *does* have more girls."
>> > Now, I don't know what other guys would have said, but I doubt it was what I responded with... >> > they would probably have said...it's colder there, or the drinks cost more, or anything else.. >> > but I have this 'truth' problem...I cannot tell a lie..I'm incapable of lying. Maybe I have a >> > bad gene somewhere...but there are some out there who seem to believe..that it is an impossibility >> > "not to lie"...it's not in human nature.
>> Yet you continue to lie in this very newsgroup. Go figure.
>What lie have I said? I have a long history of Usenet postings. I have *never* posted a "lie" in my >entire history of Usenet postings.
There you go again, another lie.
> Where is the....evidence?
Well there is a lie just above.
> I might have posted something that might be >inacurate, incorrect or untrue, but not to my knowledge was I aware of it...
There you go again, another lie.
>I could've gotten wrong information >from some one or somewhere, but I never with intent, lied.
And another one.
>I'm incapable of lying.
And again.
That is five in a row - you trying for NashtOff's record?
>> > > > > > > > Of course you might like the Darkins New Testament....he seems to >> > > > > > > > use a dectective like Columbo or Scotland Yard Sherlock Holmes to >> > > > > > > > investigate the crime 'evolution' for evidence...
>> > > > > > > Good detectives and scientists have much in common, yes. Also >> > > > > > > scientists and historians.
>> > > > > > Bad detectives and scientists have much in common...
>> > > > > Such as?
>> > > > Fake evidence.
>> > > Do you have any evidence of scientists routinely using fake >> > > evidence? Do you know what happens to scientists who are found >> > > falsifying their data?
>> > > >Planting a gun...bogus scientific results...
>> > > Again, do you have any evidence that scientists routinely engage in >> > > such activity? A scientist who fakes evidence loses his or her >> > > carreer, and most likely will never again be able to get funding. >> > > There are strong disincentives for scientists to fake their work.
>> > I didn't use the word "routinely"..
>> Then why bring it up at all? If you agree that scientists don't >> normally fake their data, then why did you suggest they did?
>> > Why doesn't he just simply say... >> > "If you don't believe that 'evolution is a fact', you're going to burn in Hell!!!!"
>> Because Dr. Dawkins doesn't believe in Hell, or that evolution is a >> matter of belief. Evolution is a scientific fact, not a religious >> belief. if you prefer to remain ignorant, I suspect that Dr. Dawkins >> will leave you to your ignorance.
>> > You read the last 4 or 5 paragrahs, it is apparent, it is unequivocal...it all fits together..
>> Ie. it's your biased opinion, based on your dislike of science.
>> > that Richard Darwkins is trying to *indoctrinate* 'evolution'.
>> Again, that's your uninformed opinion.
>> > That is, his Greatest "Show" on Earth!
>> > He is the P.T. Barnum of Evolution!
>> > The Starmaker
>> > STEP RIGHT UP LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ... >> > and let me tell you about all the wonders you're going to see inside my evolution!
>> > There is a sucker born every minute --
>> Do you have any evidence that Dr. Dawkins has falsified any of the >> evidence he presents?
>His book is the evidence.
Explain.
> Just as you would say the Bible is evidence it's a fake.
The contents of the bible are evidence it is fiction.
>> > Reviewer Olson, a relentless Darwinist himself, has to complain of Dawkins, >> > "Implying that your audience is stupid does not qualify as a great new angle."
In article <d23f8e6f-e2dc-4f9f-bc8b-10ce08457...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: > On Nov 6, 5:24 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > Reddfrogg wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 12:59 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > Reddfrogg wrote: > > > snip
> > > > > Most scientists have some religious beliefs, and a certain amount are > > > > > atheist, just like any sub population of humans.
> > > > But what is the religion most scientist are 'into'?
> > > I haven't polled scientists to ask. I know there are some scientists > > > who are deeply religious and some that are not.
* Back in 1998 NATURE looked into exactly that question.
NATURE article VOL 394, 23 JULY 1998, page 313
Leading scientists still reject God
Sir: The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever -- almost total. Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 greater scientists within his sample (1).
Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively (2).
In 1996, we repeated Leubas 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature (3).
We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leubas 1914 survey to gauge belief among greater scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever a mere 7% of respondents. Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among greater scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience" (2).
Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge." (4)
Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for and up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater" and "lesser" scientists. Our chosen group of greater scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality, with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1. Repeating Leubas methods presented challenges. For his general surveys, he randomly polled scientists listed in the standard reference work, "American Men of Science" (AMS). We used the current edition. In Leuba's day, AMS editors designated the "great scientists" among their entries, and Leuba used these to identigy his "greater" scientists (1), (2).
The AMS no longer makes these designations, so we chose as our "greater" scientists member of the NAS, a status that once assured designation as "great scientists" in the early AMS. Our method surely generated a more elite sample than Leuba's method, which (if quoted comments by Leuba and Atkins are correct) may explain the extremely low level of belief among our respondents. For the 1914 survey, Leuba mailed his brief questionnaire to a random sample of 400 AMS great scientists. It asked about the respondents belief in a God in intellectual and affectivbe communication with humankind". Respondents had the options of affirming belief, disbelief or agnosticism on each question (1).
Our survey contained precisely the same questions and also asked for anonymous responses. Leuba sent the 1914 survey to 400 "biological and physical scientists", with the latter group including mathematicians as well as physicists and astronomers (1).
Because of the relatively small size of NAS membership, we sent our survey to all 517 NAS members in those core disciplinies. Leuba obtained a return rate of about 70% in 1914 and momre than 75% in 1933 whereas our returns stood at about 60% for the 1996 survey and slightly over 50% from NAS members (1), (2).
As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing course of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral (5).
NAS president Bruce Alberts said: There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists. Our survey suggests otherwise.
Edward J. Larson Department of History, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-6012, USA e-mail: edlar...@uga.edu
Larry Witham 3816 Lansdale Court, Burtonsville, Maryland 20866, USA
1. Leuba, J. H. The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study(Sherman, French & Co., Boston, 1916).
2. Leuba, J. H. Harpers Magazine169,291300 (1934).
3. Larson, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature386,435436 (1997).
4. Highfield, R. The Daily Telegraph3 April, p. 4 (1997).
5. National Academy of Sciences Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science(Natl Acad. Press, Washington DC, 1998).
Table 1: Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in a personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15.0 7.0 Personal disbelief 52.7 68.0 72.2 Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17.0 20.8
Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18.0 7.9 Personal disbelief 25.4 53.0 76.7 Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29.0 23.3
The above figures are all percents.
In 1998, about 93% of "Greater Scientists" (that is, members of the National Academy of Sciences) either had "personal disbelief" or "doubt or agnosticism" about the existence of a personal God and human immortality.
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 10:18 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 7, 3:49 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> [SNIP....]
> > > >FALSEHOOD #1 > > > >..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
> > > >Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
> > > Notice that the intellectually bankrupt Forrest doesn't produce any > > > quotes from ANY Pope that purely naturalistic evolutionism is true or > > > should be believed by Catholics.
> > My word, Tony! Talk about moving the goalposts! > > The Pope accepts the findings of science in respect of biological > > evolution.
> You are ignoring what he said, Richard.
> The current Pope, as one would expect, has said the universe is an > "intelligent project." This means, as one would expect, that he > accepts Intelligent causation operating in nature.
> If the Pope accepts evolution then it is a counterfeit evolution > because evolution since Darwin rejects Intelligent causation > (Creationism).
> The same is true with Michael Behe: he accepts a counterfeit evolution > based on the fact that he accepts Intelligent causation. If > Intelligence is acting in nature the same is called Creationism-ID. If > Intelligence is not the same is called Darwinism or evolution.
> Basic stuff, Richard.
> And when the Pope "endorses" evolution he is attempting to placate > those who would make this into a divisive issue. The Pope wants to > please both sides and he wants the issue to go away for the sake of > unity and the Gospel.
> Darwinists are too stupid to understand that the Pope is giving them > lip service. He has outsmarted you guys and your attempt to put him on > the spot (just like when the Pharisees attempted to put Jesus on the > spot with their "question" about paying taxes to Caesar). Like all > Popes, as one would expect, Benedict is strict old school Creationist. > If you think otherwise then that's exactly what he wants.
> Ray
"Old school Creationist" as in what? OEC? YEC? An inistence on "kinds?"
> > By *your* standards that makes him an atheist. > > You previously claimed that he made statements in support of > > evolutionary science for political reasons - i.e. he lied.
> > > Care to try?
> > > Furthermore the Pope may not remove, modify or ignore the Church's > > > denial of polygenesis (to site one example) which contradicts > > > evolutionism. Polygenesis is itself enought to deny darwinism.
> > Not according to the Pope. > > What do you know about Catholic Theology that he doesn't?
> > > Lastly whether the Pope is atheist or not is irrelevent. Catholic > > > Doctrine does not originate with the Pope, the Pope has no authority > > > to change doctrine, and he is not the guarrantor of its > > > verisimilitude.
> > Excuse me? Ever heard of Papal infallibility?
> > RF
> > > Regards, > > > T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
-- macaddicted Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned by those who love her and is found by those who seek her. Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:39:11 -0800 (PST), > "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 4, 11:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > >> >Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > >> >accurate.
> >> >Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > >> >the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > >> >Forrest?
> >> >Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > >> >correct?
> >> >Ray
> >> The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth they are.
> >Actually, the "versions" are rather close. The issues in dispute are > >the relative contributions of various factors to the mechanism of > >evolution.
> >> Varying "positions and interpretations" is simply a kind way of saying > >> that there is no general agreement among atheists
> >FALSEHOOD #1 > >..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
> >Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
> Notice that the intellectually bankrupt Forrest doesn't produce any > quotes from ANY Pope that purely naturalistic evolutionism is true or > should be believed by Catholics. Care to try?
If by "purely naturalistic" you mean to include ambiogenesis then certainly no. But if that is removed then no Catholic is told definitively that evolution is false and cannot, under any circumstances, be "believed." (I prefer studied, which is why "believed is in scare quotes.)
> Furthermore the Pope may not remove, modify or ignore the Church's > denial of polygenesis (to site one example) which contradicts > evolutionism. Polygenesis is itself enought to deny darwinism.
State clearly, please, where the DOGMATIC (irreformable) definition of monogenism was made.
> Lastly whether the Pope is atheist or not is irrelevent. Catholic > Doctrine does not originate with the Pope, the Pope has no authority > to change doctrine, and he is not the guarrantor of its > verisimilitude.
Theologians everywhere will be surprised to hear that Pagano has, at a whim, undone the definition of the Immaculate Conception (Pius IX) and the Assumption of Mary (Pius XII) as doctrinal.
I suppose an exception is made for Popes that are sufficiently Pius.
> Regards, > T Pagano
-- macaddicted Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned by those who love her and is found by those who seek her. Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > T Pagano wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:39:11 -0800 (PST), > > "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" > > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 4, 11:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: > >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > >>>> Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > >>>> accurate. > >>>> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > >>>> the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > >>>> Forrest? > >>>> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > >>>> correct? > >>>> Ray > >>> The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth they are. > >> Actually, the "versions" are rather close. The issues in dispute are > >> the relative contributions of various factors to the mechanism of > >> evolution.
> >>> Varying "positions and interpretations" is simply a kind way of saying > >>> that there is no general agreement among atheists > >> FALSEHOOD #1 > >> ..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
> >> Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
> > Notice that the intellectually bankrupt Forrest doesn't produce any > > quotes from ANY Pope that purely naturalistic evolutionism is true or > > should be believed by Catholics. Care to try?
> I see that you have introduced some weasel words here. Are you now no > longer opposed to evolution, only "purely naturalistic" evolution? Are > you in fact now in agreement that theistic evolution is acceptable?
> > Furthermore the Pope may not remove, modify or ignore the Church's > > denial of polygenesis (to site one example) which contradicts > > evolutionism. Polygenesis is itself enought to deny darwinism.
> You will have to explain this.
He is refering to his "Princess Bride" ("I do not think it means what you think it means") interpretation of a 1909 document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and the 1950 encyclical "Humani Generis" among other things.
Basically he's saying that the Church says that there were a historic Adam and Eve.
> > Lastly whether the Pope is atheist or not is irrelevent. Catholic > > Doctrine does not originate with the Pope, the Pope has no authority > > to change doctrine, and he is not the guarrantor of its > > verisimilitude.
> > Regards, > > T Pagano
-- macaddicted Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned by those who love her and is found by those who seek her. Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > but the reverse > > is clearly not true. There are millions of evolutionists who are > > theists, including your very own pope.
> The Pope is a pseudo-evolutionist since he accepts Intelligent > causation (as one would expect).
How does one differentiate between a "pseudo-evolutionist" and a theisitic-evolutionist?
-- macaddicted Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned by those who love her and is found by those who seek her. Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 5, 5:05 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:24:27 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 4, 1:29 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that >> >> >Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or >> >> >accurate.
>> >> >Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying >> >> >the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard >> >> >Forrest?
>> >> >Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is >> >> >correct?
>> >> There is nothing at all to stop anyone from saying anything, including >> >> being harshly critical of (other) scientists interpretation of how >> >> things work. The issue is that such criticism is completely ignored >> >> unless the criticizer can present cogent evidence to support the >> >> alternative position.
>> >> What you must understand (if such a thing is possible) is that there >> >> is an enormous difference between disagreeing with the technical >> >> details of a theory and saying that simply because there are disputes >> >> about such technical issues that the enormous body of evolutionary >> >> theory is somehow thereby called into question.
>> >> When Dawkins or Gould or anyone else presents popularizations to >> >> explain the working of the well accepted and unquestioned body of >> >> evolutionary biology, you cannot criticize it unless you have a better >> >> alternative theory. However if Dawkins or Gould or anyone else makes >> >> particular technical claims about particular technical points, then >> >> criticism is quite commonplace. Gould certainly suffered severely in >> >> this way and wrote an enormous book, the famous "boat anchor" to try >> >> to justify his own particular slant on evolution.
>> >So the foundation and framework cannot be changed unlike the details? >> >This is exactly what Gould 2002 says----repeatedly. It is exactly what >> >Darwin said and predicted: his foundation and framework would remain >> >but all the details will fall. Of course Darwin's prediction has come >> >true.
>> >Richard Forrest casually tossed Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr away as >> >if he was an authority and Mayr was him. If Mayr can be tossed or >> >dismissed then others can do the same. I seriously doubt that Ernst >> >Mayr held any position outside of Darwin's foundation and framework. >> >In fact I know for a fact that he did not.
>> >When the evolutionist asks the Biblical creationist "How do we know >> >whose interpretation of scripture is correct?" I usually give the >> >answer that you gave in regards to ToE: the foundation and framework >> >of Biblical interpretation is not in dispute----just details or >> >peripheral matters.
>> >> It is also true that ideas in evolution develop over time and what >> >> some extremely famous and influential evolutionary biologist >> >> (including Darwin) may have said some decades or a century and a half >> >> ago may now be out of date.
>> If you criticize the details, all you need do is present evidence that >> the details are wrong and produce a better explanation.
>> If you criticize the foundation, the entire structure, you are >> required to show that the whole thing is wrong and produce a better >> explanation. The entire structure has been validated for such a long >> time by so many totally different areas of science -- fossils and >> morphology and biochemistry and development and molecular biology and >> ... and it all agrees with the observations of geology and physics and >> chemistry and cosmology and .... That means that criticizing the >> foundation itself is going to be a monumental task. That is all I >> meant. But anybody is free to do so if they choose. It is just that >> if they can't shoot down the entire thing, the framework will persist.
>> Richard Forrest is free to cast aside anyone he pleases, although I >> strongly doubt he has ever done any such thing. And you and I are free >> to ignore Richard Forrest's casting. That is the way the world works.
>> For some reason, an enormous number of people side with Richard >> Forrest and almost nobody sides with you. That is also the way the >> world works.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>The fact that Richard Forrest attempts to isolate Ernst Mayr indicates >that RFs view of evolution is flawed or subjective.
>Ray
You are, of course, quite free to say such a thing. Getting people to agree with you is another story, entirely. If you want that to happen, you might try embellishing your claims with good, hard, evidence that can be readily confirmed by others on the basis of observed facts.
On Nov 7, 7:36 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If the Pope accepts evolution then it is a counterfeit evolution > because evolution since Darwin rejects Intelligent causation > (Creationism).
no one knows what ray is talking about. first he calls creationism creationims ONLY if it's 'immutable'
now it's creationism if evolution is guided by god.
the fact is, no science mentions 'intelligence' as a cause in nature. ray's a pantheist because he thinks intelligence is a force of nature, like gravity
he's certainly no christian
> And when the Pope "endorses" evolution he is attempting to placate > those who would make this into a divisive issue. The Pope wants to > please both sides and he wants the issue to go away for the sake of > unity and the Gospel.
nope. the current pope rejects birth control, a MUCH more contentious issue with catholics. if he holds a hard line on THAT, what delusion makes ray think the pope gives a rat's rump about evolution?
ray has no familiarity with the catholic church at all, and simply makes shit up.
> Darwinists are too stupid to understand that the Pope is giving them > lip service. He has outsmarted you guys and your attempt to put him on > the spot (just like when the Pharisees attempted to put Jesus on the > spot with their "question" about paying taxes to Caesar). Like all > Popes, as one would expect, Benedict is strict old school Creationist. > If you think otherwise then that's exactly what he wants.
>On Nov 7, 9:51 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> T Pagano wrote: >> > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:39:11 -0800 (PST), >> > "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" >> > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 4, 11:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> >>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that >> >>>> Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or >> >>>> accurate. >> >>>> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying >> >>>> the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard >> >>>> Forrest? >> >>>> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is >> >>>> correct? >> >>>> Ray >> >>> The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth they are. >> >> Actually, the "versions" are rather close. The issues in dispute are >> >> the relative contributions of various factors to the mechanism of >> >> evolution.
>> >>> Varying "positions and interpretations" is simply a kind way of saying >> >>> that there is no general agreement among atheists >> >> FALSEHOOD #1 >> >> ..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
>> >> Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
>> >>> about specific >> >>> observable, testable mechanisms causing genuinely novel >> >>> transformational change. >> >> There is no universal agreement amongst scientists either. However, >> >> there are very large area in which there is agreement.
>> > Notice here that Forrest doesn't deny the charge that there is no >> > specific, observable, testable mechanism causing transformational >> > change.
>> > The whole dispute with Darwinism is its claim to explain the creation >> > of biological novelty and it is concerning this very aspect that there >> > is no agreement among atheists. Darwin (and Dawkins with him) >> > argued that the staggering impossibilities faced by the creation of >> > biological features whose function we still don't understand is >> > explained by a simple naturalistic reductionist gradualism.
>> > The Gouldians counter by showing that the fossil record doesn't show >> > the naturalistic continuity of fossil populations that such a >> > gradualism would entail. Unfortunately all Punc Eq does is attempt >> > to theorize about the initial conditions that "might" lead to the >> > emergence of novelty; it does not offer any genetic or biochemical >> > mechanisms that can be searched for or tested.
>> Again, you don't appear to have any idea about the views of either >> Dawkins or Gould. Pity. While Gould flirted with macromutation on >> occasion, in PE the transformation of populations happens gradually in >> the standard Darwinian way.
>You could not be anymore wrong (as usual). PE says the rate of >mutation is highly accelerated.
Actually, no it does not. It says that, at times, the rate of speciation is faster than normal.
>This is not the standard Darwinian >way.
It is now.
>> > Furthermore even Punc Eq doesn't explain why the fossil record NEVER >> > captured a single example of a nascent structure in the fossil record.
>> What explains that is that when shown a nascent structure you refuse to >> agree that it's nascent.
>> > Finally while this may seem like small potatoes to >> > "stick-a-fork-in-me-I'm-done" Forrest the whole theory hinges upon it.
>> Wrong as usual. Common descent would be clear even in the absence of a >> mechanism.
>False.
You are, but I've come to expect that of you.
>Without mechanism (causation) the alleged effect is imaginary.
No, it is observed.
>Ray
-- Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 7, 10:18 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 3:49 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> [SNIP....]
>>>> FALSEHOOD #1 ..and once again you are dishonestly conflating >>>> science with atheism. Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he >>>> a liar? >>> Notice that the intellectually bankrupt Forrest doesn't produce >>> any quotes from ANY Pope that purely naturalistic evolutionism is >>> true or should be believed by Catholics. >> My word, Tony! Talk about moving the goalposts! The Pope accepts >> the findings of science in respect of biological evolution.
> You are ignoring what he said, Richard.
> The current Pope, as one would expect, has said the universe is an > "intelligent project." This means, as one would expect, that he > accepts Intelligent causation operating in nature.
> If the Pope accepts evolution then it is a counterfeit evolution > because evolution since Darwin rejects Intelligent causation > (Creationism).
The Pope argues for theistic evolution. Evolutionary biologists have no problem with that , as it does not change the explanation of the diversity offered by their theory. Those evolutionists who also happen to be atheists in their private capacty would disagree with that philosophical interpretation of their theory, but that is a philosophical, not a scientific issue.
> The same is true with Michael Behe: he accepts a counterfeit > evolution based on the fact that he accepts Intelligent causation. If > Intelligence is acting in nature the same is called Creationism-ID. > If Intelligence is not the same is called Darwinism or evolution.
> Basic stuff, Richard.
> And when the Pope "endorses" evolution he is attempting to placate > those who would make this into a divisive issue. The Pope wants to > please both sides and he wants the issue to go away for the sake of > unity and the Gospel.
The Pope endorsed the theory of evolution long before he became pope. My quotes were from the time when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, and had no reason to placate anyone. The seminars that were held in his honour on the theory of evolution were a private event organised by his "circle of friends", mainly former students from the time he was professor. No need to be political in this environment either. and lastly, the Pope has made it clear on much more controversial topics like contraception that the has no intention whatsoever to be "political".
> Darwinists are too stupid to understand that the Pope is giving them > lip service.
The only thing "Darwinists" want is an acceptance of the scientific theory as formulated, with the specific explanations that the theory offered accepted e.g. statements of the form:
"Land-to-sea transition in whale evolution involved at least two distinct phases of locomotor specialization 41m years ago: (1) hindlimb domination for drag-based pelvic paddling in protocetids (Rodhocetus), with tail elongation for stability, followed by (2) lumbus domination for lift-based caudal undulation and oscillation in basilosaurids (Dorudon)."
As long as the scientific data and explanations of this form are accepted, evolutionary biologists in their professional capacity do not care if then someone wants to see in this statement also the invisible hand and plan of a creator god.
He has outsmarted you guys and your attempt to put him on
> the spot (just like when the Pharisees attempted to put Jesus on the > spot with their "question" about paying taxes to Caesar). Like all > Popes, as one would expect, Benedict is strict old school > Creationist. If you think otherwise then that's exactly what he > wants.
>> By *your* standards that makes him an atheist. You previously >> claimed that he made statements in support of evolutionary science >> for political reasons - i.e. he lied.
>>> Care to try? Furthermore the Pope may not remove, modify or >>> ignore the Church's denial of polygenesis (to site one example) >>> which contradicts evolutionism. Polygenesis is itself enought to >>> deny darwinism. >> Not according to the Pope. What do you know about Catholic Theology >> that he doesn't?
>>> Lastly whether the Pope is atheist or not is irrelevent. Catholic >>> Doctrine does not originate with the Pope, the Pope has no >>> authority to change doctrine, and he is not the guarrantor of its >>> verisimilitude. >> Excuse me? Ever heard of Papal infallibility?
>> RF
>>> Regards, T Pagano- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 7, 10:18 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 7, 3:49 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> [SNIP....]
> > > >FALSEHOOD #1 > > > >..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
> > > >Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
> > > Notice that the intellectually bankrupt Forrest doesn't produce any > > > quotes from ANY Pope that purely naturalistic evolutionism is true or > > > should be believed by Catholics.
> > My word, Tony! Talk about moving the goalposts! > > The Pope accepts the findings of science in respect of biological > > evolution.
> You are ignoring what he said, Richard.
> The current Pope, as one would expect, has said the universe is an > "intelligent project." This means, as one would expect, that he > accepts Intelligent causation operating in nature.
> If the Pope accepts evolution then it is a counterfeit evolution > because evolution since Darwin rejects Intelligent causation > (Creationism).
What bullshit, Ray!
> The same is true with Michael Behe: he accepts a counterfeit evolution > based on the fact that he accepts Intelligent causation. If > Intelligence is acting in nature the same is called Creationism-ID. If > Intelligence is not the same is called Darwinism or evolution.
> Basic stuff, Richard.
And basic bullshit!
> And when the Pope "endorses" evolution he is attempting to placate > those who would make this into a divisive issue. The Pope wants to > please both sides and he wants the issue to go away for the sake of > unity and the Gospel.
So he's lying, as Tony states.
> Darwinists are too stupid to understand that the Pope is giving them > lip service.
You mean lying for political reasons.
> He has outsmarted you guys and your attempt to put him on > the spot (just like when the Pharisees attempted to put Jesus on the > spot with their "question" about paying taxes to Caesar).
By lying?
> Like all > Popes, as one would expect, Benedict is strict old school Creationist.
So why does he lie about his beliefs?
> If you think otherwise then that's exactly what he wants.
I think that the Pope is basically honest. You and Tony evidently think that he is a liar.
> > By *your* standards that makes him an atheist. > > You previously claimed that he made statements in support of > > evolutionary science for political reasons - i.e. he lied.
> > > Care to try?
> > > Furthermore the Pope may not remove, modify or ignore the Church's > > > denial of polygenesis (to site one example) which contradicts > > > evolutionism. Polygenesis is itself enought to deny darwinism.
> > Not according to the Pope. > > What do you know about Catholic Theology that he doesn't?
> > > Lastly whether the Pope is atheist or not is irrelevent. Catholic > > > Doctrine does not originate with the Pope, the Pope has no authority > > > to change doctrine, and he is not the guarrantor of its > > > verisimilitude.
> On Nov 5, 5:05 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:24:27 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >On Nov 4, 1:29 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > > >> >Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > > >> >accurate.
> > >> >Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > > >> >the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > > >> >Forrest?
> > >> >Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > > >> >correct?
> > >> There is nothing at all to stop anyone from saying anything, including > > >> being harshly critical of (other) scientists interpretation of how > > >> things work. The issue is that such criticism is completely ignored > > >> unless the criticizer can present cogent evidence to support the > > >> alternative position.
> > >> What you must understand (if such a thing is possible) is that there > > >> is an enormous difference between disagreeing with the technical > > >> details of a theory and saying that simply because there are disputes > > >> about such technical issues that the enormous body of evolutionary > > >> theory is somehow thereby called into question.
> > >> When Dawkins or Gould or anyone else presents popularizations to > > >> explain the working of the well accepted and unquestioned body of > > >> evolutionary biology, you cannot criticize it unless you have a better > > >> alternative theory. However if Dawkins or Gould or anyone else makes > > >> particular technical claims about particular technical points, then > > >> criticism is quite commonplace. Gould certainly suffered severely in > > >> this way and wrote an enormous book, the famous "boat anchor" to try > > >> to justify his own particular slant on evolution.
> > >So the foundation and framework cannot be changed unlike the details? > > >This is exactly what Gould 2002 says----repeatedly. It is exactly what > > >Darwin said and predicted: his foundation and framework would remain > > >but all the details will fall. Of course Darwin's prediction has come > > >true.
> > >Richard Forrest casually tossed Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr away as > > >if he was an authority and Mayr was him. If Mayr can be tossed or > > >dismissed then others can do the same. I seriously doubt that Ernst > > >Mayr held any position outside of Darwin's foundation and framework. > > >In fact I know for a fact that he did not.
> > >When the evolutionist asks the Biblical creationist "How do we know > > >whose interpretation of scripture is correct?" I usually give the > > >answer that you gave in regards to ToE: the foundation and framework > > >of Biblical interpretation is not in dispute----just details or > > >peripheral matters.
> > >> It is also true that ideas in evolution develop over time and what > > >> some extremely famous and influential evolutionary biologist > > >> (including Darwin) may have said some decades or a century and a half > > >> ago may now be out of date.
> > If you criticize the details, all you need do is present evidence that > > the details are wrong and produce a better explanation.
> > If you criticize the foundation, the entire structure, you are > > required to show that the whole thing is wrong and produce a better > > explanation. The entire structure has been validated for such a long > > time by so many totally different areas of science -- fossils and > > morphology and biochemistry and development and molecular biology and > > ... and it all agrees with the observations of geology and physics and > > chemistry and cosmology and .... That means that criticizing the > > foundation itself is going to be a monumental task. That is all I > > meant. But anybody is free to do so if they choose. It is just that > > if they can't shoot down the entire thing, the framework will persist.
> > Richard Forrest is free to cast aside anyone he pleases, although I > > strongly doubt he has ever done any such thing. And you and I are free > > to ignore Richard Forrest's casting. That is the way the world works.
> > For some reason, an enormous number of people side with Richard > > Forrest and almost nobody sides with you. That is also the way the > > world works.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> The fact that Richard Forrest attempts to isolate Ernst Mayr indicates > that RFs view of evolution is flawed or subjective.
The fact that I *haven't* tried to isolate Mayr, and that all I have done is to write about Mayr's book what Mayr himself wrote about it - something *you* pointed out yourself - shows that you are at best delusional, at worst an outright liar.
> On Nov 7, 12:39 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 6, 8:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 1:04 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> > > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 5, 11:19 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 5, 12:30 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> > > > > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 4, 8:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > > > > > > > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > > > > > > > accurate.
> > > > > > No, I said that Mayr's book "What evolution is" should be called "What > > > > > > Mayr says evolution is".
> > > > > Then anyone can say the same about Dawkins book or Gould's book or > > > > > Fisher's book, etc.etc.?
> > > > Of course
> > > > > > Evolution is a phenomenon of nature. Evolutionary theory seeks to > > > > > > explain *how* this phenomenon operates.
> > > > > Not exactly correct. Natural selection is a phenomenon of nature.
> > > > No, exactly correct. Evolution is a phenomenon of nature. Natural > > > > selection is a theoretical explanation for the mechanism of evolution.
> > > > > > As is the case with all > > > > > > theories on all branches of every science, it is subject to revision > > > > > > or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. This process of > > > > > > sceptical criticism means that different researchers may have > > > > > > different views over how the evidence should be interpreted. Such > > > > > > disputes are resolved by further research.
> > > > > So you were implying that Mayr's view is somehow defective?
> > > > No, I was stating very clearly that science advances because different > > > > researchers have different views over how the evidence should be > > > > interpreted.
> > > > > Gould was attacked by orthodoxy.
> > > > No, he wasn't. He was attacked by other scientists who disagreed with > > > > him over the interpretation of the evidence.
> > > > > Your claims about Mayr presuppose him > > > > > to be like Gould?
> > > > No, I my "claims" about Mayr presuppose him to be a scientist.
> > > > > Both Mayr and Gould defended Darwin till the day they died. Both > > > > > called their explications "Darwinian." With this said what is your > > > > > beef with Mayr?
> > > > I don't have a "beef with Mayr". However, in his popular book "What > > > > Evolution is" he presented a somewhat onesided view of evolution.
> > > He admitted as much in the Preface and he explained why.
> > Quite so. > > Why do you think I "have a beef with Mayr" when I am merely repeating > > what Mayr himself wrote?
> Mayr would not agree with your denigrations of his work (obviously). > This reply shows how dishonest that you are.
> > > > > For the record: Gould maintained ToE with punctuated equilibria to be > > > > > modified Darwinism.
> > > > Quite so. Perhaps you can explain why creationists such as Tony Pagano > > > > insist on lying about this?
> > > I am not interested in your private "get Tony Pagano" agenda.
> > Perhaps not, but it's a reflection on creationist morality that they > > don't care if one of their own is a persistent liar.
> Slandering Tony Pagano
Look, you ignorant twit! If it's *WRITTEN* it's *LIBEL* , not slander. In any case, it isn't libel if it's true.
> is explained as being caused by frustration due > to the inability to refute anything that he says.
Ray, I have identified numerous outright falsehoods in his posts. I have provided evidence to support that conclusion. Tony retreats behind a smokescreen of further falsehoods rather than address the evidence, then comes back claiming victory.
> > > > > Gould NEVER claimed any scientific existence > > > > > outside of Darwin----NEVER.
> > > > Gould never claimed any "scientific existence" at all. However, he > > > > repeatedly referred to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural > > > > selection as an incomplete model for evolution.
> > > > > The same is true with Mayr. I suspect your > > > > > displeasure with Mayr is petty.
> > > > My word, Ray! I doubt very much that Mayr would have claimed that his > > > > personal views on evolution were holy writ and beyond revision or > > > > rejection if that is what the evidence demands.
> > > > You have a very peculiar idea of the nature of science, and how > > > > scientists work.
> > > > RF
> > > Silly.
> > > No scholar agrees with his critics.
> > > Ray
> > You are not a scholar, Ray, and have no more idea of what constitutes > > good scholarship than you do about science.
> > RF- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Non-sequitur.
> You are angry. I have exposed your non-sense claims about Ernst Mayr.
Ray, I merely repeated what Mayr wrote about his own book!
> You are a total nobody denigrating a dead Harvard Professor----how > cowardly.
> And I am relieved to be rejected by a person who thinks apes evolved > into men over the course of millions of years and that nature produced > itself. To be accepted or endorsed by Richard Forrest (or any > evolutionist) would be the greatest insult imaginable----glad I didn't > get it.
> Ray
Logic and reason are concepts which are very alien to you, Ray.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote: > > On Nov 5, 12:50 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote: > >> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>> Only 8 falsehoods, Tony. Mind you, it was a short post. > >>> Bearing in mind that you have been corrected numerous times on most of > >>> these falsehoods and have been provided with evidence which shows that > >>> they are falsehoods, what do you think you gain by such outright lies? > >>> Not that I'm complaining. After all, as I keep explaining, I post on > >>> boards such as this to expose the ignorance and dishonesty of > >>> creationists. Your contribution is gratefully accepted. > >>> RF > >> The only accomplishment that you can boast about is that you addressed > >> every single point. The unfortunate fact is that you didn't provide > >> anything concrete or rigorous.
> >> You're just another evocheerleader. Nothing to see here.
> > Let's see: > > FALSEHOOD #1 - Tony conflates scientists with atheists. Many > > scientists, including many evolutionary biologists are devout > > religious believers, and according to the criteria Tony uses the Pope > > is an atheist.
> LOL
Tony labels anyone who accepts the findings of science in respect of evolution an atheist. The Pope accepts the findings of science in respect of evolution. That makes him, according to Tony, an atheist.
Is such elementary logic too much for you?
> > Do you think that the Pope is an atheist, as Tony implies, or just a > > liar, as Tony has stated?
> Who is this Pope and why is he more important than Scripture?
Tony is a Roman Catholic. The Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic church. I suggest that it should be a matter of some concern to Tony that the head of his own church is an atheist. His rationalisation, that he is a liar, seems equally awkward for him.
> Apostolic succession is not something I subscribe to.
Well bully for you. I suggest that Tony does.
> > And do you think that all the scientists who claim to believe in God > > are lying?
> This has been discussed here ad nauseam. If you go by the Bible, there > is no evolution and man was created by God.
Well, thousands of Christian clergy (12,099 by the latest count) disagree with you: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm The head of the largest Christian church, the Pope, disagrees with you. The heads of most mainstream Christian churches disagree with you.
What makes them wrong and you right?
> You can believe in the God > of your choice, but if you conflate evolution with Christianity, it > won't fly.
Who on earth has ever tried to conflate evolution with Christianity? What we are talking about is Tony's attempts to conflate evolution with atheism.
> > FALSEHOOD #2 > > Mechanisms for evolution. Tony claims that no such mechanisms exist. > > There is an extensive scientific literature which describes such > > mechanisms in exhaustive detail. If you, or any other creationist > > think that they authors of *all* those papers are either
> They are proposed mechanisms.
And Tony denies that they exist.
> Science is ever shifting and adapts itself > to new knowledge derived from repeatable research.
Quite so. Your point?
> No such thing with > the fairy tale of useless evolution.
FALSEHOOD #1 Evolutionary theory has been expanded and revised considerably in the light of new knowledge over the past 150 years. This is a matter of historical record.
> > 1) Lying > > or > > 2) Misinterpreting the data > > ...I suggest that you present evidence to support such a gross > > defamation. If you can't - and you know perfectly well that you can't > > - you are making false accusations. The Bible calls this "bearing > > false witness".
> My criterion for the validity of a theory is the measure that it > fulfills some degree of usefulness to mankind.
Well bully for you. Scientists evaluate theories according to their ability to make predictions, their compliance with the evidence, and that they set limits on possible outcomes.
>I have proven in many of > my previous posts, without a shadow of a doubt, that the ToE is useless.
FALSEHOOD #2 You have done nothing of the sort. You have shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are ignorant of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular, that you are impervious to evidence and logic, and that you are prepared to promote outright falsehoods in a rather facile pretence that you have any sort of argument to offer.
> If it's useless, it's not valid.
FALSEHOOD #3 The fact that it can and has made predictions which have been exhaustively tested against the evidence shows that it's valid.
> And one cannot "defame" a notion or an object, dumbstick.
Tony was defaming evolutionary biologists. Who's the "dumstick"?
> > FALSEHOOD #3 Tony quotes Gould in support of his assertion that the > > fossil record shows "stasis NOT transformation change". Yet Gould > > *himself* has stated that this is not the case.
> That depends on how you interpret what he said and your particular > ideological bias.
No, it's a question of Tony misrepresenting what Gould said about the fossil record. It has nothing to do with interpretation or ideological bias, unless one considers a dislike of dishonesty to be an ideological bias.
> > Are you suggesting that Tony knows what Gould meant better than Gould > > did?
> ἔπεα πτερόεντα.
Irrelevant response noted. Do you think that Tony knows what Gould meant better than Gould himself?
> > FALSEHOOD #4 > > "Transformational change has NEVER been observed in the living > > world." > > There is an extensive scientific literature which describes such > > changes in exhaustive detail. If you, or any other creationist think > > that they authors of *all* those papers are either
> These are interpreted according to a specific model that has proven to > be useless
FALSEHOOD #4 No, they are records of "transformational change" which have been observed in action in nature and in the laboratory. Evolutionary theory provides the only scientific model of *how* such "transformational changes" occur.
> and is modified on a daily basis.
FALSEHOOD #5 Evolutionary theory is not "modified on a daily basis".
> There is no holy truth in > this literature.
Quite so. Why do creationists claim that "evolutionists" treat it as such?
> > 1) Lying > > or > > 2) Misinterpreting the data > > ...I suggest that you present evidence to support such a gross > > defamation. If you can't - and you know perfectly well that you can't > > - you are making false accusations. The Bible calls this "bearing > > false witness".
> > Tell you what: demonstrate that I am wrong in any of these case in > > which I identify falsehoods, and we'll go on to the next four.
> I just did.
No, you didn't. You produced a string of falsehoods and unsupported assertions and failed to produce any evidence whatsoever.
> And again, you were the one countering arguments with no > support.
I have provided support for my arguments over and over again. Creationists such as yourself ignore it.
> So why not start citing and supporting your positions with > reliable sources, because your just saying so doesn't count.
I've done so.
> > If you can't - and you know perfectly well that you can't - I suggest > > that you condone such blatant dishonesty provided it comes from > > another creationist.
> > But please - demonstrate that you are not just another pathetic > > creationist coward and produce a substantive response.
> Color me hurt.
..and identified yet again as just another pathetic creationist coward unable to produce a substantive response.
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:39:11 -0800 (PST), > "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 4, 11:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > >> >Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > >> >accurate.
> >> >Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > >> >the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > >> >Forrest?
> >> >Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > >> >correct?
> >> >Ray
> >> The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth they are.
> >Actually, the "versions" are rather close. The issues in dispute are > >the relative contributions of various factors to the mechanism of > >evolution.
> >> Varying "positions and interpretations" is simply a kind way of saying > >> that there is no general agreement among atheists
> >FALSEHOOD #1 > >..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
> I might be mistaken in my conflation but I am hardly dishonest about > it.
You identify anyone who accepts the findings of science in respect of evolution as an atheist. Many scientists, including many evolutionary biologists, are devout religious believers. The Pope accepts the findings of science in respect of evolution.
> Forrest is desparate and intellectually bankrupt.
I suggest that others are better placed to make such a judgement than you are.
> Such is the > inevitable result of adherence to atheism.
What have I ever written here or anywhere else which implies that I am an atheist, Tony?
> The facts are clear and indisputable that the class of people labeled > "atheist" and the class labeled "evolutionist" are almost completely > overlapping.
If by "evolutionist" you mean someone which accepts the findings of science in respect of evolution, this is an outright falsehood. Over 12,000 Christian clergy have signed the "Clergy Letter". Are they all atheists?
> There are exceptions but not many. Furthermore my > compatriots and I have made a considerable effort over these many > months at showing that every evolutionist in the forum is either an > outright atheist, a closet atheist, or a practical atheist. So far NO > exceptions.
You have demonstrated absolutely nothing other than a dogmatic refusal to address evidence and the willingness to promote blatant falsehoods.
> The high priest Dawkins has made this unbundantly clear in the forward > to his bible, "The Blind Watchmaker"-----'Darwin made it possible for > one to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist.'
Well bully for Dawkins. So what?
> Will Forrest > publish a peer reviewed work categorizing Dawkins as dishonest for his > conflation?
Saying that Darwin made it possible for one to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist is not conflating atheism with acceptance of evolutionary theory. Evidently reading for comprehension is a struggle for you. Furthermore, "The Blind Watchmaker" is not a peer-reviewed work, but a popular book on the subject of evolution.
> Forrest would never think of criticizing the high priest > of evolutionism.
I have criticised Dawkins on this forum several times. He is not the "high priest of evolutionism". There is no religion of "evolutionism" and in science there are no "high priests".
> Last and not least atheism and purely naturalistic evolutionism are > completely consistent and inseparable.
What on earth is "evolutionism"? What do you think you achieve by setting up such silly straw men?
> >Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
> >> about specific > >> observable, testable mechanisms causing genuinely novel > >> transformational change.
> >There is no universal agreement amongst scientists either. However, > >there are very large area in which there is agreement.
> >> There are no observable, testable > >> mechanisms.
> >FALSEHOOD #2 > >There are, and they have been observed and measured in nature and > >replicated in the laboratory.
> >> The reason for the disagreement among atheists is that the fossil > >> record shows stasis NOT transformation change.
> >FALSEHOOD #3 > >According to the authority you cited in support of this claim, the > >fossil record *does* show such change.
> >> And transformational > >> change has NEVER been observed in the living world.
> >FALSEHOOD #4 > >It has been studied in exhaustive detail and published in numerous > >scientific paper
> >> Lenski's 40,000+ > >> generation breeding of E coli experiment is a testament to the fixity > >> of species not nature's ability to transform them.
> >FALSEHOOD #5 > >..and an assertion which blatantly contradicts the conclusions formed > >by Lenski's experiments.
> >> For example, the Gouldian naturalist camp has argued vigorously for > >> almost 35 years that Darwin's (and now Dawkins's) reductionist > >> gradualism is contradicted by the fossil record.
> >FALSEHOOD #6 > >Not according to Gould, they didn't. > >What do you know about Gould's views on evolution which Gould didn't > >know himself?
> >> Notwithstanding > >> their unbridgeable disagreement
> >FALSEHOOD #7 > >Far from being an "unbridgeable disagreement", the issue of Punctuated > >Equilibrium is one of evolutionary tempo.
> >> neither side can produce an > >> observable, testable mechanism for transformational change.
> >FALSEHOOD #8 > >Actually, science can.
> >> Regards, > >> T Pagano
> >Only 8 falsehoods, Tony. Mind you, it was a short post.
> >Bearing in mind that you have been corrected numerous times on most of > >these falsehoods and have been provided with evidence which shows that > >they are falsehoods, what do you think you gain by such outright lies?
> >Not that I'm complaining. After all, as I keep explaining, I post on > >boards such as this to expose the ignorance and dishonesty of > >creationists. Your contribution is gratefully accepted.
|
