(03-08-2009 12:24 PM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(03-07-2009 12:52 PM)Paul M Wrote:  First, read your own link. There's no "squelching of Free Speech".

I know the illiteracy rate is probably pretty high in OK, but I didn't think you could make it through college without being able to read unless you played football.

Read the full text of the resolution. It was specifically condemning the university for allowing someone to speak that presented a viewpoint that might offend most Oklahomans - the thumper contingent.

It was the university who laughed the suggestion off and allowed the speech to go on. Universities should be centers of free speech, even in Huckabee/Palin-states.

Condemning and suggesting and squelching are very differant things. Us illiterate hillbillies can figure that out without professors telling us differantly, as yours must have. Apparently an education for some is wasted. I would tell you to read it again, but it must be the comprehending part you have a failing in.

The Resolution is OPPOSED to the squelching of free speech that is happening. It states that "a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry;" and "THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma".

I assume it's the part of the resolution that says that the preaching of the intolerant Dawkins religion "will only serve to present a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept", no matter how open, inclusive and tolerant that any other "considerations" may be, that you don't like. You know, the part that's against the squelching of free speech.

Fill free to add me to your Signature Line under Dr. Torch. Maybe some BS about me being against free speech. You seem to have no problem turning things upside down.

(03-09-2009 08:33 AM)Fanatical Wrote:  Thanks for trying to be an ass Torch. That's why people keep coming back to this board.

Ah, so if I don't agree w/ you, I'm an "ass". Obviously there is no pressure to squelch free speech from the Evolutionists side.

Quote:Besides the vast amount of genetic, physiological, and fossil data which I still can't demonstrate I would recommend the work of Richard Lenski at Michigan State University to show "proof" that evolution occurs.

Which of his work?

Computer models?

E coli turning into e coli?

I skimmed his page for educators, and it too is loaded w/ hand-waving arguments. I'm sure this guy is an excellent experimentalist, doing some great work, but he's not "proving" what he claims to prove.

Kind of embarassing.

Arguing doesn't make you an ass Torch. Belittling others, and putting words in other's mouths makes you ass.

I don't know what else you are looking for. If you need a moth to turn into a dog or something similar, then I'm sorry.

(03-08-2009 10:32 PM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(03-08-2009 09:19 PM)GGniner Wrote:  -micro-evolution

-macro-evolution

2 very different things,

1)- That is a common misconception that creationists have been effective at spreading. Problem is that its wrong.

Quote:2)- one is proven, the other is at best, a theory.

3)- Absolutely. Read the definition of a scientific theory. Theories are supported by evidence. In this case, a vast amount of evidence.

Quote:Yet they get branded together as if they are the same thing.

Not really. One is an extension of the other. In order for one not to lead to another, there would have to be some sort of barrier which prevents it.

4)- No one has demonstrated that such a barrier exists, and the genetic evidence that supports the interrelatedness of species is overwhelming.

1)- OK, One is Proven and One is "At Best, a Theory" - - "Absolutely. Read the definition of a scientific theory. Theories are supported by evidence. In this case, a vast amount of evidence".

Theories = Possibilities (not Proved Fact) ... Once it is actually a Proven Fact, it ceases to be a Theory and thus becomes Hard Fact. Why people continue to call Facts Theories, boggles the mind.

Quote: Main Entry:the·o·ry
Pronunciation:\ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s):plural the·o·ries
Etymology:Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date:1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

And 6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis

If you come at me with "The Theory of Evolution", I know you are talking Charles Darwin and it is mostly all Guess Work. ("The Missing Link ???")

If you come at me with "Evolution of Life", then I say "All life forms evolve to Adapt and Survive" (either Caused or Forced by changing Eco Systems or by Differing Subjected Lived Stimuli)

To those "Singularity of Thought People", this isn't Congress in Washington DC .... this is 'The Arena of Ideas', where people usually try to think for themselves and when the tail whips around and slaps you in the head, it is time to reevaluate what is being said.

Either a "Theory is a Theory (not yet Actually Tangibly Proven) or a Theory is "Actually Evidence borne out by being Tangibly Proven in Every Case where Theory is Prime" .... I mean ???? Can't have it both ways just because they do it that way in Washington DC.

2)- As far as I and several hundred million others are concerned, we believe that God created "Everything" and it "Is Proven For Us" .... and I won't play word games as to how I come by my Proven Facts, but they are there for those who so choose them as being the Guiding Principles of and for their lives.

We are just too Complex in all ways and manner to be happenstance creation - - too much thought went into our Design for it too be that 1-in-a-Trillion Cubed to the N'th Power Coincidence. There is just no way.

Like the age old question: "Do you love some one"??? Well Prove It Then - - simplicity at its best.

3)- I am Electronics Engineer and a Certified Computer Technician .... I can sit all day long and write Mathematical Calculations using Triangles and Calculus and tons of 10,000 year old Mathematical Equations that give me tons of Stated Theory as to how much Current is Flowing versus how much Wattage is being wasted or what the Ohm's & the Mho's are in a Circuit, but with all that Mathematical Theory, I STILL can not see the Electrons Moving within the Circuit Components - - if this is a True Statement, "Then do I really have Facts brought by Mathematical Theory, or is the actual Process of the Electrons Moving within the Circuit causation for the Mathematical Theory" ????

I mean I know Electricity is Real, but if all I have is paper with a bunch of equations on it, does that prove to you exactly what is happening in a Charged Circuit - - no matter what you do, you can not see the Electrons moving within that Circuit - - even though we can easily get to within 1% of the Electrical Value of what the Voltages and Current Levels should be by using Scientific Theory, we STILL CAN'T SEE THE ACTUAL ELECTRONS WORKING ALONG THE WIRES and COMPONENTS .... but have I proven that they are there, Right/Wrong ??? (or were they already there I just Calculated Them ???)

I just saw a very beautiful and striking photo - - it was of a Volcanic Blast that sent it's Cloud miles up into the Sky - - Electrical Lightning just encircled this plume and lite it up like a Nuclear Explosion - - the Caption Read something like this:
"Lightning bolts appear above and around the Chaiten volcano as seen from Chana, some 30 kms (19 miles) north of the volcano, as it began its first eruption in thousands of years, in southern Chile May 2, 2008. Cases of electrical storms breaking out directly above erupting volcanoes are well documented, although scientists differ on what causes them.

Being into Electricity and Electronics, my "Simple Theory Is", the Volcanic Ash/Debris, is the same Polarity as the Earth. When it reaches into the 'Opposed Charged Atmosphere, it causes a Gigantic Discharge of Electricity, thus causing the Lightning Storms' .... ("My Theory" proven with Math and Science - - but not every one thinks the way I do on this, so how can a "Theory" be Proven then ??? A "Theory is simply just that, a Theory is an Assumptive Correlative Collection of Theorized and Known Facts relating to the Event Theorized" - - it is a mixture of Historical Data + Guess Work + Known Facts, using Scientific Methods, to Produce a Theorized Explanation)

If it were already Proven, it then would Not Be a Theory - - it would be a 'Fact' ....

4)- That is just too easy - - we are ALL Carbon Based Life forms so SURE, we are going to all have some semblances of likenesses with Cell Structure, DNA, General Make Up of Organs and how they Work.

That is so vague of a definition of Life by the Fringe Out-There's, that it is akin to saying "Water is Wet" .... just because I share some Chromosome Set or DNA Pattern with a Lower Life Form (like Robert), does absolutely NOT MEAN that Life Form and I are Related By Family Lines - - that is off the charts to believe something like that.

Good article on Upper and Lower Life Forms shared likenesses:
http://news.ncsu.edu/news/2008/02/027-Breen.php (but this does not make me part of the K9 Family)

And if you are reading this and are one of the Fringe Out-There's who don't care enough about your self to believe your self to be of the Highest Order of Life, then don't dump that Crap On Me - - I am not down on the Level of a Maggot - - if YOU Fringe Out-There's like equating your existence with those kinds of Horrible Comparisons, I feel sorry for you and it is no wonder that Life is viewed so Worthless at Both Ends of the Spectrum and so Easily Discarded. After all, your Family Descendants are Maggots .....

And once again, just to revisit this one: OK, One is Proven and One is "At Best, a Theory" - - "Absolutely. Read the definition of a scientific theory. Theories are supported by evidence. In this case, a vast amount of evidence".

If the Fringe Out-There's really still want to stick to that last statement as their Standing Argument for Proved Science versus Theoretical Science, then what can you say ????

Even the "Best Evidence" sometimes loses in a Court of Law - - just look at O.J. Simpson and nothing else need be said.

.

(03-09-2009 08:51 AM)Fanatical Wrote:  I don't know what else you are looking for. If you need a moth to turn into a dog or something similar, then I'm sorry.

he needs one species turning(randomly and without purpose no less) into an entirely different species. Never been observed.

One species turning into a different variation of the same species has been observed, and actually is Science.

Example: One breed of dog mates with a different breed of Dog, which makes a new variation of the same species: a mutt. The dog did not turn into a Cat or Fish however.

Or take the case of Korea:



The Korean people have the same starting point here(the Korean War, led by the United States under Harry Truman). It ended with saving the southern side, as you can see what they've been able to accomplish since then above.

But aside from turning the Lights on, the South Koreans, starting from the same point are now 3" taller than their cousins to the North who basically live in one big Gulag, before the war they were the same size. Thats just one noticeable change/variation/adaptation, in the Korean case but the most obvious aside from the South Koreans also live longer and aren't being starved.

Same thing happened to Japanese who moved to the United States after WW2, all inside a generation.

I blame America

(03-09-2009 08:51 AM)Fanatical Wrote:  Arguing doesn't make you an ass Torch. Belittling others, and putting words in other's mouths makes you ass.

Quote:I don't know what else you are looking for. If you need a moth to turn into a dog or something similar, then I'm sorry.

Just give me proof of the evolutionists' claims. If you can't provide it, then stop saying you can.

(03-09-2009 08:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  I'll call you on this. How is it wrong?

They aren't "very different".

Quote: You can't infer that something that works at one scale can be enlarged ad infinitum and call it "proof".

Absolutely. And if things don't scale, there's a scientific reason why.

Quote:Once again, the burden of proof lies w/ the proposer. And there are plenty of proofs that such a "barrier" exists.

Oh really? Please elaborate on the proofs for your proposal.

Quote:Tautology isn't science.

(03-09-2009 09:14 AM)GGniner Wrote:  he needs one species turning(randomly and without purpose no less) into an entirely different species. Never been observed.

If that's what he needs (which from my sig line, it sounds like he does), then he's going to be disappointed. Spontaneous transmutation are elements of creationism/ID and its kindred "science" alchemy, not evolution.

(03-09-2009 08:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  So demanding that more points of view be available on a college campus, that's somehow squelching "free speech"? Save your Orewellian doublespeak for your Darwinian acolytes. Educated people aren't fooled.

From some of the links on the site, Dembski and West had spoken on the campus previously. Not exactly squelching free speech - and there were no resolutions in the legislature than condemned them coming to present their viewpoint.

(03-09-2009 08:54 AM)Tripster Wrote:  Theories = Possibilities (not Proved Fact) ... Once it is actually a Proven Fact, it ceases to be a Theory and thus becomes Hard Fact. Why people continue to call Facts Theories, boggles the mind.

Quote: Main Entry:the·o·ry
Pronunciation:\ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function:noun

And 6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis

Did you read the earlier theory definitions I posted? Yes, one version is a hypothesis. But hypothesis and theory are very different to scientists.

Quote:Evolution falls under this definition of a theory, "A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

Quote: If you come at me with "The Theory of Evolution", I know you are talking Charles Darwin and it is mostly all Guess Work. ("The Missing Link ???")

Darwin, and the 150+ years since then which has build on the evidence for it. Yes, Darwin was wrong about some stuff. But equating 1859 evolutionary theory with 2009 evolution theory isn't accurate, no matter how many times faux-science types on this board try to do so.

Quote: We are just too Complex in all ways and manner to be happenstance creation - - too much thought went into our Design for it too be that 1-in-a-Trillion Cubed to the N'th Power Coincidence. There is just no way.

Complexity does not necessarily mean design.

Quote: I feel sorry for you and it is no wonder that Life is viewed so Worthless at Both Ends of the Spectrum and so Easily Discarded. After all, your Family Descendants are Maggots .....

QFT.

Maggot descendent,

So you beleive, among other things, there is no such thing as Human Dignity?

(03-09-2009 10:26 AM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 08:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  I'll call you on this. How is it wrong?

They aren't "very different".

DrTorch Wrote:You can't infer that something that works at one scale can be enlarged ad infinitum and call it "proof".

Absolutely. And if things don't scale, there's a scientific reason why.

Quote: Once again, the burden of proof lies w/ the proposer. And there are plenty of proofs that such a "barrier" exists.

Oh really? Please elaborate on the proofs for your proposal.

Ok, here's the proof, genetic insertion, deletion and mutation that produce viable new species, require too many changes and changes that occur in specific locations w/in a genome, to have any significant probability to occur from random events.

Please provide any evidence that the experiments that you cite "proving evolution" can be scaled to macro-evolution. After all it was you that explicitly stated that "Not really. One is an extension of the other." That's an assertion, I'd like to see some support.

You can only dodge this question for so long.

Quote:Tautology isn't science.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/t...?qsrc=2888
useless repetition; "to say that something is 'adequate enough' is a tautology"

BTW, did you know that "gullible" is a French word, and not in the English dictionary?

(03-09-2009 11:13 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Ok, here's the proof, genetic insertion, deletion and mutation that produce viable new species, require too many changes and changes that occur in specific locations w/in a genome, to have any significant probability to occur from random events.

That's a hypothesis, not a proof. This science thing seems to be beyond you.

Quote:Please provide any evidence that the experiments that you cite "proving evolution" can be scaled to macro-evolution.

Feel free to read a journal sometime.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journ...43768/home

Quote:useless repetition; "to say that something is 'adequate enough' is a tautology"

Kinda like saying "ID isn't creationism" and "There's no scientific evidence to support evolution" a whole bunch of times. Thank you, King Tautology.

(03-09-2009 12:08 PM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 11:13 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Ok, here's the proof, genetic insertion, deletion and mutation that produce viable new species, require too many changes and changes that occur in specific locations w/in a genome, to have any significant probability to occur from random events.

That's a hypothesis, not a proof. This science thing seems to be beyond you.

Actually, they have this thing, some folks call it "math," anyway, it lets you figure out things like probabilities.

Quote:

Quote:Please provide any evidence that the experiments that you cite "proving evolution" can be scaled to macro-evolution.

Feel free to read a journal sometime.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journ...43768/home

And feel free to answer the question some time. That you can't, pretty much means QED for me.

And here's a tip, red herring fallacies don't work well w/ real scientists.

(03-09-2009 10:59 AM)GGniner Wrote:  Maggot descendant,

So you believe, among other things, there is no such thing as Human Dignity?

I am not sure if you are Quoting me or where my Maggot intro got Quoted in another Reply.

My whole contention on this issue is based on Human Dignity and that we are 'The' #1, Top of the Heap Species.

It is why I hate being tossed into some meat grinder with all the other species and coming out the spout some Mongrel Mutten Menagerie Hodgepodge of a Being.

And I do have to concede that "Complexity does not necessarily mean ID", but when you add ALL the Complex Designs into the equation, you just can't logically come out with a "Chance Product" like winning the 'Pick 10 $1 Billion Dollar Lotto'. For me, things are way to in place and accepting of their place to be a fluke. Flukes like this simply don't occur or I can't wrap myself around the fact that they can.

If we were a bunch of Protoplasm, then yeah, maybe Darwin was a highly Intelligent and Very Smart Protoplasm - - since we are not that lowly, we have to be Designed in this Certain Way for a Specific Purpose.

Yet, I know that all Living Things Evolve in varying ways and based on Differing Stimuli and Criteria .... we evolve everyday and there is no getting around that - - we were Designed Too.

And I wasn't kidding about my Belief in the Big Bang and how I 'believe it happened' .... there was a BIG BIG BANG that still has the Cosmos flying outward and ever growing. I just believe it is the result of Reason and not merely a Couple of Lost Atomic Opposites accidentally slamming into each other in what was then a Void so absolutely Void, that the Atomic Matter could not have even been in there in the first place.

I honestly don't know how many there are of us that believe that both ID and the Darwin Example are basically 'One-and-the-Same' with several key variations on the Exacts, but it seems pretty logical for me, that We Humans and All Life, was Created and We Evolve constantly by Design.

And for me, this is not being a 'Feel Good Type' that loves riding the Fence - - I honestly see that it is all One Complete Cyclic Thing. Darwin and his ilk only worked a Piece of the Puzzle while discarding what they didn't like about it. You can't get a circle out of 180 Degrees ....

I guess I am just weird ..... (don't even think it Robert)

.

not you Trip, Wildebeest who did a "QFT" on that line.

My point was just that, IF Man descended from other species, then there is absolutely nothing that distinguishes man from other animals. There is no such thing as Human Decency if Animals and Humans have the same Moral compass..

(03-09-2009 09:16 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Just give me proof of the evolutionists' claims. If you can't provide it, then stop saying you can.

It is my understanding that evolutionists claim that traits are passed on from one generation to the next, and over many generations heritable traits can spread throughout a population. Simply put, we look like our parents, but we are not clones. I'm not sure what claims you are talking about, but this seems like the fundamental claim.

I thought the examples of controled breeding, and different E. Coli populations adequately showed this to happen. This is not the Theory of Evolution, but examples that life does evolve. My point is that we have evidence that life does evolve, so any theory about why we have the present flora and fauna will have to include this aspect of nature.

As for observing speciation, all one has to do is place "observed speciation" in a search engine to find multiple examples.

(03-09-2009 01:04 PM)GGniner Wrote:  My point was just that, IF Man descended from other species, then there is absolutely nothing that distinguishes man from other animals. There is no such thing as Human Decency if Animals and Humans have the same Moral compass..

Why do you assume that a moral compass could not evolve as well?

(03-09-2009 01:21 PM)Fanatical Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 01:04 PM)GGniner Wrote:  My point was just that, IF Man descended from other species, then there is absolutely nothing that distinguishes man from other animals. There is no such thing as Human Decency if Animals and Humans have the same Moral compass..

Why do you assume that a moral compass could not evolve as well?

Because by definition, it would need to provide some advantage making its host more successful.

And that's an active area in "evolutionary psychology", as well as among philosophers and even mathematicians...who try to provide evidence that ethics make sense based on natural selection.

However, to date the success of such endeavors is grossly lacking. That's why you read about new books on the subject every few years, the old efforts don't cut it. The current push is to invoke game theory on why ethics provide a species an advantage. However, one area it struggles with is why an individual should care about the greater good. That's a tough position to reach using genes that are passed on to/through individuals... if that individual makes an altruistic sacrifice for others, the genes die.

(03-09-2009 01:21 PM)Fanatical Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 01:04 PM)GGniner Wrote:  My point was just that, IF Man descended from other species, then there is absolutely nothing that distinguishes man from other animals. There is no such thing as Human Decency if Animals and Humans have the same Moral compass..

Why do you assume that a moral compass could not evolve as well?

There's no organ for morality. Nothing in our DNA that establishes a moral standard. The mere fact that there is no universal code of morality rules out the possibility it could be a product of biological evolution.