Author
|
Topic: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis (Read 30566 times)
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
When an evolutionist says something is perfectly adapted, it's unnecessary hyperbole. Such a claim is not a part of the actual argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
Baltar about the dogma I spoke of. An honest question: Why do sites like Panda's Thumb, Skeptics Dictionary, Talk Orgins etc. etc. pour so much time and resource into countering the arguments of "religious rubes"? I can understand the creationist side as they are trying to square data with a literal interpretation of the bible. But what of the evolution side? Why does it seem that Darwinists are doing the same with scientific data into evolutionary theory? Why is this such a hot button topic and if evolutionary theory is on such firm scientific underpinnings, why even bother?
I wouldn't say that what those organizations do is the 'same' as what creationist organizations do at all. I dunno what comparisons you can make in terms of effort either. But to get to your point I can think of two good reasons:
*Out of intellectual honesty. If someone raises an argument, even a deeply flawed one, it *should* get addressed on its own terms to show exactly where it is flawed.
*The creationist movement is far too large to ignore. It has short circuited scientific discussion by appealing directly to the populace and to the legal system without abiding by the rigors of the scientific method. This state of affairs require social/political advocacy to educate the general public to act as a counterweight to creationist skullfuckery.
Doesn't this all seem to be a battle between atheism and creationism?
No.
Two religious viewpoints. Neither side is about objective science it seems. Ever notice the creationist fish and the Darwin fish with legs on the back of cars around your town? This is pure, world view, creationist vs. atheism and I assert that Darwin IS being lifted to sainthood, perhaps even prophet status by many even if you, yourself don't.
This is just stupid. You are aware, as others have just pointed out, that this sort of thing is done in jest? The fish with legs thing is about *mocking* creationists, it isn't about adopting 'revered' symbols or some such. Do you honestly thing the band 'Scientific Gospel Productions' was so named to proselytize in the name of Darwin rather than an *obvious* tongue-in-cheek rip on Creationism? I do see that the morons in your video didn't grasp that either. Or simply didn't want to, more likely.
I wish I was completely objective, I admit I have bias. But it honestly doesn't matter to me if we evolved from single celled organisms 4 billion years ago. It doesn't matter if life formed from the prebiotic oceans. But I have a right to be skptical of such claims without solid scientific proof. And furthermore, you are all equally right to hold your opinions.
Was there *anyone* who was actually trying to take away that right?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
I wouldn't say that what those organizations do is the 'same' as what creationist organizations do at all. I dunno what comparisons you can make in terms of effort either. But to get to your point I can think of two good reasons:
They are doing the same thing, the exact same thing in fact. Many Creationists are shoe-horning the data to fit their religious texts. Talk origins is shoe- horning the data into their evolution philosophy. Those sites cherry pick data so badly you'd think it was harvest time at the orchard. you cannot seriously be this blind. Intellectual honesty? They virtually never admit weaknesses to thier claims. They are incapable of scientific honesty when they are drumming up support for an unfalsifiable paradigm. Want honesty? How about this: We don't know yet. Wow, is that so hard?
Look at talk orgin's downplay of the genetic code as an example.. it's not really a code, or language but a cypher instead.. Notice they don't mention the cypher problem of only coding for 20 amino acids? once again, how about "We don't currently know." Or how about their explanation of the evolution of sex organs from asexual species? At least wikipedia got it right and said it is a mystery, but not our honest friends over at talk origins..
Talk origins is a propoganda tool, so please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting any sort of honesty.
These people have a theistic viewpoint to uphold, naturalistic darwinism. There is no other valid reasoning behind it.
*The creationist movement is far too large to ignore. It has short circuited scientific discussion by appealing directly to the populace and to the legal system without abiding by the rigors of the scientific method. This state of affairs require social/political advocacy to educate the general public to act as a counterweight to creationist skullfuckery.
Where? How have they short circuited scientifc discussion? By single cases in Kansas? Have they ever advocated carrying a bible to school? The ID founders want to teach evolution and teach MORE about it. Teach that it IS a theory and that it DOES have some legitimate scientific problems. Not teach it dogmatically straight towards a naturalistic theology as it is being taught now.
Doesn't this all seem to be a battle between atheism and creationism? No.
It is man. That's exactly what it is.
This is just stupid. You are aware, as others have just pointed out, that this sort of thing is done in jest? The fish with legs thing is about *mocking* creationists, it isn't about adopting 'revered' symbols or some such. Do you honestly thing the band 'Scientific Gospel Productions' was so named to proselytize in the name of Darwin rather than an *obvious* tongue-in-cheek rip on Creationism? I do see that the morons in your video didn't grasp that either. Or simply didn't want to, more likely.
Origin
In 1983, two friends involved in the southern California atheist and freethought movements, Al Seckel and John Edwards, co-created the Darwin fish design, which was first used on a freethought leaflet for Atheists United in 1984. It was then sold by Atheists United and other freethought groups, which got free permission from Seckel and Edwards throughout the 80s, to be used on bumper stickers and t-shirts.[1] Chris Gilman, a Hollywood prop maker, manufactured the first plastic car ornaments in 1990[
it is indeed a parody but atheisim IS a theistic viewpoint. Atheism has been around far longer than Darwin's time. Atheisim itself is not founded on science but popularizes anything that supports it's theistic view. Also Google any athiest website and you'll find them selling the Darwin Fish there. It is being popularized as the icon for atheism.
Was there *anyone* who was actually trying to take away that right?
Of course not, I'm pointing out that I have good scientifc reason to doubt the theory. Your reason for advocating it seems to be based on nothing but hate.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 11:21:45 pm by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
No, I didn't just dismiss it as shit. I told you exactly why I thought it was after I said so. Too bad I used harsh language so that you could focus on that and not address the real issue. That article was unscientific and unprofessional. I ask again, who in the hell is that author?
You focused on the metaphoric words used in the article and provided zero substance, then simply dismissed it as shit. It's an opinion piece.Who gives a fuck who it is? Who are you? Who am I? What is wrong with opinion?
you have this recurring theme that if somthing isn't peer reviewed it is of no value whatsoever. Well what happens when the dogmatic establishment won't ALLOW you to publish? WTF are these "outside of the box" thinkers supposed to do? Yes, you go public.
Watch these video's with an open mind and tell me what they are saying isn't true:
Ah, I see. So if I don't come back with a changed mind then I must be 'closed minded'.
Of course not, just asking if you saw any truth at all in them. It's ok, I already knew your hateful position.
Again, shit. This is such an obvious creationist diatribe how can you not see this? Moreover, you quickly dismiss clearly uneducated creationists/ID folks yet are *very* quick to accuse the evolutionist camp of being dogmatic.
Who are the uneducated creationists?
What a ludicrious argument....I didn't even know that their *was* a Darwin Day. He just rattles off a list of groups and activities seen as promoting atheism & evolution. How does this advance his case in any way? None of this has to do with 1) scientific venues or 2) our classrooms. Oh no! 'Scientific Gospel Productions' is giving a concert! Surely darwin's dogma is getting rammed down our childrens' throats! I could go anywhere on the web and find similar activities on both sides of the aisle. In fact I could go find a wackjob for just about any cause. Does it mean anything?
They were speaking specificly about Darwin Day and it's rise in recent years. The point wasn't to "advance his case" but to point out obvious double standards.
Funnier still, this guy paints a picture wildly differing from my own experience. In all of my years of public schooling, I've *never* had a teacher that was actually supportive of evolution. They've all pretty much said outright that they don't support it and put on a whole act about how they begrudgingly have no choice but to teach it. Consequently they don't even try that hard to teach it and just dance around it.
I went to different schools than you and saw pretty much the opposite. I was taught that human embryo's had gill slits.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 11:15:19 pm by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
They are doing the same thing, the exact same thing in fact. Many Creationists are shoe-horning the data to fit their religious texts. Talk origins is shoe- horning the data into their evolution philosophy. Those sites cherry pick data so badly you'd think it was harvest time at the orchard. you cannot seriously be this blind. Intellectual honesty? They virtually never admit weaknesses to thier claims. They are incapable of scientific honesty when they are drumming up support for an unfalsifiable paradigm. Want honesty? How about this: We don't know yet. Wow, is that so hard?
Look at talk orgin's downplay of the genetic code as an example.. it's not really a code, or language but a cypher instead.. Notice they don't mention the cypher problem of only coding for 20 amino acids? once again, how about "We don't currently know." Or how about their explanation of the evolution of sex organs from asexual species? At least wikipedia got it right and said it is a mystery, but not our honest friends over at talk origins..
Talk origins is a propoganda tool, so please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting any sort of honesty.
These people have a theistic viewpoint to uphold, naturalistic darwinism. There is no other valid reasoning behind it.
Well I have insulted your intelligence before and I will likely continue to do so in the future. If you want to compare the guys advancing your pet 'theory' and writing your bullshit textbooks to a freaking usenet group then by all means please do.
I thought you were making a fairly general point about responses to creationist claims. All I'm saying is that claims should get responded to in some context.
Where? How have they short circuited scientifc discussion? By single cases in Kansas?
So SOME short circuiting of the scientific method is ok then??
Have they ever advocated carrying a bible to school?
They aren't advocating anything overtly religious, but this whole movement is *clearly* designed to get a wedge in the door. Whether the idea is to later manifest this with more direct influence I don't know, but at the very least they are clouding the general public's understanding of science in the hopes of attracting people to 'the flock'. That much is obvious.
The ID founders want to teach evolution and teach MORE about it. Teach that it IS a theory and that it DOES have some legitimate scientific problems. Not teach it dogmatically straight towards a naturalistic theology as it is being taught now.
Ouch! Two doozies here:
1) There you go reciting the mantra of 'evolution is just a theory'. That relies on some bullshit colloquial definition of a theory that makes it sound iffy. That way fundy pinheads can casually discard it. It is actually very well established with a mountain of evidence from multiple disciplines.
2) Teaching it dogmatically? Give me a break. You are making this grand, sweeping statement already shot to shit by my own personal experience. You are sounding a bit over dramatic with all this 'dogmatic' nonsense. Look, it is like this: The whole point of a public education is to give a student a very broad understanding of the world. In a science class they need to have a basic understanding of what is going on in the world of science. Right now evolution is science. Creationism is not. I'm all for teaching criticism if it is the same level of criticism you would be directing at any other theories in any other lesson. Given that at a public school level that would only be at a very general level (we aren't training kids to be molecular biologists when they earn their high school diploma after all). I'm not ok with singling out evolution for additional criticism that wouldn't be afforded to other concepts; that would just be an indirect method of sabotaging science education.
It is man. That's exactly what it is.
No. It isn't. It is the scientific method versus a medieval mindfuck. You are basically saying that the entire scientific establishment is a cabal of atheists trying to proselytize the general public in the ways of their theistic non-belief.
What makes this even more absolutely fucking insane in my mind is the fact that you, as an agnostic, are siding with a bunch of fundamentalists who *are* trying to proselytize the general public. Moreover you've blatantly stereotyped your own ideological cousins earlier in this thread, and really do so again now with all these bullshit claims of an atheist conspiracy to 'raise Darwin to sainthood'. What is so damned insane about this is that the people you side with will ultimately reduce you to second class citizenship if they get their way. It is enough for me to question your authenticity when you claim to be an agnostic. I realize you are just looking for the truth or whatnot but really, and at some level I can respect that, but this conspiracy shit needs to fucking go.
Origin
In 1983, two friends involved in the southern California atheist and freethought movements, Al Seckel and John Edwards, co-created the Darwin fish design, which was first used on a freethought leaflet for Atheists United in 1984. It was then sold by Atheists United and other freethought groups, which got free permission from Seckel and Edwards throughout the 80s, to be used on bumper stickers and t-shirts.[1] Chris Gilman, a Hollywood prop maker, manufactured the first plastic car ornaments in 1990[
OH GOOD LAWD!!!!1 NEXT THEY WILL BE BUILDING A PLACE OF UNWORSHIP!!!!!111 SWEET WEEBUS SAVE US!!!!11
it is indeed a parody but atheisim IS a theistic viewpoint. Atheism has been around far longer than Darwin's time. Atheisim itself is not founded on science but popularizes anything that supports it's theistic view. Also Google any athiest website and you'll find them selling the Darwin Fish there. It is being popularized as the icon for atheism.
FFS it doesn't *mean* the same thing to atheists (or agnostics, for that matter, since they can use them as well....pretty fucking weird for you to typify the symbol in this way). Still don't see anything about deifying Darwin or some shit like that. Last I checked people don't wear crosses on their neck as a joke (hey! There's an idea!) so the point is different symbols *mean* different things--one is mockery and one is revery--two completely different sets of emotions. I've yet to see anyone deify the troops with a yellow ribbon.
Of course not, I'm pointing out that I have good scientifc reason to doubt the theory. Your reason for advocating it seems to be based on nothing but hate.
Mwahahahahhaa. Which one here was stereotyping a whole group of people as being untrustworthy and has been railing on and on about how they are under attack by the dogmatic followers of Darwin?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
You focused on the metaphoric words used in the article and provided zero substance, then simply dismissed it as shit. It's an opinion piece.Who gives a fuck who it is? Who are you? Who am I? What is wrong with opinion?
Well I'll give you that. I didn't attack it directly. Let me state things more clearly. It just repeats your same fucking mantra of your conspiratorial shit.
you have this recurring theme that if somthing isn't peer reviewed it is of no value whatsoever. Well what happens when the dogmatic establishment won't ALLOW you to publish? WTF are these "outside of the box" thinkers supposed to do? Yes, you go public.
There you go again. Short circuit the scientific method just because you think you are on to something that EVERY MAJOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SCIENCE IN THE WORLD is against.
Of course not, just asking if you saw any truth at all in them. It's ok, I already knew your hateful position.
The hateful position of not typifying the entire scientific establishment as being a cabal of evil atheists?
Who are the uneducated creationists?
You know, the mindless fuckwits talking about the perfect 'design' of the banana for the human hand? The jar of peanut butter that 'depends' on evolution not being real? Those guys whose statements you casually dismissed while you paraded around maliciously edited videos of Dawkins?
They were speaking specificly about Darwin Day and it's rise in recent years. The point wasn't to "advance his case" but to point out obvious double standards.
Wouldn't the double standards then be his case? Point is those videos were just a build up of irrelevant shit that was intended to leave the viewer connecting the dots that there was some horrible conspiracy of atheists, oh, and moreover common culture is somehow dominated by them. Also some utterly irrelevant bullshit about how some science disciplines predated darwin! Apparently since there were discoveries before 1800 everything since must be a lie!!!
The upshot is that you keep bringing up all this stuff trying to intimate some grand conspiracy of atheists to run our schools, culture, and science. I question your authenticity because you claim to be agnostic yet that is so monstrously insensitive to both the atheist and agnostic communities. You are talking about a very small percentage of the population. I'm pretty sure atheists aren't taking over anything. In fact, according to recent polls they are even less trusted in the US than gays.
I went to different schools than you and saw pretty much the opposite. I was taught that human embryo's had gill slits.
Ok. Fuck you. Maybe a teacher just doesn't know what they are doing or are just teaching ancient material. I'm not going to defend that. That doesn't mean trump the scientific method and cram a bunch of deceitful shit into the curriculum.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
This is one of the things that annoys me with this. RT seems to assume that all the world is exactly the same as wherever he is. Yes, I'm familiar with this myth. What a concept; that there's a whole world outside the borders of the Untied States, and a pretty important one at that.. Will you children hating, lie telling, atheistic, agenda spreading Darwinists stop at nothing?  I'm convinced on the inside that there is somthing wrong with me... I'm beaten down again, I failed you...
I'm confused. How is this in any way adressign the issue. You have (in this and previous threads) repeatedyl made the claim that evolution is taught as pure truth and beauty, and that evolution is a dogma that requires that everyone just believe it. You have been challenged on this numerous times in every thread you've spouted this. I might add that not only non-americans have challenged you, but a lot of people from your country does not recognize the picture of evolutionary dogma you so eagerly paint. You have yet to provide any sort of credible source for this statement. Could you please link me to material that give overviews of how evolution is taught within the American school system, and how it is taught in the rest of the world. It's be nice to get some actual facts, rather than all this undefinable hogwash about "evolutionists are claiming ultimate truth status in our school, won't anyone think of the children!"
Also, since you are suddenly replying to my posts again, feel free to go back through the topic and handle the earlier ones as well. I have no idea why you just suddenly stopped responding to my posts even though you managed to keep posting a lot more.
There you go again. Short circuit the scientific method just because you think you are on to something that EVERY MAJOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SCIENCE IN THE WORLD is against.
To be fair, when your argument goes along the lines that he has described so far (genetic code comunicates interspecially and decides when to evolve based on a optimization program), it might be hard to get published in any credible magazine. Of course, the question is wether you don't get published because of the dogmatic establishment, or because you have a unscientific theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
Let's just say that I....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
I will be the first to admit that my posts prior to the deletion were *not* my finest hour (well ok, second to admit). I think RType has been quite undignified for some time now, and I was not impressed with some of the accusations he leveled at me, hence the outburst. Not that it makes my harsh language ok. My apologies to anyone offended.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
