Evidence of Evolution

Quixotic_Sith,

And, your MO, has always been to typically conflate your degrees to include areas where you have absolutely no scientific expertise, i.e., biology and genetic research.

To my understanding, your vocation is some iteration of a counselor, is it not?

Nonetheless, your "White Supremecist" comments are entirely misleading, as is thinking that your points are often brilliantly salient, when most of the time they remain carefully crafted beside the point, which most discerning readers pick up on. To whit, your current comments in this thread.

In regard to the "White Supremecist" website, it was on a list populating a GOOGLE search, something you have been well aware of since I presented you with a link to the page more than a year ago.

What did I say about Darwin and Marx?

You evidently specialize in making mountains out of mole hills, and going to any extreme to undermine the individual and not the argument.

JUST TRIVIA. Hardly presented as an argument.

Yes, I certainly explored the history of Darwinism, I make no apology.




EDIT: If you care to introduce some specifics, go for it...

 

Quixotic_Sith,


"The specific philosophical and pseudo-scientific claims you've made have already been addressed (both those in this thread and the previous threads), as well as the "conjectural" basis of the actual evolutionary mechanisms."

Why don't we just look at this thread...

And, again, you've completely omitted specific citations...

 

Quixotic_Sith,


Again, for the third time, my actual comments, the closest thing to an "argument" I've presented;

What specifically are finding fault with?

 

How do you know these animals "*don't*" have these different available characteristics to them"...we're referring to the lizards in question, correct?

We know that;

Seems to me there are some questions there.
What about preliminary studies from years ago, is it possible the lizards which were studied,...and we can reasonably assume there was no special emphasis on cecal valves, as no one would be expecting this "evolution"....that there was a deteriorated cecal valve, or that the information was omitted? How many lizards were dissected? What info do we have on the study group?

The fact is that cecal valves exist in other life, so we aren't seeing the formation of a "novel" structure...but the reproduction of a structure which currently appears "novel" in the species.

Again, all of these are reasonable questions,...and are necessarily part and parcel of serious research and inquiry...which begs questions as to Quixotic_Sith own premature assertions...

 

Quix is more or less right about Darth_Brooks' posting history.

It seems as though he wants to be covertly contrarian and start conflicts, all the while not actually having the cajones to come out and state his opinion, in full knowledge that if he were to do so it would be immediately clear to everyone in this thread that he is simply a Creationist with a religious agenda and not the "wise open minded" poster he acts like he wants to be.

 

Emperor_Billy_Bob,

Why don't you tell me what my view is?

But, does it impact my comments? Nope.

If you have a specific complaint, other than I'm not on "your side", please post it.



"...covertly contrarian...", what is that?

How am I "covertly" anything?

 

Its not your argument I have a problem with (God knows I am not well versed enough in biology to actually argue about evolution, biology is never a field that interested me) it is the disingenous way you present it. You try and act uninvolved as though you are merely providing a commentary and not putting forth an argument, when in fact you are trying to pick at the main idea. You're arguing against evolution, but are not willing to say that you are against evolution, because you want to be taken seriously and you want your views to be taken seriously.

If a quarter of the things Quix has pointed out are true (and it seems that they are) I find it very hard to do so.

 

Emperor Billy Bob
all the while not actually having the cajones to come out and state his opinion, in full knowledge that if he were to do so it would be immediately clear to everyone in this thread that he is simply a Creationist with a religious agenda and not the "wise open minded" poster he acts like he wants to be.

Are you a professional mind reader?

 

Am I wrong?

 

Emperor_B_B_,

I haven't done anything "disingenuous."

Nor, have I stated what specifically I believe,...why would I, and how would that impact my comments?

I'm a theist, everyone knows that...look at my sig. So what?

It has no bearing on whether the questions I ask are apt or not.

 

Am I wrong?

You tell me. What am I thinking?

 

I outlined exactly why you have above. From what I can tell you are a Christian creationist who won't come out and say that. Instead you want to act as though you are being reasonable and examining the evidence from all sides, when in fact you are a creationist with a line you are pursuing.

I had no intention of derailing this thread, I was merely agreeing with Quix about one aspect of his argument. Its hardly "ad hominem" if its true and you have in fact made countless extremely questionable assertions in the past supported by bad evidence and made silly equivalencies (OMG MARX WANTED TO REFERENCE DARWIN! DARWIN IS TEH EVILZOR!). Its more like a character witness in court.

 

E_B_B,

It is ad hominem in the way he presented it, which was out of context.

If he wished to quote some specific citations, then, great...we could discuss them, but consider the "white supremecist" remark, which he felt was important enough to mention,...yet didn't present the details surrounding the reference, nor that it was all explained to him at the time...

Further, regardless of source, the issue would be whether or not the source was accurate...as VadersLament put it, does not matter whether or not you like VadersLament, it matters if the actual content had merit. You'll notice Quix avoided that in order to insinuate that either I am "white supremecist" [ hardly likely in that I am of Hispanic descent ], or that merely that web-site was one that has no credebility because we may not like them. Again, this all falls in the realm of ad hominem...

Further, Quix, attempted to make it sound like I had introduced the information as some sort of "psuedo-scientific" argument against evolution...which is absolutely out of context.


But the fact is I didn't seek out that particular site, it was provided by Google, and it was one of many other sites which I referenced in researching a topic. Of course, Quix completely ignored all the other sites in order to attempt to smear. And, again, I presented the link to the Google page to Quix, showing that was what comes up on the page when that search was entered.

 

E_B_B,

"From what I can tell you are a Christian creationist who won't come out and say that. Instead you want to act as though you are being reasonable and examining the evidence from all sides, when in fact you are a creationist with a line you are pursuing."

I am being reasonable.
I was formerly an atheist/ agnostic, so I have examined the issues from all philosophical sides.

What line am I pursuing?

That I think that there is merit to questioning events beyond the ability of emperical science to examine?

Well, that's true.

Guess, what, Richard Dawkins, amongst others thinks as much as well.

 

*Superwatto looks at atheist thread*
*Superwatto looks at evolution thread*

Now there are two of them!

 

LOL.

"Stop the insanity!"

 

1. Your argument against Quix was just a long list of ACTUAL ad hominems (not the ones you imagine Quix has used against you, but the real kind).

2. Creationism IS pseudo-science, ergo arguments for creationism are by definition pseudo-science.

If creationists kept to that tact, there would be no problem. But that isn't the case...creationists want to have their cake and eat it too essentially.

They want to act as though they are looking "beyond...empirical science", when in fact what they are doing is trying to insert a non-scientific issue into science.

Keep your religion. Its cool. There is nothing forcing anyone to have a certain belief or not. Its when they have pretentions towards being science and not religion that the problem arises.

In the past you have shown a very poor/stereotypical understanding of atheism, claiming that atheism has some central tenets of belief and what have you.

Your "I used to be an atheist so I totally understand it" line fails to convince.

 

Emperor,

Stand with the party-line, man.
I just reiterated exactly what occurred, if you condone that...hey, that's your choice.

"Your "I used to be an atheist so I totally understand it" line fails to convince."

I'll be very honest, I was a better atheist/agnostic than anyone I've come across on this board. Unquestionably, I had a better philosophical understanding. And, I'm not out to convince. And, if was out to debate atheism...I would do that in the atheism thread.

Perhaps you should attend some of the atheist conventions held across the country. But this is for another thread.

 

Horribly lame attempt at...what? Trying to make me look absurd?

So I guess I am "standing the party line" on other things like gravity or the Earth being round. I'm a real Nazi for that kind of stuff.

There is NO PHILOSOPHY TO UNDERSTAND IN ATHEISM. The very FACT that you just even tried to go there, completely undermines the rest of your ridiculous and self congratulatory post.

Yeah, but you already failed there, so I would see why you wouldn't go.

lol.

 

Emperor,


"There is NO PHILOSOPHY TO UNDERSTAND IN ATHEISM. The very FACT that you just even tried to go there, completely undermines the rest of your ridiculous and self congratulatory post."

That displays a total lack of understanding.

 

No it doesn't. No it doesn't. It just shows your overly pedantic and self important approach to the topic.

 

Emperor,

"So I guess I am "standing the party line" on other things like gravity or the Earth being round. I'm a real Nazi for that kind of stuff."

Wow. I thought we were talking about behavior.

 

No it doesn't. No it doesn't. It just shows your overly pedantic and self important approach to the topic.


"How rude".

 

You tried to imply that I was blindly adhering to a certain doctrine, and I showed the absurdity of the conclusions that you wanted others to draw from it.

 

Nope. That's not what I meant.