Darwin: Fossils or Fruit Flies?

[PoliticalChic]

Let's apply that same rigorous standard of proof to the bible. Please, it's easier to believe a big man in the sky created the world in seven days?

"...it's easier to believe a big man in the sky created the world in seven days?"


Can you remind me who you are quoting in this thread?

Certainly not I.





Mary, this is a science thread.

Your science acumen is sorely absent, and therefore you have attempted to change the subject, it seems.


Thank you for dropping by.

 

[Hollie]

Let's apply that same rigorous standard of proof to the bible. Please, it's easier to believe a big man in the sky created the world in seven days?

"...it's easier to believe a big man in the sky created the world in seven days?"


Can you remind me who you are quoting in this thread?

Certainly not I.





Mary, this is a science thread.

Your science acumen is sorely absent, and therefore you have attempted to change the subject, it seems.


Thank you for dropping by.

Mary's comment was appropriate.

This is hardly a science thread when you cut and paste "quotes" from Harun Yahya.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's apply that same rigorous standard of proof to the bible. Please, it's easier to believe a big man in the sky created the world in seven days?

"...it's easier to believe a big man in the sky created the world in seven days?"


Can you remind me who you are quoting in this thread?

Certainly not I.





Mary, this is a science thread.

Your science acumen is sorely absent, and therefore you have attempted to change the subject, it seems.


Thank you for dropping by.

Mary's comment was appropriate.

This is hardly a science thread when you cut and paste "quotes" from Harun Yahya.

Why change the subject?

Your desire is to show that my posts aren't accurate.


You have been unable to do so.


They are accurate and correct.






My suggestion is that you have your sleeves lengthened by a couple of feet so they
can be tied in the back.

 

[HUGGY]

Hollie... You work too hard to show the fundi and fundiesquelol readers the errors of their ways.

A famous quote..I'm not sure from where it was born. "who is crazier? A crazy person? or someone that argues with one?"

I am only aiming at the volumes you bring to the discussion. I am certain you could assemble 10 or 100 pages of your well thought out arguments and still the "understanding" needle wouldn't budge with these god fearing folks.

You can't present a better argument that the threat of hell or the treat of heaven to make your point.

You offer no bribe nor insurance against what happens when you die.

I certainly applaud the work you do.

Religion has tapped into the same fears of children, imagining what monsters lurk under the bed or in the shadows in the closet, that still live in the imaginations of adults.

I too feel sorry for the pain and fears these people harbor. Unfortunately until the fears have been beaten into submission these folks will never stand up to any truth that just dismisses them. They believe god can protect them and we offer nothing of the kind.

"...the errors of their ways."

I understand that you hate and fear religion.....

...but nothing that I've posted pertains to or relies on religion for its veracity.




How about you attempt to show any "errors of their ways."

Bet you cannot.

Hollie is doing a very good job.

As for the question surrounding the four winged fruit flies.. Just because one species or a specific morph of a species can be identified does not mean all or even any of the conditions to "survival" or "failure to survive" have been met. Certainly no one can assume that a laboratory has the "natural" conditions duplicated enough to make any meaningful judgements.

One experiment or observation does not destroy Darwins work.

The study of Finches and the success of different bill designs was well observed and the conclusions drawn valid.

The desperate nature of those attempting to ruin Darwin's study of survival mechanisms inherited in nature is pathetic.

Hollie is entirely correct that the efforts of those that have missused Darwin as a stepping stone to interject ID into the education system is a fraud.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie... You work too hard to show the fundi and fundiesquelol readers the errors of their ways.

A famous quote..I'm not sure from where it was born. "who is crazier? A crazy person? or someone that argues with one?"

I am only aiming at the volumes you bring to the discussion. I am certain you could assemble 10 or 100 pages of your well thought out arguments and still the "understanding" needle wouldn't budge with these god fearing folks.

You can't present a better argument that the threat of hell or the treat of heaven to make your point.

You offer no bribe nor insurance against what happens when you die.

I certainly applaud the work you do.

Religion has tapped into the same fears of children, imagining what monsters lurk under the bed or in the shadows in the closet, that still live in the imaginations of adults.

I too feel sorry for the pain and fears these people harbor. Unfortunately until the fears have been beaten into submission these folks will never stand up to any truth that just dismisses them. They believe god can protect them and we offer nothing of the kind.

"...the errors of their ways."

I understand that you hate and fear religion.....

...but nothing that I've posted pertains to or relies on religion for its veracity.




How about you attempt to show any "errors of their ways."

Bet you cannot.

Hollie is doing a very good job.

As for the question surrounding the four winged fruit flies.. Just because one species or a specific morph of a species can be identified does not mean all or even any of the conditions to "survival" or "failure to survive" have been met. Certainly no one can assume that a laboratory has the "natural" conditions duplicated enough to make any meaningful judgements.

One experiment or observation does not destroy Darwins work.

The study of Finches and the success of different bill designs was well observed and the conclusions drawn valid.

The desperate nature of those attempting to ruin Darwin's study of survival mechanisms inherited in nature is pathetic.

Hollie is entirely correct that the efforts of those that have missused Darwin as a stepping stone to interject ID into the education system is a fraud.

Thanks, Huggy.

ID is part of what I like to call "The Self Destructing Creation Model." Earlier, creationists made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was (as you may recall) originally called "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more ambiguous, and frankly more pathetic.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Blah blah blah blah blah . . . followed by this same stupid question again:

"My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable[/B] by peer reviewed experimentation."

Imbecile, you're asking if one can provide a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis . . . for what exactly? The existence of a transcendent, supernatural agent of first cause? A supernatural event? A supernaturally caused event? Imbecile, your question is incoherent and essentially meaningless.

Ask a sensible question, and I'll give you a sensible answer . . . imbecile.

You use goofy terms you apparently stole from one of the fundamentalist creation ministries. How cute.

Shut up, you boorish imbecile. The reason that your question in the above is so asinine is now manifest.

What I'm asking you pertains to the very foundation of science itself. The Philosophy of Science 101. Every scientist worth his salt—for example, giants like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, De Broglie, Schrodinger, Heisenberg—is cognizant of the underlying ontological and epistemological imperatives of the methodology of science.

Metaphysical/ontological naturalism is one of the alternative presuppositions for science. The other is methodological naturalism.

The hard sciences of physical cosmology, for example, can be readily predicated on the latter; on the other hand, evolutionary theory is necessarily predicated on metaphysical/ontological naturalism.

Unlike your incoherent blather, my question is clear and precise: can you provide an empirically demonstrable/scientifically falsifiable hypothesis that metaphysical/ontological naturalism is true?

 

[Hollie]

Blah blah blah blah blah . . . followed by this same stupid question again:

"My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable[/B] by peer reviewed experimentation."

Imbecile, you're asking if one can provide a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis . . . for what exactly? The existence of a transcendent, supernatural agent of first cause? A supernatural event? A supernaturally caused event? Imbecile, your question is incoherent and essentially meaningless.

Ask a sensible question, and I'll give you a sensible answer . . . imbecile.

You use goofy terms you apparently stole from one of the fundamentalist creation ministries. How cute.

Shut up, you boorish imbecile. The reason that your question in the above is so asinine is now manifest.

What I'm asking you pertains to the very foundation of science itself. The Philosophy of Science 101. Every scientist worth his salt—for example, giants like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, De Broglie, Schrodinger, Heisenberg—is cognizant of the underlying ontological and epistemological imperatives of the methodology of science.

Metaphysical/ontological naturalism is one of the alternative presuppositions for science. The other is methodological naturalism.

The hard sciences of physical cosmology, for example, can be readily predicated on the latter; on the other hand, evolutionary theory is necessarily predicated on metaphysical/ontological naturalism.

Unlike your incoherent blather, my question is clear and precise: can you provide an empirically demonstrable/scientifically falsifiable hypothesis that metaphysical/ontological naturalism is true?

I was certain my response to your previous nonsense would caused you to launch into such a chest heaving tirade. Challenges to your specious opinions and claims to magical gods are utterly without substantiation. That has the affect of sending fundie zealots into hissy fits such as yours.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Blah blah blah blah blah . . . followed by this same stupid question again:

"My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable[/B] by peer reviewed experimentation."

Imbecile, you're asking if one can provide a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis . . . for what exactly? The existence of a transcendent, supernatural agent of first cause? A supernatural event? A supernaturally caused event? Imbecile, your question is incoherent and essentially meaningless.

Ask a sensible question, and I'll give you a sensible answer . . . imbecile.

You use goofy terms you apparently stole from one of the fundamentalist creation ministries. How cute.

Shut up, you boorish imbecile. The reason that your question in the above is so asinine is now manifest.

What I'm asking you pertains to the very foundation of science itself. The Philosophy of Science 101. Every scientist worth his salt—for example, giants like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, De Broglie, Schrodinger, Heisenberg—is cognizant of the underlying ontological and epistemological imperatives of the methodology of science.

Metaphysical/ontological naturalism is one of the alternative presuppositions for science. The other is methodological naturalism.

The hard sciences of physical cosmology, for example, can be readily predicated on the latter; on the other hand, evolutionary theory is necessarily predicated on metaphysical/ontological naturalism.

Unlike your incoherent blather, my question is clear and precise: can you provide an empirically demonstrable/scientifically falsifiable hypothesis that metaphysical/ontological naturalism is true?

I was certain my response to your previous nonsense would caused you to launch into such a chest heaving tirade. Challenges to your specious opinions and claims to magical gods are utterly without substantiation. That has the affect of sending fundie zealots into hissy fits such as yours.

Shut up, imbecile. The only ninnies around here going on about theological mattes is you and Huggy. PoliticalChick and I are trying to stay on target, and neither of you fly anywhere near the altitude of my and PoliticalChick's intellects. It's not even close.

I can make mince meat out of every one of your ontologically and epistemologically illiterate contentions, not to mention your childish theologizing and textual hermeneutics. Your understanding of the philosophy of science and scientific methodology is worse than most twelve-year-olds. What's hilarious is that you don't know just how bad your thinking is, and Steve claims to be a student of physics who thinks your stuff is the cat's meow. Well, if he's not lying and if he's a typical example of what our schools are turning out nowadays, the future of science is in big trouble.

If you stick around, I'll reeducate you on every point, so to speak, you think you made, including your baby talk about abiogenesis, evolution and the materialist's supposed ontological objectivity; but for now rephrase your stupid question in a way that makes sense, if you can, and answer the question I asked you that does make sense.

Or are we just gonna hear crickets chirping, which is to say, more of your womanish chatter of sneer, pseudoscientific blather and philosophical mumbo jumbo in the face of real logic and scientific observations?

Let's take another look at the real thing: http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...win-fossils-or-fruit-flies-7.html#post8972193

 

[Hollie]

Blah blah blah blah blah . . . followed by this same stupid question again:



Imbecile, you're asking if one can provide a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis . . . for what exactly? The existence of a transcendent, supernatural agent of first cause? A supernatural event? A supernaturally caused event? Imbecile, your question is incoherent and essentially meaningless.

Ask a sensible question, and I'll give you a sensible answer . . . imbecile.



Shut up, you boorish imbecile. The reason that your question in the above is so asinine is now manifest.

What I'm asking you pertains to the very foundation of science itself. The Philosophy of Science 101. Every scientist worth his salt—for example, giants like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, De Broglie, Schrodinger, Heisenberg—is cognizant of the underlying ontological and epistemological imperatives of the methodology of science.

Metaphysical/ontological naturalism is one of the alternative presuppositions for science. The other is methodological naturalism.

The hard sciences of physical cosmology, for example, can be readily predicated on the latter; on the other hand, evolutionary theory is necessarily predicated on metaphysical/ontological naturalism.

Unlike your incoherent blather, my question is clear and precise: can you provide an empirically demonstrable/scientifically falsifiable hypothesis that metaphysical/ontological naturalism is true?

I was certain my response to your previous nonsense would caused you to launch into such a chest heaving tirade. Challenges to your specious opinions and claims to magical gods are utterly without substantiation. That has the affect of sending fundie zealots into hissy fits such as yours.

Shut up, imbecile. The only ninnies around here going on about theological mattes is you and Huggy. PoliticalChick and I are trying to stay on target, and neither of you fly anywhere near the altitude of my and PoliticalChick's intellect. It's not even close.

I can make mince meat out of every one of your ontologically and epistemologically illiterate contentions, not to mention your childish theologizing and textual hermeneutics. Your understanding of the philosophy of science and scientific methodology is worse than most twelve-year-olds. What's hilarious is that you don't know just how bad your thinking is, and Steve claims to be a student of physics who thinks your stuff is the cat's meow. Well, if he's not lying and if he's a typical example of what our schools are turning out nowadays, the future of science is in big trouble.

If you stick around, I'll reeducate you on every point, so to speak, you think you made, including your baby talk about abiogenesis, evolution and the materialist's supposed ontological objectivity; but for now rephrase your stupid question in a way that makes sense, if you can, and answer the question I asked you that does make sense.

Or are we just gonna hear crickets chirping, which is to say, more of your womanish chatter of sneer, pseudoscientific blather and philosophical mumbo jumbo in the face of real logic and scientific observations?

Let's take another look at the real thing: http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...win-fossils-or-fruit-flies-7.html#post8972193

Well actually, my little angry fundamentalist, against such argumentation as yours which amounts to: "Blah blah blah blah blah . . . " I will acknowledge your inability to string words into coherent sentences.

 

[Hollie]

.... more of your womanish chatter....

Oh my. Having a tough day at the madrassah, are we?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hollie... You work too hard to show the fundi and fundiesquelol readers the errors of their ways.

A famous quote..I'm not sure from where it was born. "who is crazier? A crazy person? or someone that argues with one?"

I am only aiming at the volumes you bring to the discussion. I am certain you could assemble 10 or 100 pages of your well thought out arguments and still the "understanding" needle wouldn't budge with these god fearing folks.

You can't present a better argument that the threat of hell or the treat of heaven to make your point.

You offer no bribe nor insurance against what happens when you die.

I certainly applaud the work you do.

Religion has tapped into the same fears of children, imagining what monsters lurk under the bed or in the shadows in the closet, that still live in the imaginations of adults.

I too feel sorry for the pain and fears these people harbor. Unfortunately until the fears have been beaten into submission these folks will never stand up to any truth that just dismisses them. They believe god can protect them and we offer nothing of the kind.

"...the errors of their ways."

I understand that you hate and fear religion.....

...but nothing that I've posted pertains to or relies on religion for its veracity.




How about you attempt to show any "errors of their ways."

Bet you cannot.

Hollie is doing a very good job.

As for the question surrounding the four winged fruit flies.. Just because one species or a specific morph of a species can be identified does not mean all or even any of the conditions to "survival" or "failure to survive" have been met. Certainly no one can assume that a laboratory has the "natural" conditions duplicated enough to make any meaningful judgements.

One experiment or observation does not destroy Darwins work.

The study of Finches and the success of different bill designs was well observed and the conclusions drawn valid.

The desperate nature of those attempting to ruin Darwin's study of survival mechanisms inherited in nature is pathetic.

Hollie is entirely correct that the efforts of those that have missused Darwin as a stepping stone to interject ID into the education system is a fraud.

Hollie is an idiot and so are you. She, he or it is entirely bonkers. The environmentally driven adaptations of interspeciation observed in finches, or for that matter in a number of other species over the years, is absolutely no different in nature or significance than the generational variations in the interspeciation of fruit flies. Neither of these endeavors were failures at all. Both show the same things, and macroevolution ain't one of them.

As for what survives survives. . . . Got tautology?

In the meantime, have ya got anymore nose-picking-hayseed unfactoids or mealy-mouthed myths to share about what the Bible allegedly teaches in terms of physical cosmology of which I may disabuse you?

Remember this? http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...win-fossils-or-fruit-flies-7.html#post8972193

Geocentrism. Where do you get your history and biblical knowledge from? The 700 Club of Atheism, one of that foundation's comic books?

By the way, physics student, care to discuss the science you're allegedly studying and see how it actually affirms the Bible? Start with your other myths about how the science refutes theism, for example. I know you have them because you've obviously never got beyond the first principles of human consciousness, let alone the fantasies of your metaphysical bigotry. I'll debunk them one at a time with logic and the science.

PoliticalChick threw down essentially the same gauntlet.

Or let's talk quantum physics, for example. That's always good for laugh when the atheist gets smacked in the head with the fact that its calculi actually support theism . . . as he foolishly goes on about the creative powers of the quantum vacuum, something out of nothing. Are you sure?

And before you go imagining anything stupid about what I'm implying or assume any more stupid things about what's in my head about the age of things, the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution proper, the nature of material existents as if one need argue from a transcendent premise in order to slap down your blather, as is your and Hollie's wont, check this out:

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

Idiots. Boobs. Bores. You're not even talking to us. You're talking to caricatures that exist nowhere in reality but in the tortured echo chambers of your minds.

Instead of blathering the predicable bromides of sneering atheism and arguing against the straw men of theistic laymen, how about you check your package, punk, stand up like a man, i.e., get out from behind Hollie's skirt, and face the real thing for the first time in your unexamined life?

You have no idea just how intellectually naive and predicatively transparent you are to me.

(By the way, is Hollie a she? Certainly argues like a certain kind of one.)

 

[Hollie]

"...the errors of their ways."

I understand that you hate and fear religion.....

...but nothing that I've posted pertains to or relies on religion for its veracity.




How about you attempt to show any "errors of their ways."

Bet you cannot.

Hollie is doing a very good job.

As for the question surrounding the four winged fruit flies.. Just because one species or a specific morph of a species can be identified does not mean all or even any of the conditions to "survival" or "failure to survive" have been met. Certainly no one can assume that a laboratory has the "natural" conditions duplicated enough to make any meaningful judgements.

One experiment or observation does not destroy Darwins work.

The study of Finches and the success of different bill designs was well observed and the conclusions drawn valid.

The desperate nature of those attempting to ruin Darwin's study of survival mechanisms inherited in nature is pathetic.

Hollie is entirely correct that the efforts of those that have missused Darwin as a stepping stone to interject ID into the education system is a fraud.

Hollie is an idiot and so are you. She, he or it is entirely bonkers. The environmentally driven adaptations of interspeciation observed in finches, or for that matter in a number of other species over the years, is absolutely no different in nature or significance than the generational variations in the interspeciation of fruit flies. Neither of these endeavors were failures at all. Both show the same things, and macroevolution ain't one of them.

As for what survives survives. . . . Got tautology?

In the meantime, have ya got anymore nose-picking-hayseed unfactoids or mealy-mouthed myths to share about what the Bible allegedly teaches in terms of physical cosmology of which I may disabuse you?

Remember this? http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...win-fossils-or-fruit-flies-7.html#post8972193

Geocentrism. Where do you get your history and biblical knowledge from? The 700 Club of Atheism, one of that foundation's comic books?

By the way, physics student, care to discuss the science you're allegedly studying and see how it actually affirms the Bible? Start with your other myths about how the science refutes theism, for example. I know you have them because you've obviously never got beyond the first principles of human consciousness, let alone the fantasies of your metaphysical bigotry. I'll debunk them one at a time with logic and the science.

PoliticalChick threw down essentially the same gauntlet.

Or let's talk quantum physics, for example. That's always good for laugh when the atheist gets smacked in the head with the fact that its calculi actually support theism . . . as he foolishly goes on about the creative powers of the quantum vacuum, something out of nothing. Are you sure?

And before you go imagining anything stupid about what I'm implying or assume any more stupid things about what's in my head about the age of things, the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution proper, the nature of material existents as if one need argue from a transcendent premise in order to slap down your blather, as is your and Hollie's wont, check this out:

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

Idiots. Boobs. Bores. You're not even talking to us. You're talking to caricatures that exist nowhere in reality but in the tortured echo chambers of your minds.

Instead of blathering the predicable bromides of sneering atheism and arguing against the straw men of theistic laymen, how about you check your package, punk, stand up like a man, i.e., get out from behind Hollie's skirt, and face the real thing for the first time in your unexamined life?

You have no idea just how intellectually naive and predicatively transparent you are to me.

(By the way, is Hollie a she? Certainly argues like a certain kind of one.)

Wow. This thumper has his bibles duct taped together into a double wide.

 

[ScienceRocks]

There is no god.

Evolution explains reality to a "t". If there was a god all people would be equal.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I was certain my response to your previous nonsense would caused you to launch into such a chest heaving tirade. Challenges to your specious opinions and claims to magical gods are utterly without substantiation. That has the affect of sending fundie zealots into hissy fits such as yours.

Well actually, my little angry fundamentalist, against such argumentation as yours which amounts to: "Blah blah blah blah blah . . . " I will acknowledge your inability to string words into coherent sentences.

Oh my. Having a tough day at the madrassah, are we?

Wow. This thumper has his bibles duct taped together into a double wide.

Like I said, PoliticalChick, it's the rare atheist that actually has a real handle on the science of evolutionary theory. Most atheists are dirt stupid. It's just an article of faith with them. It's the rare atheist that ever gets beyond generalities, caricatures and insults when the leaned theist confronts them on chat boards. They are boobs and bores . . . robots mindlessly genuflecting at the alter of scientism, i.e., the faith of it-must-be-true-because-authority-says-so.

Are we angry? No, of course not. Are we laughing at these boobs? With much relish as there's really nothing more one can do with them.

You want to find one that actually knows the science, as that would be an informative and interesting discussion, but, no, it rarely happens. In fact, I've only encountered two or three on chat boards in all these years that do more than what we're getting from Hollie and Steve.

*yawn*

 

[Hollie]

I was certain my response to your previous nonsense would caused you to launch into such a chest heaving tirade. Challenges to your specious opinions and claims to magical gods are utterly without substantiation. That has the affect of sending fundie zealots into hissy fits such as yours.

Well actually, my little angry fundamentalist, against such argumentation as yours which amounts to: "Blah blah blah blah blah . . . " I will acknowledge your inability to string words into coherent sentences.

Oh my. Having a tough day at the madrassah, are we?

Wow. This thumper has his bibles duct taped together into a double wide.

Like I said, PoliticalChick, it's the rare atheist that actually has a real handle on the science of evolutionary theory. Most atheists are dirt stupid. It's just an article of faith with them. It's the rare atheist that ever gets beyond generalities, caricatures and insults when the leaned theist confronts them on chat boards. They are boobs and bores . . . robots mindlessly genuflecting at the alter of scientism, i.e., the faith of it-must-be-true-because-authority-says-so.

Are we angry? No, of course not. Are we laughing at these boobs? With much relish as there's really nothing more one can do with them.

You want to find one that actually knows the science, as that would be an informative and interesting discussion, but, no, it rarely happens. In fact, I've only encountered two or three on chat boards in all these years that do more than what we're getting from Hollie and Steve.

*yawn*

I better not read any "womanish chatter" coming from PC.