Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 79
  1. #31
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Johns View Post
    I have read this thread and am sad. You are all attacking Capafan. This is not good.
    This is coming from the poster who recently set up a whole thread called "Thus Spoke Capablanca-Fan #1" (which I have retitled "Income distribution") for the purposes of having a go at Capablanca-Fan, then bumped it (bump now deleted) when CF didn't reply, then spammed about it on an unrelated thread (that post now deleted) to try to further bait him into responding.

    At best you are extremely inconsistent but more likely you are being a concern-troll.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 15-07-2015 at 10:37 AM.

  2. #32
    Batoutahelius road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Johns View Post
    CapAfan has a problem with wieghing evidence. It is a brain fault where all statements and evidence must be fitting desired answer or they are not true.
    Sounds about right.
    meep meep

  3. #33
    Batoutahelius road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,116
    The Urban Dictionary has an interesting definition of creation science:

    n. A fundamentalist Christian outreach concept, in which the intent is to "debunk" science with the word of scripture. Its most vocal adherents are southern and mid-western U.S. evangelical protestants (see Bible Thumper.) Creation "scientists" try to convince "unsaved" people that the Earth was formed in a Creation that took place at the hands of Almighty God a few thousand years ago, and hope their evidence will convert a few of these "unsaved" people to the faith.

    ...
    Unfortunately, unlike real scientists, Creation Scientists face a non-existent job market. Most find work in blue-collar manufacturing jobs, or else provide for their families by huntin' sqwirls, 'coons and o-possum. Their hobbies range from watching NASCAR, to whippin' the kids, to attending Klan and CCC rallies. Prrrraise Jesus!

    Question: How old is this part of the Grand Canyon?

    Scientist: This formation is about five million years old, according to our best uranium-lead dating...

    Creation Scientist: Them there canyon ain't no more 'n' maybe 4000 years ole,' and if you done believe otherwise, you're a Hellbound sinner, praise the Lord! Now please op'n' all yawl's Bibles to Genesis, Chapter Six and let us remind ourselves of the word of God...
    meep meep

  4. #34
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,070
    How moronic can you get (actually rr's post shows, quite a bit)? The KKK leader David Duke was a fanatical Darwinist, and other KKK members attacked churches. And even though the American CMI is in Georgia, almost none of us come from the state.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  5. #35
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Did Augustine, Aquinas or Martin Luther believe that organisms: "develop over successive generations as a result of natural selection ..."? If they did, they certainly didn't make it clear in their writings. That implies that it is possible to reject the idea of natural selection, and until Darwin, almost everyone did.
    Even Gould acknowledged that creationists before Darwin understood natural selection as a process to cull the weakest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    The only reason there are (almost) no anti-evolutionists (using the Oxford definition) now is because everyone - even YECs - accepts Darwin's insight.
    More nonsense. YECs both before and after Darwin accepted variation and natural selection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Do you agree that - if we use the Oxford Dictionary definition - then Lenski's experiments are experiments in evolution? Until we agree on this, there is no point in discussing the 'General Theory'.
    Do you agree that - if we use the Oxford Dictionary definition - CMI would all be evolutionists?
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  6. #36
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    How moronic can you get (actually rr's post shows, quite a bit)? The KKK leader David Duke was a fanatical Darwinist, and other KKK members attacked churches. And even though the American CMI is in Georgia, almost none of us come from the state.
    Really???

    So why is it the symbol for the Klan is a burning cross and why do they say a Christian Prayer to God (not the spirit of Charles Darwin) before they light the cross and sing hymns like "Onward Christian Soldiers" afterward?

    For more detail of the Christian practices of the Klan see "The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America" By Wyn Craig Wade.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  7. #37
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Even Gould acknowledged that creationists before Darwin understood natural selection as a process to cull the weakest.
    Which is not the same thing as believing that species "develop over successive generations" due to natural selection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    More nonsense. YECs both before and after Darwin accepted variation and natural selection.
    Did YECs before Darwin accept that species "develop over successive generations" due to natural selection? I'm not denying that there could be some, but can you name any? Of course, after Darwin published the idea of evolution quickly became widely accepted among scientists, and then the general population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Do you agree that - if we use the Oxford Dictionary definition - CMI would all be evolutionists?
    I have stated before (see below) that many YECs accept evolution. You just refuse to use that word to describe the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    I think the word they're looking for is "evolution" (my [italics]bold):
    •The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
    Last edited by Patrick Byrom; 07-08-2015 at 01:44 PM. Reason: Quote and clarification added

  8. #38
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Really???
    Yes really. Not a single prominent creationist has any connection with the KKK or speaks with a US southern drawl, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    So why is it the symbol for the Klan is a burning cross and why do they say a Christian Prayer to God (not the spirit of Charles Darwin) before they light the cross and sing hymns like "Onward Christian Soldiers" afterward?
    Should be a clue: burning a Christian symbol like the cross, which goes well with the burning of churches. The KKK also lost badly when they tried to brawl with students of Notre Dame, which thoroughly weakened the Klan.

    Conversely, the über-left President Woodrow Wilson idolized the Klan, and Margaret Sanger, the founder of the baby-part–selling business Planned Parenthood, addressed Klan meetings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    For more detail of the Christian practices of the Klan see "The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America" By Wyn Craig Wade.
    Why? The Publishers Weekly reviewer was not impressed:

    This doggedly researched history of the American racist group is bloated with cliches, overstatements, colloquialisms, sensationalistic accounts of sexual atrocities and nonsensical connections (a detailed description of Grant's second inaugural ball that took place in an unheated building is followed by the observation that "over the next four years, the Republican ardor for civil rights would cool"). Wade's historical insights are often inane, as when he discusses Grant's suspension of habeas corpus in implementing the Ku-Klux Act: "Although it must be admitted that martial law is never pleasant, the effects of military occupation in South Carolina were far less dreadful than the picture anti-Reconstruction historians would popularize." And his psychological analyses are ludicrous: "Klan attacks on scalawags often involved some kind of sexual abuse. . . . as if the behavior of the scalawags represented a form of infidelity to the South, and Klansmen gladly assumed the role of vengeful spouses." Wade is the author of The Titanic: End of a Dream. Photos not seen by PW.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  9. #39
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Which is not the same thing as believing that species "develop over successive generations" due to natural selection.
    I've also pointed out that evolution need not include natural selection. There are evolutionists who downplay the role of NS. Evolution is the change, natural selection is one proposed mechanism of the change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Did YECs before Darwin accept that species "develop over successive generations" due to natural selection?
    Since NS is not a prerequisite for evolution or change, it matters only that pre-Darwinian creationists understood that a process of variation, what we would even call speciation, had occurred to derive many varieties from comparatively few Ark animals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    I have stated before (see below) that many YECs accept evolution.
    You stated wrongly. Then the likes of Dawkins state that 40% of Americans deny "evolution", just after he had defined this as mere change of allele frequencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    You just refuse to use that word to describe the process.
    Of course, because it has no bearing on the real dispute: goo to you via the zoo.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  10. #40
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Yes really. Not a single prominent creationist has any connection with the KKK or speaks with a US southern drawl, for example.
    That's not what I was getting at. I was disagreeing with your ridiculous claim that the Klan is Darwinist and anti-Christian when they are patently self-identify as Christian and embed themselves is Christian symbolism and spiritualism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Should be a clue: burning a Christian symbol like the cross, which goes well with the burning of churches.
    The burning of the cross is not a sign of destroying a Christian symbol but decorating it with ardour. Somewhat like the flames on the sacred heart. As defenders of the Christian faith they might burn a church if they think it a false church (say if you consider Christian a faith for white anglosaxons and not people of african descent). In fact such minded individual are more likely to do so then say a group of Darwinists with no particular reason to pick on a church rather than say a Mosque or Synagogue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Conversely, the über-left President Woodrow Wilson
    ... also a Christian ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    idolized the Klan, and Margaret Sanger,
    ... also a Christian ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    the founder of the baby-part–selling business Planned Parenthood, addressed Klan meetings.
    Fine but your two examples only reinforces the idea that the Klan had a Christian base.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Why? The Publishers Weekly reviewer was not impressed:
    One bad review is not the end of the world and besides that reviewer was relatively positive on the research.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #41
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    I've also pointed out that evolution need not include natural selection. There are evolutionists who downplay the role of NS. Evolution is the change, natural selection is one proposed mechanism of the change.
    And I don't disagree that species change can occur by processes other than natural selection. However natural selection is definitely the main process involved in evolution. So any standard (non-creationist) definition of evolution would include natural selection, either implicitly or explicitly.

    If you have a living evolutionary biologist who believes that natural selection is not the most important part of evolution, perhaps you can supply a quote?

    Remember that the original discussion was about a change in bacteria which was clearly the result of natural selection (and mutation). And you admit that natural selection is part of evolution ("need not include" - your words! - which imply it can be included). So the experiment involved evolution, as I claimed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Since NS is not a prerequisite for evolution or change, it matters only that pre-Darwinian creationists understood that a process of variation, what we would even call speciation, had occurred to derive many varieties from comparatively few Ark animals.
    Again, can you supply a quote, or name one of these pre-Darwinian creationists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    You stated wrongly. Then the likes of Dawkins state that 40% of Americans deny "evolution", just after he had defined this as mere change of allele frequencies.
    Quote from Dawkins, please? In any case, my claim is based on the Oxford definition, which you appear to largely accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Of course, because it has no bearing on the real dispute: goo to you via the zoo.
    This is irrelevant to the Oxford definition. If you disagree with the Oxford definition, can you supply your own (non-creationist) dictionary definition?

  12. #42
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Remember that the original discussion was about a change in bacteria which was clearly the result of natural selection (and mutation). And you admit that natural selection is part of evolution ("need not include" - your words! - which imply it can be included).
    What's the big deal? Evolution is the claimed process of changes from goo to you, natural selection is the means by which most evolutionary biologists (at least Anglophone ones) think it occurs. The definition of evolution should not include natural selection. That's why Darwin talked about evolution "by means of natural selection."

    Also, as I've pointed out, evolutionists don't have a monopoly on natural selection. Creationists before and after Darwin invoked it. So you can cite all the examples of change effected by natural selection that you like, and it will not make the slightest difference to creation v evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    So the experiment involved evolution, as I claimed!
    The experiment involved change effected by natural selection, but since both creationist and evolutionist models accept change effected by natural selection, this experiment is not evidence against either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Again, can you supply a quote, or name one of these pre-Darwinian creationists?
    Already done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Quote from Dawkins, please?
    Must I argue your side as well as mine? But it's true that many misotheists don't actually know that much about evolution. Evolutionary science writer Gordy Slack in "What neo-creationists get right: An evolutionist shares lessons he’s learned from the Intelligent Design camp" [The Scientist, June 2008]

    Which leads me to a final concession to my ID foes: When they say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers, they’re right. A few years ago I covered a conference of the American Atheists in Las Vegas. I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct though they didn’t know a thing about adaptive radiation, genetic drift, or even plain old natural selection. They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science. They’re still correct when they say evolution happens. But I’m afraid they’re wrong to call themselves skeptics unencumbered by ideology. Many of them are best described as zealots. Ideological zeal isn’t incompatible with good science; its coincidence with a theory proves nothing about that theory’s explanatory power.

    Anyway, Dawk in his The Greatest Show on Earth (2009):

    …when there is a systematic increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in a gene pool, that is precisely what we mean by evolution. (p. 33)

    This would mean that neither I nor any of my colleagues dispute "evolution", so why are you wasting my time arguing with me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    In any case, my claim is based on the Oxford definition, which you appear to largely accept.
    What are you on about? I've explained why this is defective and not the issue at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    This is irrelevant to the Oxford definition. If you disagree with the Oxford definition, can you supply your own (non-creationist) dictionary definition?
    Already provided Kerkut's definition, and he was an evolutionist. When will you admit that this is the issue at dispute rather than change, and quit your bait-and-switch?
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  13. #43
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    That's not what I was getting at. I was disagreeing with your ridiculous claim that the Klan is Darwinist and anti-Christian when they are patently self-identify as Christian and embed themselves is Christian symbolism and spiritualism.
    Klan intellectual David Duke is a Darwinian, continuing the racism that was rife among Darwinians in the first decades of the last century.

    Woodrow Wilson was very much a liberal churchian, no more Christian than Spong is today. It's hard to take RW seriously when he calls Margaret Sanger a Christian, when she was awarded the 1957 Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  14. #44
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,070

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    This is coming from the poster who recently set up a whole thread called "Thus Spoke Capablanca-Fan #1" (which I have retitled "Income distribution") for the purposes of having a go at Capablanca-Fan, then bumped it (bump now deleted) when CF didn't reply, then spammed about it on an unrelated thread (that post now deleted) to try to further bait him into responding.

    At best you are extremely inconsistent but more likely you are being a concern-troll.
    Thanks for that.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  15. #45
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,562
    Caps Fan is into supernatural selection
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Science stories
    By Rincewind in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 506
    Last Post: 31-10-2017, 01:06 PM
  2. Matthew and Luke on the year of Jesus' birth (sf Science Stories)
    By Rincewind in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-02-2015, 07:50 PM
  3. Shortage of researchers, sf. Science stories
    By arosar in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 16-06-2014, 09:13 AM
  4. Religion and Science of Cosmology (s.f. Science Stories)
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 23-05-2013, 11:28 AM
  5. The Science Of Chess!!
    By Funiatra in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 02:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •