Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - One-night stands: they're genetic!

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

One-night stands: they're genetic!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 6:44 am Post subject:

Nothing in that bloated quotation says anything about Euler or Coriolis forces. Forgot about those?

Quote:

The bulge of the Earth�s equator may be attributed indifferently to the Earth�s rotation or to the outward pull of the centrifugal force introduced when the Earth is regarded as nonrotating.

Yes, "regarded as", as in not actually not rotating. We don't need more examples of your reading comprehension problems.

You ignored my post where I pointed out you directly contradicting yourself.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 7:00 pm Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Quote:

The bulge of the Earth�s equator may be attributed indifferently to the Earth�s rotation or to the outward pull of the centrifugal force introduced when the Earth is regarded as nonrotating.

Yes, "regarded as", as in not actually not rotating. We don't need more examples of your reading comprehension problems.

How many scientists do I have to quote?

Quote:

'it does not matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve around it'. It is the relative motion that is responsible for the bulge.'-Mach

In other words, it could quite easily be true that the earth is not moving and that the cosmos is moving around it. There is no way to tell, because the effects produced will be identical. When are you going to admit this?

However there are certain phenomena that cause problems for your rotating earth theory. One is the Michelson Morley experiments which clearly indicate that the earth is not moving.

alljokingaside

Joined: 17 Feb 2010

Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 11:03 pm Post subject:

Not bothering to wade through the thick of posts here, I'll just add my two cents with a gleeful yayz!

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 12:20 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Giving up so soon Bob? Oh wel. at least you lasted longer than Mix1.

Hello again! Not only do you lose two separate debates, but in your shifty way you then try to gloat about "lasting longer" in the discussion. Lasting longer is not working in your favor.

Ironically you were also crying about the "arrogance" of your opponents, yet you go on to gloat when they move on because they tire of your antics.

In reality, you've come up short. Since you claimed your view of creation is "backed by known and observable facts" you now have to try to do what your opponents do, which is try and show some evidence of the view.

In your case, this will be next to impossible, and this is why your side lost in a U.S. court of law, because in a court one needs this little thing called evidence. Thankfully, unlike in an internet forum, in a court you can't just assert nonsense and then have it stand up for itself, it needs to be backed by something (other than a bizarre literal interpretation of an ancient book).

This is why I did you the service of posting a list, that if answered honestly and definitively, may make your spin on your creation myth slightly more believable. (Again, nobody is holding their breath here.)

Here's the list again: (let's lower the bar a bit for you and modify it so that you don't even have to provide any proof - which is what you demand of your opponents by the way. Let's just see SOME sort of evidence for the following)

-evidence of your proposed age of the Earth
-fossil evidence of one of these "original ancestral types" complete with radiometric dating
-evidence (not opinion) that species could NOT speciate beyond the "original ancestral type" prototype
-evidence that evolution is ALWAYS a "downward process" and that genetic information is always inherently being "lost"
-evidence that ALL mutations are harmful (you stated this earlier)
-fossil evidence of the giant men (you've been asked repeatedly for this)
-Geological evidence of a flood large enough to wipe all life on Earth (save for some people in a boat filled with ALL the other organisms on Earth-you claimed this as well)

Plenty of other things could be included but let's at least start with the above.

Still waiting...

You can gloat all you want, but remember we're not laughing WITH you, we're laughing AT you.

(Oops, more of that confounded "arrogance" again!)

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 8:02 am Post subject:

Mix1 wrote:

Let's just see SOME sort of evidence for the following)

-evidence of your proposed age of the Earth
-fossil evidence of one of these "original ancestral types" complete with radiometric dating
-evidence (not opinion) that species could NOT speciate beyond the "original ancestral type" prototype
-evidence that evolution is ALWAYS a "downward process" and that genetic information is always inherently being "lost"
..etc

Sorry. That discussion was over a long time ago. You failed completely to back up evolution with any evidence.

A mainstream scientist like yourself, a bastion of the scientific establishment......could not even produce one factoid to confirm this preposterous theory.

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 8:19 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Mix1 wrote:

Total cop out. But a predictable response nonetheless.

I guess we see what happens when you are held to the same standard as everyone else.

You are right about ONE thing; the discussion was over a long time ago.

In 2005 to be exact. You just won't read the memo that your side lost miserably (in the U.S. Federal Courts via the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial). Feel free to read the transcripts (though I doubt that will happen). Evidence matters and your side came up short. And while we are speaking of courts, don't forget that the defendants could not have claimed to have read material they didn't actually read on evolution (as you did) since that would have been perjury, but luckily they weren't that foolish.

While initially you said "nothing has changed" you then had to concede you believe in both evolution and speciation, you just take a very narrow view of those concepts while still trying to argue against them with those that don't agree with your paint by numbers view of creationism. Either way, that's conceding a lot because it means you can't deny the process of evolution, you just have a problem with the amount it can change organisms. That's fine, but it's kind of like saying it's ok to use a mop to clean the kitchen floor but the same process would be impossible for the dining room as it's larger and would take longer.

Essentially, you just have an axe to grind with anyone (even other Christians) who thinks outside this narrow box of literal biblical interpretation that you hold, and you'll deny any information that doesn't fit this template no matter what it is. This was shown in both the evolution and heliocentric discussions.

And stop trying to flatter yourself that you are by and large debating professional scientists on here. Most of us are just random reasonable people who luckily happen to NOT have been indoctrinated at an early age in literalist Christian mythology.

In the end, it won't matter how much info or evidence is thrown your way, which is why people eventually just move on. It has nothing to do with winning or lasting longer. The fact that you are still on here pounding out the same one note symphony doesn't really mean you've won anything.

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 10:11 pm Post subject:

A false dichotomy is presented: either Young Earth Creationism is correct, or else it follows that all species evolved from an original self-replicating bacterium via random mutation and natural selection. The fact that the debate is framed this way is quite a victory for the defenders of Darwinism, because instead of having to defend their theory, as other scientists do, they can make fun of religious beliefs and talk about court cases and demand their opponents prove an alternative (the good old "you can't prove X? then it MUST be Y!"). A physicist or astronomer or even a chemist would be embarrassed to engage in such tactics. They would just laugh, shrug, and explain based on the strength of the science.

Abe Scrap

Joined: 01 May 2011

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 3:18 am Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

A false dichotomy is presented: either Young Earth Creationism is correct, or else it follows that all species evolved from an original self-replicating bacterium via random mutation and natural selection.

The fact that the debate is framed this way is quite a victory for the defenders of Darwinism, because instead of having to defend their theory, as other scientists do, they can make fun of religious beliefs and talk about court cases and demand their opponents prove an alternative (the good old "you can't prove X? then it MUST be Y!"). A physicist or astronomer or even a chemist would be embarrassed to engage in such tactics. They would just laugh, shrug, and explain based on the strength of the science.

Then do entw1lighten us: what is/are the other alternative(s) everyone else is missing?

ED209

Joined: 17 Oct 2006

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 3:54 am Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Bacteria are quite advanced, maybe you meant single celled organism.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

The fact that the debate is framed this way is quite a victory for the defenders of Darwinism, because instead of having to defend their theory, as other scientists do, they can make fun of religious beliefs and talk about court cases and demand their opponents prove an alternative (the good old "you can't prove X? then it MUST be Y!"). A physicist or astronomer or even a chemist would be embarrassed to engage in such tactics. They would just laugh, shrug, and explain based on the strength of the science.

Strawman: Who is saying Darwinism is true because you can't prove young Earth creationism?

What would these physicists and astronomers think of junior's views on the orbit of the planets?

It comes to court cases when people ignore the scientific evidence and try to force through obvious religious doctrine. It comes to ridicule when people cling to beliefs that are absurd in the face of evidence.

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 4:15 am Post subject:

Abe Scrap wrote:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Then do entw1lighten us: what is/are the other alternative(s) everyone else is missing?

Hey, keep your shirt on. You just did exactly what I'm talking about.

The proper defense of a scientific theory is not: "Oh, yeah? What's your alternative?"

This seems to be a kind of involuntary, knee-jerk reaction. But surely you can see how it denotes weakness.

The Darwinian theory may be correct. The point I am making is that, logically, choosing young earth creationism or speciation based on mutation/natural selection from an original bacterium is a false dichotomy which cheapens the discussion. As for possible alternatives, they could involve additional or alternate naturalistic choosing mechanisms beyond natural selection, or from the other side, intelligent intervention not based on a literal biblical reading or even deism. It could also involve processes we're not even aware of.

I am not endorsing any of these alternatives. The burden is not on skeptics to come up with alternatives, the burden is on a scientific theory to prove itself.

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 4:36 am Post subject:

ED209 wrote:

Strawman: Who is saying Darwinism is true because you can't prove young Earth creationism?

It would be nice if it was a Strawman.

There are too many examples to cite. I'll just give a couple off the top of my head. Dr. Eugenie Scott, who pushes Darwin-only education, has said on numerous occasions that only religious creationists cast doubt on evolution and that the objections are religiously based. These types of declarations scuttle the argument on the actual merits of the theory. They are ad hominem arguments.

In this thread, Mix1 has repeatedly called on Junior to prove his creationist claims when he failed to convince him by appealing to science--as if Junior's failure to prove his beliefs would prove the alternative Mix endorses to be correct.

Also in this thread, every time I've made some observation on the nature of the debate, someone comes on to accuse me of being a young earth creationist, although, strange to say, I am not, nor have I said anything contrary to Darwin's theory.

ED209

Joined: 17 Oct 2006

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 5:34 am Post subject:

HijackedTw1light wrote:

ED209 wrote:

Strawman: Who is saying Darwinism is true because you can't prove young Earth creationism?

But she is not saying 'Darwinism is true because Creationism is unproven'. The strawman remains. Who were you questioning the scientists out in the real world or the people in this thread?

HijackedTw1light wrote:

In this thread, Mix1 has repeatedly called on Junior to prove his creationist claims when he failed to convince him by appealing to science--as if Junior's failure to prove his beliefs would prove the alternative Mix endorses to be correct.

I'm not sure this is Mix's intent but instead a response to Junior's hand waving. Evolution is as solid a theory as any other.

HijackedTw1light wrote:

Also in this thread, every time I've made some observation on the nature of the debate, someone comes on to accuse me of being a young earth creationist, although, strange to say, I am not, nor have I said anything contrary to Darwin's theory.

Did I make this accusation?

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 5:47 am Post subject:

HijackedTwilight wrote:

The burden is not on skeptics to come up with alternatives, the burden is on a scientific theory to prove itself.

Unbelievable. I didn't think people were capable of viewing a topic such as this dispassionately and objectively, but you have done it.

HijackedTw1light

Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 6:18 am Post subject:

ED209 wrote:

But she is not saying 'Darwinism is true because Creationism is unproven'. The strawman remains. Who were you questioning the scientists out in the real world or the people in this thread?

Dr. Scott is equating all criticism of Darwinism with religious or illogical thinking. Hence Darwinism is unassailable to criticism. It is a tautology. The correctness of Darwinism is assumed. The dichotomy I suggested is not always explicit, it is implied by the tautology.

I'm not sure of Mix's intent, either, but there's an obvious implication that only religious loons would doubt the theory.

You wrote that since "you" could not prove young earth creationism, etc...I don't know if you really meant me, literally, but before you others in the thread grouped me with the creationists.

Anyway, I haven't been called a Creatard yet, but I have my fingers crossed.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 3:35 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

When are you going to admit that "could be regarded as" does not equate to "is", or that you have already contradicted yourself on multiple points? Give a little, get a little.

Junior wrote:

However there are certain phenomena that cause problems for your rotating earth theory. One is the Michelson Morley experiments which clearly indicate that the earth is not moving.

Which I already dealt with I-don't-know-how-many pages back. Second scientific revolution and all that, remember?

You quote modern general relativity, and then turn around and also quote a 120 year-old, failed experiment that was attempting to find evidence of the luminiferous aether...

You've at least proved that your understanding of science is dubious at best.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14 Next
Page 13 of 14

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe