Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

The opportunity to practice argumentation.

The opportunity to share knowledge and understanding - amongst ourselves, if not with Царь Славян.

[The rugby's on, so I won't be replying to him until later.]

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lrkun]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

The opportunity to practice argumentation.

The opportunity to share knowledge and understanding - amongst ourselves, if not with Царь Славян.

[The rugby's on, so I won't be replying to him until later.]

Kindest regards,

James

By your reasoning, both opportunies are gained from dissenter tsarp? If yes, then I agree with you since tsarp forces us to understand and know more about the topic at hand and as a consequence, this thread came to be.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

You have been arguing throughout that scientists have been unable to predict anything using the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary biology comprises a multitude of scientific fields: evolution is not just a stand-alone "theory".

Throughout you've been claiming that predicting transitional fossils between two other fossils is not a prediction.

It may very well be a prediction. But there is no reason for me to think that it was based on evolution.

It was a prediction - and it was based on evolution.

From your other posts, you seem to believe that the theory of evolution is still that of Darwin - it's moved on from that, and has broadened and deepened: it's changed from "Darwinism" to the Modern Synthesis to Evo-devo - and will continue to change in the future as more is learnt about Nature.

What do you think is predicting a transitional fossil? Logical deduction based on morphological traits! Ergo, a prediction.

No, because its not a deduction, but an induction how an organism would look like. It does not have to look like that. It could look differently.

Transitional fossils can have different traits - certainly, it's not a case of saying that the fossil will have specific traits, anymore than we can predict the eye colour of a child born to parents with different eye-colours: we may be able to suggest the possible permutations - but not the child's specific eye-colour. And so it is with transitional fossils' morphological traits.

So, you're God now, are you?

Nope.

Indeed - then you should stop making absolute claims.

Not if you know anything about Paley and Darwin, they're not.

Darwin explained away Paleys argument. But Dembski explained away Darwin's.

So, with what parts of Paleyianism do you agree?

That a design requires a designer. As I said above. Darwin did give an explanation that was in that time better than Paleys, but now we have a better explanation than Darwins, that shows us that design still requires a designer.

These two paragraphs are laughable.

Dembski, Behe and their partners-in-crime published their ideas on ID - not in peer-reviewed science jounals, but in books - thus bypassing the whole process.

Dembski had the opportunity to appear at the Dover trial - it was announced that he would be testifying for the prosecution. Then it was announced that he'd withdrawn - was it because he learned that Miller would be testifying for the defence?

Behe did testify - but wasn't able to answer Miller's testimony on the flagellum against "irreducible complexity". Nor could he answer Miller's testimony about chromosome 2.

In fact, he was forced to admit that - by the DI's definition of "science" - such things as astrology and witchcraft would be included - and taught in schools' science classes.

If the prosecution had won their case.

Fortunately, the conservative, appointed-by-Bush judge wasn't as ignorant as they'd thought and hoped.

We're talking in the everyday sense when we say "the train is moving" - if you choose to turn introspective and ask "What is truth?", then we're not going to get anywhere. are we?

Are you telling me that philosophy is useless, and is going nowhere?

No - again you misread what is posted.

Philosophy is a very worthy subject.

I said that if you resort to (pointlessly) philosophizing, then we'd get nowhere.

"Similarity" in what?

And it's not "my" assumption - or, indeed, "a" assumption: it's a evidence-based logical deduction of scientists.

Similarity in shape. Or similarity in DNA sequences. Okay, I see you don't get this. Tell me, do you know what formal logic is? If you do, then tell me what kind of a statement is the statement that similarity implies common descent. Is it an IF THEN statement, or an IF AND ONLY IF statement?

Are you claiming a.) or b.)
a.) Similarity ? Common Descent
b.) Similarity ? Common Descent

The problem is your definition of "similarity" is not on what Science bases the decision - there are a wealth of specialities ranging from A-Z of the sciences being brought to bear on the evidence.

It's not a "monkey sees, monkey does" decision.

[And to answer your question - strictly in the context of your definition of "similarity": no, it doesn't imply common descent in formal logic. But then, we're not talking in terms of your definition of "similarity".]

A number approaching zero.

If I said that the probability of a flagellum evolving is P - > 0, what would you say?

Given that we already have a flagellum which has evolved, I'd say P does not approach 0 - quite the contrary!

Definitions are based on a commonly-recognized, independent source.

Such as dictionaries - I defy you to find a dictionary that defines someone who accepts evolution as a Muslim - or vice versa.

If that were true then nobody would be able to make a first definition since it would require an independent source for it.

The definitions we use in the course of everyday life are already decided - so there's no need to attempt to avoid the issue by claiming the "first" definition couldn't be agreed - it could, it only requires consensus.

And we don't need that - we simply need to use the pre-decided defintions from dictionaries.

You should - both are well-worth the time to watch. You'll learn so much!

I'm not interested in your stories.

Not "my stories" - Science's.

The definition of "Science" was - and rightly so - decided in a court-of-law: ID and Creationism are not Science.

Says you.

No - not me: the judge.

Here's his decision.

His dating chart is falsified by the fact it can be "read" in either direction. Much like you're arguing with the fossil record.

I'm not going to start arguing about this topic, since I doubt you know anything about it. Anyway, there is nothing to falsify here. It is fact that dates of rulers of different nations exist. The only thing you have to do is to put them on paper and compare them.

Not according to the many criticisms of his methods - hence why it's called "pseudo-history" and "pseudo-science".

It is different with animals since we do NOT know when they lived or if they are related. Humans can interbreed with other humans. You do not know if that is true for fossils you find in the ground.

We know when they lived - and if they are related.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Inferno]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

I'm sad that he was banned. Not that he was particularly entertaining, but I believe that nobody should be banned.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

Agreed - no-one is a lost soul until others close their hearts to them.

If he does request to reply - at least, to defend himself - I, for one, would support his right to do so.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lrkun]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

I'm sad that he was banned. Not that he was particularly entertaining, but I believe that nobody should be banned.

He can make a new account.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

I'm sad that he was banned. Not that he was particularly entertaining, but I believe that nobody should be banned.

He can make a new account.

I'm assuming he's capable of realizing that creating another account would be futile, at best, and disrespectful to say the least.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

no-one is a lost soul until others close their hearts to them.

I would have to disagree. You can't expect someone who totally lacks the capacity for critical thinking skills to somehow find them and begin to think rationally any more than you can expect a someone whose brain is in a vegetated state to start quoting prime numbers. Not all brains are equal in their capacity to process information and draw conclusions. Hence, there are intelligent people, and there are stupid people.

He made it clear he was trolling us anyway. His mind was shut and locked even before he walked into this forum. With something like 40 pages of posts devoted to trying to get him to think rationally on this forum alone (with at least as many on the other forums), it's clear that many people have made an effort to help him, and have spent a great deal of time trying to guide him to a more sensible worldview.

Your wanting to help him is generous, and while it reflects well on you, it does make me wonder if you truly understand what's going on. Perhaps something like 100 pages of posts in all the forums he has trolled has been devoted to getting him to accept reality. The fact that he still doesn't requires him to be intellectually defficient in some way. There's no excuse to have someone so terribly wrong, still be wrong after so much effort went into correcting him.

But you would want to keep trying to help, and I understand that. But ask yourself, 100 pages with no progress. The exact same flawed arguments over and over, the exact same failure to reason and think. How many pages do you think would be required to make some progress? 200? 500? 1,000? You aren't just trying to show someone that they're wrong, you're fighting against their heavily biased, skewed, and very much desired perception of reality. He doesn't want to think, he doesn't want to accept reality. All he wants is to cling to his ass-backwards way of thinking and to spread it like a disease.

I have no sympathy for people who want to be stupid.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

no-one is a lost soul until others close their hearts to them.

I would have to disagree. You can't expect someone who totally lacks the capacity for critical thinking skills to somehow find them and begin to think rationally any more than you can expect a someone whose brain is in a vegetated state to start quoting prime numbers. Not all brains are equal in their capacity to process information and draw conclusions. Hence, there are intelligent people, and there are stupid people.

He made it clear he was trolling us anyway. His mind was shut and locked even before he walked into this forum. With something like 40 pages of posts devoted to trying to get him to think rationally on this forum alone (with at least as many on the other forums), it's clear that many people have made an effort to help him, and have spent a great deal of time trying to guide him to a more sensible worldview.

Your wanting to help him is generous, and while it reflects well on you, it does make me wonder if you truly understand what's going on. Perhaps something like 100 pages of posts in all the forums he has trolled has been devoted to getting him to accept reality. The fact that he still doesn't requires him to be intellectually defficient in some way. There's no excuse to have someone so terribly wrong, still be wrong after so much effort went into correcting him.

But you would want to keep trying to help, and I understand that. But ask yourself, 100 pages with no progress. The exact same flawed arguments over and over, the exact same failure to reason and think. How many pages do you think would be required to make some progress? 200? 500? 1,000? You aren't just trying to show someone that they're wrong, you're fighting against their heavily biased, skewed, and very much desired perception of reality. He doesn't want to think, he doesn't want to accept reality. All he wants is to cling to his ass-backwards way of thinking and to spread it like a disease.

I have no sympathy for people who want to be stupid.

I do understand, RigelKentaurusA.

We're not talking about the mentally subnormal or those in a vegetative state - we're talking about someone who is either uninformed/misinformed or who is determined to be stubborn in their views.

I realize that he had stated that he was here to make us look stupid - however, I'd far rather that he gave up than the other way round.

Many here have seen posters who come here wrapped up in their views - whether JWs, LDS', etc, who come round eventually.

I had said that his posted replies were becoming shorter, since he was not bothering to respond to parts of my posts - I took this as progress, that he was slowly(!) giving up attempting to convince me.

Even though you and some others didn't want to waste your time with him, others - like me and Inferno - were willing to continue the effort.

And, remember, it's not just for his benefit - it's for those who watch the discussion: to help them see the difference between science and pseudo-science.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[scalyblue]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

We're not talking about the mentally subnormal or those in a vegetative state - we're talking about someone who is either uninformed/misinformed or who is determined to be stubborn in their views.

I realize that he had stated that he was here to make us look stupid - however, I'd far rather that he gave up than the other way round.

I don't think you understand the mindset and intention of a troll.

He wasn't uninformed or misinformed, or stubborn in his views; those weren't his views at all. He was trolling for attention, for comments, and for the lulz., a specific and knowing way to waste the time of others with minimal effort on his part.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

We're not talking about the mentally subnormal or those in a vegetative state - we're talking about someone who is either uninformed/misinformed or who is determined to be stubborn in their views.

I realize that he had stated that he was here to make us look stupid - however, I'd far rather that he gave up than the other way round.

I don't think you understand the mindset and intention of a troll.

He wasn't uninformed or misinformed, or stubborn in his views; those weren't his views at all. He was trolling for attention, for comments, and for the lulz., a specific and knowing way to waste the time of others with minimal effort on his part.

Perhaps, scalyblue, you - and others here - don't understand my mindset.

I'll talk to anybody - until they either come round or give up and go away.

Call me stubborn, if you wish.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Inferno]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

I don't think you understand the mindset and intention of a troll.

He wasn't uninformed or misinformed, or stubborn in his views; those weren't his views at all. He was trolling for attention, for comments, and for the lulz., a specific and knowing way to waste the time of others with minimal effort on his part.

Perhaps, scalyblue, you - and others here - don't understand my mindset.

I'll talk to anybody - until they either come round or give up and go away.

Call me stubborn, if you wish.

Kindest regards,

James

I think that while you're right, scaly, you're also wrong. Yes, those were his intentions, but so what? If you think that my intentions were to "convert" Tsar, then you're incorrect. Who are you trying to influence when you're having a debate? The debater or the crowd?
If there was only one creationist other than Tsar reading this and if (s)he took only one bit of information with him, then I've already won.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

We're not talking about the mentally subnormal or those in a vegetative state - we're talking about someone who is either uninformed/misinformed or who is determined to be stubborn in their views.

I realize that he had stated that he was here to make us look stupid - however, I'd far rather that he gave up than the other way round.

I don't think you understand the mindset and intention of a troll.

He wasn't uninformed or misinformed, or stubborn in his views; those weren't his views at all. He was trolling for attention, for comments, and for the lulz., a specific and knowing way to waste the time of others with minimal effort on his part.

Nice point scalyblue. You are correct. Tsarp is a troll. And we have a saying, don't feed the trolls.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

It's an interesting difference of opinion about this question.

Whom are we trying to help?

The OP or the audience or both?

Whether the OP states his intention to be a "troll" - as "Czar" did - or not, the audience may not be aware of it. They will be watching to see who "wins" the argument(s). If the OP is banned on the claim that he is a "troll", how are those watching to interpret this outcome?

Look at it from a different perspective: consider a similar scenario.

What if a non-theist - or even just a (theist) "science-buff" - went to a Creationist/ID website and started posting questions to educate the site's members and visitors - the "audience" - and subsequently gets banned for "not seeing the light"/being a "troll"? How are the audience to interpret this outcome?

For the ... uninitiated, they'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a won argument and a OP being banned because the "home team" can't cope with the OP's questions.

Here are some ideas:

1) In the case of a OP who's explicitly stated that they're a "troll", I think a simple solution would be to include the OP's statement of his intention at the top of each page of the thread(s) he starts - like an "announcement".

Then, any "audience" members reading it would know that the "home team" are dealing with a "troll".

In such a scenario, should the Mods "pull the plug", there'll be no confusion.

2) In the event of a OP who hasn't stated they're a "troll", yet behaves like one, we'll have to continue engaging them until a member of the audience joins, simply to post that they think he's lost the argument and/or that he's a "troll" - in that way, we'll know that the "audience" has understood who's "won" the argument.

3) The only category left is the "Tortucan", someone who is genuinely "blinkered" in their views - this may be a hard nut to crack, but isn't impossible. However, it may take time, which requires patience - so banning such a person is a definite "no-no" - regardless of how seemingly intransigent such a person might be..

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lrkun]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

It's an interesting difference of opinion about this question.

Whom are we trying to help?

The OP or the audience or both?

Whether the OP states his intention to be a "troll" - as "Czar" did - or not, the audience may not be aware of it. They will be watching to see who "wins" the argument(s). If the OP is banned on the claim that he is a "troll", how are those watching to interpret this outcome?

Look at it from a different perspective: consider a similar scenario.

What if a non-theist - or even just a (theist) "science-buff" - went to a Creationist/ID website and started posting questions to educate the site's members and visitors - the "audience" - and subsequently gets banned for "not seeing the light"/being a "troll"? How are the audience to interpret this outcome?

For the ... uninitiated, they'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a won argument and a OP being banned because the "home team" can't cope with the OP's questions.

Here are some ideas:

1) In the case of a OP who's explicitly stated that they're a "troll", I think a simple solution would be to include the OP's statement of his intention at the top of each page of the thread(s) he starts - like an "announcement".

Then, any "audience" members reading it would know that the "home team" are dealing with a "troll".

In such a scenario, should the Mods "pull the plug", there'll be no confusion.

2) In the event of a OP who hasn't stated they're a "troll", yet behaves like one, we'll have to continue engaging them until a member of the audience joins, simply to post that they think he's lost the argument and/or that he's a "troll" - in that way, we'll know that the "audience" has understood who's "won" the argument.

3) The only category left is the "Tortucan", someone who is genuinely "blinkered" in their views - this may be a hard nut to crack, but isn't impossible. However, it may take time, which requires patience - so banning such a person is a definite "no-no" - regardless of how seemingly intransigent such a person might be..

Kindest regards,

James

Banning tsarp was not by reasons falling under number 3.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

Banning tsarp was not by reasons falling under number 3.

Agreed, Irkun, he was a "Category 1"!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lrkun]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

Banning tsarp was not by reasons falling under number 3.

Agreed, Irkun, he was a "Category 1"!

Kindest regards,

James

How does one recognize a category 3?

p.s. I think it's a good idea to start a new topic based on category 1-3.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

I think that, in practical terms, it would be difficult to distinguish a "Category 2" from a "Category 3", Irkun - which is why I suggested that we wait until the audience calls it, lest we be seen as being "the losers".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lrkun]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

I think that, in practical terms, it would be difficult to distinguish a "Category 2" from a "Category 3", Irkun - which is why I suggested that we wait until the audience calls it, lest we be seen as being "the losers".

Kindest regards,

James

If it's difficult to see the difference between 1 and 2, isn't it better to discuss such in as a new topic in order to inform others? More information given, the easier to distinguish.

I don't get why you added the lest we be seen as being "the losers" part.

 

[scalyblue]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

You have to keep in mind that one of the chief metrics of trolling is causing drama.

Arguing with a troll for the benefit of the audience's education is fine to a certain extent, but that extent should have been page 2 or 3 of this thread --i'm guilty as well, don't get me wrong--

When it becomes clear that, even with seven or eight cogent refutations that the troll has no intention of even modifying his rhetoric even slightly, to the degree of refuting video evidence and scientific papers with single line dismissals and copypasta irrelevance, you have to realize they are purposefully wasting time and their goal is not to proselytize, not to learn or convert, or be converted; no their goal is to see how long of a 'discussion' that can be generated with as few prods as possible.

It's blindingly easy to skim a "wall of text" response, search for keywords, pop them into google and copypasta the first contrary thing that comes up just to poke the proverbial hornet's nest. Then you pull up the armchair and count how many hornets came out, and you see if you could do it again. When you get stung (banned) it means you failed, and you'll try a different hornet's nest and have your fun elsewhere.

As was said, nothing of value was lost in b&ing him, he'll just go to a twilight forum and post how much jacob sucks for his drama.

However, I think a great deal was lost for us in the process. Read over these threads from a neutral perspective, we went very overboard, some members even got angry and kept beating this dead horse. It doesn't reflect well on intellectualismj