Re: Clash of worldviews. The evo-fundies are eroding human worth.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:36:20 GMT, NashtOn <nana@xxxxx> wrote:

>eroot@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>> NashtOn wrote:
>>
>>>Ron O wrote:
>>>
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Talk about blowing methane out your derriere, if you do not think that
>>>>you are an animal, just stop breathing, eating, drinking and deficating
>>>>for as long as you can before you admit that you are an animal.
>>>
>>>LOL.
>>>We're not talking about vital functions, unless in your narrow
>>>materialistic view of humanity, all we need to do is breath, eat drink
>>>and defecate.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll
>>>
>>>>even let you skip the breathing exclusion. After a couple of weeks
>>>>tell us how the experiment worked. Why would an ape have the same
>>>>problems with these exclusions? Something seems to be missing from
>>>>your logic, or what passes for your thought processes, can you tell
>>>>what it is?
>>>
>>>Get off your self-made pedestal, you're not convincing anybody.
>>>
>>>Nicolas
>>>
>>>>Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>
>>
>> You are the one on the self-made pedestal. You are evidently too
>> chicken to actually answer anyone's rebuttals, and you are a snotty,
>> rude jerk besides. Not to mention another doofus creationist hiding
>> under a fake name.
>>
>> Eric Root
>>
>
>OK, I'm game. tell me where I refused to offer rebuttal (sic).

You've got to be kidding! That's your stock in trade, unless you
consider mindless name calling a substitute for honest discourse.

Just from a few of my posts:


>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:35:03 GMT, NashtOn <nana@xxxxx> wrote:
>
><Clip>
>
>>Oh boys, another Darwinist in dire need to discredit creationists in
>>order to give the defunct theory of evolution a veneer of
>>respectability, given that their is no (nada, zilch, rien) data to
>>support it.
>
>What about:
>
>- An extensive fossil record showing elaborate collection of
> different fauna during different eras/ages that correspond
> nicely to evolutionary claims.
>- Nested hierarchies.
>- Vestigial structures that correspond nicely to both the
> fossil record and evolutionary claims.
>- Homologies that correspond nicely to both the fossil
> record and evolutionary claims.
>- Behavioral studies that correspond nicely to evolutionary
> claims.
>- A variety of DNA studies that correspond nicely to
> evolutionary claims.
>- The absence of any hard evidence that contradicts
> evolution in general.
>
>It is ultimately the fundamentalists who find themselves in
>dire need to discredit science when their own simplistic
>beliefs are challenged by empirical evidence again and again.
>
>Given any actual sound evidence to the contrary, science
>in general would have no problem adapting to such evidence.
>As it is though, it is not science which is intransigent here
>when it comes to honestly dealing with the evidence as a
>whole.

Needless to say, no response. In fact five people responded to your
ridiculous claim that there was 'no ... data to support (the TOE)' and
you gave no (nada, zilch, rien) rebuttal to this patently false
absurdity of yours.

Next:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:33:11 GMT, NashtOn <nana@xxxxx> wrote:
>
><Clip>
>>
>>Primates that happened to grind their knuckles a little less during
>>gait, as witnessed by the form of their pelvis (hardly an adaptation) is
>>a far cry from proving that they eventually evolved into humans.
>>
>>Nicola
>
>This one sentence reveals so much about your (lack of) knowledge
>concerning early primate to human evolution, not only by what it
>says but by what it doesn't say.
>
>You're actually right about a decrease in primates grinding knuckles
>being a far cry from proving that early primates eventually evolved
>into humans but then since this isn't an argument actually being
>made by evolutionists but just another one of your gross distortions
>it hardly matters.
>
>Of course the reality is that there is a variety of evidence that
>clearly shows our kinship to other primates so your little dishonest
>straw man here is hardly relevant to the topic.
>
>Or perhaps you could actually provide a cohesive argument against
>a variety of DNA studies, behavioral studies, serum studies, and
>morphological studies (more accurate and extensive than your
>simplistic knuckle dragging/pelvis tripe) not to mention an extensive
>fossil record that not only reflects earlier primates but also, not
>surprisingly, does not reflect Homo sapiens in anything but the
>most recent strata.

Again, five people responded and you gave no rebuttal. In fact the
only rebuttal was from your equally mentally challenged buddy 'Kant'
who actually attempted the old 'but it's only a theory' classic
creationist rant. Not that you could do better though.

Next:

>On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:18:04 GMT, NashtOn <nana@xxxxx> wrote:
>
>>dictymold@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Does anyone have a good sense of how long it took for Heliocentrism to
>>> become "mainstream" ?
>>> I was thinking that maybe 150 years since Darwin is not too long in the
>>> historical sense.
>>> Any idea that seriously challenges the current theological dogma is
>>> unlikely to be accepted rapidly.
>>> From an optimist viewpoint, the claim that 50% of the US population
>>> does not believe in evolution also means that 50% do accept it. A
>>> glass half full.
>>> I'm sure that 50 and 100 years ago the percentage of the population
>>> that even heard about evolution was substantially smaller. So, we truly
>>> are making progress.
>>> So, if we take Heliocentrism as a point of contrast, how many more
>>> years until we don't have to deal with neo-creationist arguments?
>>> Cheers,
>>> Dictymold
>>>
>>
>>You are correct. ID is starting to make some serious inroads in the
>>hearts and minds of "scientists" and lay people alike.
>
>'Serious inroads'?!?!?! You CAN'T be serious! So do any of these
>'scientists' actually come with a viable theory behind what is clearly
>little more than argument from ignorance rooted in a religious belief?
>
>>A few more years
>>to go and neo-darwinism will be nothing but a shameful chapter in the
>>cultural history of mankind. If anything, all the commotion about
>>"evolution" will sensitize people to the fact that it's a hoax, the same
>>kind of "science" that brought us Viox.
>
>Totally baseless wishful thinking noted.
>
>>It was never really useful, except to keep nerds occupied and to fuel
>>ego wars amongst paleoanthropologists.
>
>Are you even vaguely aware of what little territory ID even claims to
>cover? You've already shown that you don't have a clue concerning
>the actual science behind the TOE.
>
>ID MAY have attracted more than its share of ignoramuses such as
>yourself due to its totally unsubstantiated claim of hidden evidence
>of God him(her)self but that in no way supplants nor negates the
>mountains of evidence across a wide spectrum of scientific fields
>that clearly indicates the FACT of evolution.
>
>Excluding the baseless rantings of creationist nuts merely seeking
>temporary shelter under the 'big tent' of ID, the base premise of ID,
>irreducible complexity, poses no real threat to the TOE with or
>without substantiation!

No rebuttal to this one but at least you made a small attempt at
defending your baseless crap in this particular string but then simply
became dismissive when you couldn't meet the challenge. Remember this
particular exchange with 'Bob'?:

>On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:47:21 GMT, NashtOn <nana@xxxxx> wrote:
>
>Bob wrote:
>
>>>>Breeding has been around since the dawn of time and is accomplished
>>>>based on Mendelian genetics, not Darwinian BS.
>>>
>>> ?? really? so there's no interaction between genotype and phenotype?
>>
>>Do you even know what these words mean?
>
>answer the question.
>
>>Conclusion: The evo-Circus is at it again. No facts, data or arguments
>>to speak of, just as homs.
>
>says the guy who thinks the absence of ANY scientific discussion on
>intelligent design is proof that the idea is taking the world by
>storm.
>
>>> you're probably the first person in 150 years to say that.
>>
>>Reading comprehension isn't your forte, obviously.
>>
>says the guy who thinks creationism is the theory of the future and
>always will be.

And then this one with 'Tweedy':

>"NashtOn" <nana@xxxxx> wrote in message
>news:LBF0f.104297$Ph4.3174813@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>snipping
>
>>>
>>> bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics. that's evolution.
>>
>> You're not worth responding to if you can't understand that natural
>> selection does not equate to evolution especially when there is ample
>> proof that resistance is built in.
>
>Natural selection is part of the mechanism of evolution.
>
> Also, what 'ample' evidence is that?

(P.S. 'Rebutting is actually addressing the points being made, not
dodging them)

>From the same subject:

>On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:41:54 GMT, NashtOn <nana@xxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Richard Forrest wrote:
>>
>>~meaningless ramblings snipped.
>>
>>Please stop going off on tangents. Where specifically does evolution
>>help create new pharmaceuticals and assist in medical research?
>
>Ah! loosing the argument so now you're changing the subject! How
>typically creationist (and hypocritical) of you.
>
>Let's see your original post:
>
>> >> You are correct. ID is starting to make some serious inroads in
>> >> the hearts and minds of "scientists" and lay people alike.
>
>Nope! Nothing here about evolution vis-a-vis new pharmaceuticals.
>
>Let's see what you, yourself, dodged here:
>
>> >Care to cite any scientific papers on "Intelligent Design" in the
>> >scientific literature? If there were "inroads" we'd expect to
>> >see them there.
>
>A perfectly fair request for you to actually back up your bald
>assertion!
>
>Your dodge^H^H^H^H^Hresponse was:
>
>> I'm not going to do the work for you, look it up yourself, sweety.
>
>Ah, the good old classic creationist dodge of failing to recognize the
>all important burden of proof, followed by the baseless
>rationalization:
>
>> And I don't believe that a theory, winning the hearts of people
>> would be in peer-reviewed journals, especially the ones that
>> wouldn't touch anything that has anything to do with ID, which
>> is most of them, no matter how important the scientific merit.
>
>Of course, if this were even the least bit credible, you should be
>able to point to any number of credible publications put out by the
>Discovery Institute itself, unless of course they too are part of some
>vast conspiracy of silencing those pesky ID proponents.

HINT: This was a challenge that, if you were telling the truth, you
should have no problem rebutting. But then you don't really rebut
anything, do you?
>
>But of course the truth of the matter is that even the Discovery
>Institute itself is at least honest enough to point out that they have
>yet to come up with a viable scientific theory for ID. Now how can
>they 'make some serious inroads in the hearts and minds' of any
>reasonable person IF THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A VALID SCIENTIFIC
>THEORY TO BEGIN WITH!
>
>Your next baseless assertion in your original post was:
>
>> >> A few more years to go and neo-darwinism will be nothing
>> >> but a shameful chapter in the cultural history of mankind.
>
>Nope! Still nothing here about evolution vis-a-vis new
>pharmaceuticals.
>
>This, of course, was followed by the far more historically accurate
>response of:
>
>> > This prediction has been made for the last 150 years, and is
>> > no closer to coming true.
>
>Followed not so unexpectedly by your ridiculous and baseless
>dodge^H^H^H^H^Hresponse of:
>
>> Right. Meyr saved Darwinsm with a few catch phrases when
>> everybody thought it was dead.
>
>Now how does this silly little charge negate the mountains of evidence
>supporting the fact of evolution that permeates science?
>
>Your next baseless assertion in your original post was:
>
>> >> If anything, all the commotion about "evolution" will sensitize
>> >> people to the fact that it's a hoax, the
>> >> same kind of "science" that brought us Viox.
>
>OK, at least you've mentioned a pharmaceutical here but your
>subsequent post still dodged the actual response elicited and here you
>still have made nothing more than a bogus 'guilt by association'
>argument. Perhaps YOU could explain first how 'evolutionary science'
>is somehow responsible for Viox.
>
>Of course this particular falsehood of yours also elicited the
>perfectly reasonable response of:
>
>>> the theory of evolution is not a hoax, it's a scientific theory that
>>> explains the diversity of life.
>
>Which yet again led to yet another creationist lie/dodge:
>
>> And promulgates naturalistic propaganda with a handful of
>> questionable data.
>
>Whether or not the TOE 'promulgates' a naturalistic point of view is
>neither here nor there with regard to its validity.
>
>As far as it being based on 'a handful of questionable data', perhaps
>you could come up with a better explanation for homologies, vestigial
>structures, the extensive fossil record, nested hierarchies, the
>variety of DNA evidence in support of evolution, astronomical and
>geological evidence that are far more in line with the evolutionary
>point of view than your typical fundy points of view.
>
>> >> It was never really useful, except to keep nerds occupied
>> >> and to fuel ego wars amongst paleoanthropologists.
>
>As if paleoanthropology was even the only field of science that gives
>evidence to the fact of evolution.
>
>So, to summarize, you yourself have done nothing but dodge the
>original responses to your post and change the subject to yet another
>pathetic creationist falsehood, which leads us to yet another attempt
>of yours at changing the subject instead of honestly addressing the
>responses:
>
>>How has it helped, 150 years after Darwin, further mankind's knowledge?
>>I'm not referring to solid science that has tangible benefits, but about
>>evolution per se.
>
>You mean like giving us a better understanding of who we are and where
>we came from?
>
>Even if such knowledge has no 'tangible benefits', as you put it, that
>would have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with its validity! That would
>fall under the fallacy of appeal to utility. Perhaps you should
>acquaint yourself with some basic principles of logic before ranting
>here.

Next:

>On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:15:37 GMT, NashtOn <nana@xxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>> "Richard Dawkins" <Richard_Dawkins@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:6F01f.71$Yh5.7639@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> Yawn, another cut and paste.
>>>
>>> Snip c&p
>>>
>>> Get back to us when you have something original to say.
>>>
>>> DJT
>>
>>So Jana, what do you make of the "unoriginal" statement of S. Jay re the
>>dearth of fossils.
>>
>>Doesn't matter if an argument is new or old, what matters is if you can
>>debunk it.
>
>Do you even know what the word 'debunk' means?
>
>Because your mindless hit and run tactic of posting baseless claims
>that have long ago been refuted followed by you then failing to
>adequately respond to any and all pertinent challenges to what you
>were claiming, in no meaningful way contributes to debunking the TOE.
>
>To do that you need defensible data, something that you have yet to
>produce. Simply responding to relevant issues with little more than
>false generalizations and dismissive dodges only contributes to the
>general consensus that you are clueless when it comes to both your
>understanding of what the TOE really states and your understanding of
>what the evidence is in support of it.
>
>For starters, perhaps you could point out the relevance of Gould's
>quote, preferably based on its original context, and then stick around
>and actually defend your position with actual reasoned arguments.
>
>For starters though, you may want to consider what Gould himself had
>to say on the matter of being so often misquoted and misrepresented by
>creationists:
>
> "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends,
> it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by
> creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not
> know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no
> transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking
> at the species level, but they are abundant between
> larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists
> Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of
> punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are
> forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan
> insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"
>
>You don't even have to read between the lines to realize that his
>views were being misrepresented and it should also be abundantly clear
>that the issue is not only not original but also well traveled.
>
>And if you honestly want to understand what he was actually saying
>regarding the fossil record, consider the following essay of his on
>the subject:
>
>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html
>
>Now let's see if you are capable of having an honest discussion about
>a quote that you chose yourself.

Again, you clearly weren't up to the challenge. Care to rebut?

.