Okay, this is quite amusing. Someone posted a link over on Theodore's blog to my previous little dig at him and his crying need to bring up his Porsche (turbo, even) as proof that he isn't bitter toward women. And this was his response:
Do better than what? The guy didn't say anything. He clearly missed the point of the Porsche comment, which was to skip the usual red herring whenever a topic critical of feminism is broached.Perhaps I should have just explained that I have Real Ultimate Power and I pork hot babes without even thinking twice about it. Perhaps then Mr. Braydon (sic) would been able to follow the logical sequence.
I nearly spit my iced tea all over my monitor laughing at this. Let me assure you, Theodore, I got the "logical sequence". The problem is that it just isn't terribly logical. It was obvious that the point you were trying to make is that you "pork hot babes" a lot and therefore could not hate women or have a bitter attitude toward them. But that is, of course, a non sequitur. Most of the really promiscuous guys I know hate women, even if they won't admit it. So since your mention of the fact that you drove a Porsche serves no logical purpose, it can only function as your means of striking the stud pose. And that's pretty damn pathetic. Which was my whole point. I'm sure this will bring even more of them over here to make juvenile comments about horse manure, but hey, it's kinda fun watching them make asses of themselves. It's even more amusing to watch them gather around him and assure him that despite what that mean man said, he really is cool (and also "hot", according to one commenter).
- Log in to post comments
Most of the really promiscuous guys I know hate women, even if they won't admit it.
Well, someone is reaching with a bias here... Spite and envy? When you stop playing the Mozart (and put down that iced tea of yours), you may want to listen to some Father MC, although that's strictly for the players, not player haters... so you may not understand it.
Actually, he IS cool, as of RIGHT NOW. I love your blog, but you must really learn to appreciate that last tea-spitting paragraph of his.
Perhaps
http://www.realultimatepower.net/
can enlighten you more. Second sentence of the testimonial on the first page.
Actually, he is still pretty horrible, but perhaps his entire personality is a farce, like Ninjas.
Most of the really promiscuous guys I know hate women, even if they won't admit it.
I believe this a bit strong. I would put it that promiscuous (straight) guys are contemptuous of women. There's a subtle difference.
When I was a teenager in the 1960s, I was permitted to observe the parties that my parents would throw. (The noise in the house was such that I couldn't get to sleep anyway.) I noticed an odd thing. The husbands would congregated in one room, and the wives in another. (These were all married couples.) I concluded from that, that straight men don't really like women, they just like having sex with them. I'm being facetious, by the way. But not by much.
Actually, doesn't Vox claim that he is a devout Christian and even write "Christian science fiction"? Making comments about "porking hot babes" hardly seems very Christian to me.
"Actually, doesn't Vox claim that he is a devout Christian and even write "Christian science fiction"? Making comments about "porking hot babes" hardly seems very Christian to me."
And how would you know what qualifies one a Christian?
...and I don't know that many libertarians who advocate removing the right to self-determination for half the human population.
He's got some splainin' to do on that score.
Actually, what is pathetic is that you didn't understand the point he was making with the Porsche comment. Feminists in general, when confronted with someone like him, flip flop between questioning his manhood by suggesting he can't get laid (which ironically sexually objectifies a woman, the opposite stated goal of feminism) and then scream that he wants to make a sexual object out of a woman. They want to attack on two angles at the same time, the combination of which is more schizophrenic than it is logical.
MikeT wrote:
The missing bit of logic in your statement is the one that says that just because some people make illogical arguments against him means that it's okay for him to make illogical arguments back to them, or that it somehow changes the pathetic and shallow nature of what he said.
This really is funny. Do you guys just scour google every day looking for someone who says something bad about your hero?
That guy said something mean about Vox (peace be upon him), let's go get him! Wonder twin powers, Activate! Form of...a bunch of whiny little sycophants.
Actually, doesn't Vox claim that he is a devout Christian and even write "Christian science fiction"? Making comments about "porking hot babes" hardly seems very Christian to me.
It's not actually him saying it Orac, he's just portraying someone else. It's the Beyonce Doctrine of saying and doing things without being responsible for them. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. The singer Beyonce tells us it's OK for her to dress and act uber-slutty and still be a good Christian girl, because that's not the real her, it's just a character she's playing.
Ed Wrote:
"This really is funny. Do you guys just scour google every day looking for someone who says something bad about your hero?"
Now just how ignorant are you? You have already admitted someone poste the link over at Vox's Blog. Who said, That Vox got bitchslaped. One of your whiney liberal frinds. You got a very short memory or you just are a liar.
"Whiny liberal frinds"??? Bwah hah HAH.
Proved his point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You don't read this site, don't you?
Ed, make it stop, please.
You know I like a good takedown as much as the next guy, but this -- this is like shooting deer at a petting zoo.
Lure the numbskulls over here by having a little fun at the expense of the uber-numbskull and then when they show up -- BLAMO! -- pick them off, one by one.
I mean, its good clean fun and all, but hardly sport. On the other hand, if you just needed a few good laughs, I'm on board with that. But I've got a lot of work to do today, and now I'm forced to check in here periodically to see what sort of new numbskulls are showing up. Thanks a lot.
Wow, you actually got Vox to respond and try to explain his Porsche (sorry, his Turbo Porsche) remarks? Either you're big-time famous, or he's big-time insecure.
I guess if I'd paid good money for a Turbo Porsche, I'd be itching to mention it as much as possible too. Gotta get the most for your money, y'know...
Gregg wrote:
For crying out loud, is English your native language? "Who said, That Vox got bitchslaped"? How many different ways can one sentence fragment violate the basic rules of grammar? I haven't the foggiest idea who posted the link on Theodore's blog, nor do I much care. The point is that I've now been inundated with a tiresome group of little sychophants howling in outrage at how their hero is being persecuted and dropping logical fallacies and juvenile taunts by the ton. I have to confess that it's rather amusing to watch. And it's even more fun when it provokes the ubiquitous "liberal" taunt, as though the mere uttering of the word dismisses one's opponents.
I think your hero is a shallow little poser. You're just gonna have to get over the disappointment.
Oh man, I just noticed this comment way up top. JamieR wrote:
I've got a real dilemma in how to respond to that. Do I say "Word" or "Boo yah"? Don't hate the playah, hate the game...whatever the hell that means.
Ed, I think the proper response is "Non-sequita, biatch!"
I think Theodore is just pissed off because the other chipmonks are known to be smarter and more famous than he is.
As we see here http://www.toonopedia.com/alvin.htm :
Besides, he owns a Porche Turbo, and that must count for something.
We all know getting laid by the sorts of people who sleep with people on the basis of their automobile ownership is the truest measure of success and intellectual ability.
Along these lines, ChiRho wrote:
Perhaps you can tell me WWJF?
Who
Would
Jebus
F*ck? Inquiring minds want to know.
Hmm. Interesting. I've yet to see anything substantive which refutes the claims of Mr. Day. He has put his research time in, why won't you?
"He's a doodie-head" and "He's obviously a doodie-head" do not qualify as substantive rebuttals. Surely, if he is such an idiot and his position is so laughable it should be extremely easy to refute his position with facts. How come none of you have bothered to do that, yet?
Ed writes:
"I haven't the foggiest idea who posted the link on Theodore's blog, nor do I much care. The point is that I've now been inundated with a tiresome group of little sychophants howling in outrage at how their hero is being persecuted and dropping logical fallacies and juvenile taunts by the ton. I have to confess that it's rather amusing to watch."
What differnce does it make if you know who posted the link. You linked it at the top of this post. So you knew it was there. I think you were an idiot to say that we scour the internet looking for Vox bashers. But it seems you haven't a clue anyway so I understand.
And you call this inundated? hehe You must have a really slow blog.
We are dropping logical fallicies? That's rich! Where's the logic in any thing you wrote. You ran away from the logic of his post and assumed something about his character in which you have no way of knowing. That's logical? No my friend, that's slander.
This is hilarious reading. I mean, if this is what passes for serious opposition to Vox's point, then he has nothing to worry about.
'I concluded from that, that straight men don't really like women, they just like having sex with them. I'm being facetious, by the way. But not by much.'
I conclude from your post that you must hate heterosexuals. Oh, sorry - I'm just following your logic.
'He's got some splainin' to do on that score.'
assuming that he said what you think he said.
'This really is funny. Do you guys just scour google every day looking for someone who says something bad about your hero?'
Yes, I do it every day. Indeed, he is not only my hero, but my overlord. A goauld of far-reaching power and dominance. We -loyal jaffa - seek out the blasphemers and eliminate them with our zats, under his direct orders of course.
'Ed, make it stop, please.'
No, don't Ed! It is so much fun seeing you guys fall flat on your asses in blissful ignorance.
'You know I like a good takedown as much as the next guy, but this -- this is like shooting deer at a petting zoo.'
Except for this: the deer are holograms. While you think you're shooting deer, you're not shooting anything at all. It's highly amusing from my end of things.
'Either you're big-time famous, or he's big-time insecure.'
I'd go the insecure route. After all, we know that men who hate women are by nature very insecure creatures. haha
'The point is that I've now been inundated'
Well, that's what happens sometimes when you blog. Is it possible for you to ban people you disagree with? Or even delete posts that violate your orthodoxy? If so - do it!
'with a tiresome group of little sychophants
howling in outrage at how their hero is being persecuted and dropping logical fallacies and juvenile taunts by the ton.'
You are assuming of course that we take you seriously. I certainly don't.
And I shall admit now to my sycophant status. A jaffa like myself is rewarded greatly for defending his master's honour.
p-dawg (christ, I can hardly type that with a straight face) wrote:
Hmm. Interesting. I've pointed out about 5 times now that I didn't attempt to refute his claims and that my statement that he is a pathetic poser has nothing to do with the truth or validity of his claims. I have no doubt there are issues on which his position is correct and where I'd even agree with him. That makes him no less pathetic or shallow, which is a value judgement and not an empirical claim and therefore not something one can research or logically support. So your argument here, like the 4 others who have said the exact same thing, is entirely irrelevant to the point of my post.
Gregg wrote:
Afraid not, Gregg. I suggest you look up the slander laws and see how it is defined. But if Theodore thinks it's slander, he is more than welcome to file a suit. It's an opinion, you see. I think that he's pathetic and shallow and I've explained why. It's not slander and it's not an empirical claim that needs to be proven true or false.
Crystal Lake wrote:
See, that's where all you fawning bootlickers are wrong. What I wrote doesn't pass for serious opposition to his point or his ideas at all and it was never intended to. It was intended only as mockery of someone who would actually claim in public that he can't be bitter toward women because he drives a sports car and gets to fuck a lot of them. That's the kind of high school pseudo-machismo (usually accompanied by high fiving a friend, who presumably utters a "fucking A" in response) that fully deserves to be ridiculed and I just couldn't help myself. The fact that none of his little toadies recognizes just how badly it needed mocking only suggests that you are all as shallow and pathetic as he is.
Gregg -
That's logical? No my friend, that's slander.
Dude, I think the word you're looking for is libel, not slander. Ask your boy, a proud Mensa member. I'm sure he can clue you in on the difference. If you think you have a legal case, then go for it.
Ed,
Just out of curiosity, exactly which points of Mr. Vox's article do you actually agree with? You said that there are points within his position that you'd no doubt agree with -- I'm curious which ones you mean.
Ed maybe I should have used malign. You have no evidence of his character. You took a comment about a Porsche out of context and maligned his character.
Why would you ever think he would want to sue a pathetic slog like you anyway? Are you have visions of importance? Ya see, I can do it too. Now can you see how ignorant statements like that are? It's so easy, anyone can do it. Ed, for his next feat will sculpt a pony out of his own turd.
oolong wrote:
I didn't say I agreed with anything in his article. I said that I'm sure he takes some positions that are true and that I'd likely agree with. I didn't even bother to read the whole article, much less give any thought to the arguments he made. Once I got to his "I can't be bitter toward women because I fuck a lot of them" claim, I was too busy laughing at the fact that someone would actually say that in public and not expect to be mocked for it to even bother with the rest of it.
Gregg wrote:
There is nothing out of context about it. He even confirmed that I was interpreting it entirely correctly. And that statement is evidence of his character. Anyone who could say something that pathetic and shallow - and actually mean it - is giving evidence of his character. Unless you're seriously going to take the position that our words and ideas don't say anything about our character, and that would be really fucking stupid. Your words, for instance, seem to suggest some sort of obsession with fecal matter, since you've now brought up turds and manure multiple times, and entirely pointlessly.
Ed
I'm glad to hear it. For a second there I was getting worried. **Whew** I'm mean, I'm sure he holds sensible positions that I agree with too, like that the Earth is not flat and and 2+2 =4 and that all bachelors are unmarried males.
Just wanted to clear that one up.
Ed writes:
"Your words, for instance, seem to suggest some sort of obsession with fecal matter"
That's why I keep coming back to your blog.
Yes. I see. You believe that talk about sports cars and women tells you something about someone's character, but that judging others and attempting to mock them does not? I haven't seen anything substantive here at all. You can't even come up with a creative or funny slam on Vox.
You're making a mockery of mockery. Try harder.
Also, if p-dawg is one of the stranger internet monickers you've seen, you need to get out more.
Oh, snap.
See, now *that's* clever. Try to be more like gregg.
I am in awe of what I've seen on this thread.
'See, that's where all you fawning bootlickers are wrong.'
Thank you, dear sir. I will let my goauld master know that I have been praised so highly.
'fawning bootlickers' *chuckles*
'What I wrote doesn't pass for serious opposition to his point or his ideas at all and it was never intended to.'
Cool, then I can post about how much you enjoy kiddie porn. That rocks!
'It was intended only as mockery of someone who would actually claim in public that he can't be bitter toward women because he drives a sports car and gets to fuck a lot of them.'
Boy, you really do need a hobby.
In addition, how about you read the second paragraph of his column again, oh ye of little reading comprehension.
'The fact that none of his little toadies recognizes just how badly it needed mocking only suggests that you are all as shallow and pathetic as he is.'
No, it only shows that we know how to read.
There are two definitions of slander. Restricting it to the legal one is cute, but there is also this one:
A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
He even confirmed that I was interpreting it entirely correctly.
He said that people with the opportunities he has had in life have few reasons to be embittered about anything in life - let alone women. If that deserves mockery, then you are just plain dense. For another, his post wasn't even about being embittered towards women as people, but being embittered because he hasn't had sex with enough of them. That - according to him - is the accusation he receives from those who oppose him.
Again, learn to read.
Ed,
Actually, most of us don't even really care. Vox generally finds out from someone and then posts a link. Then out of morbid curiosity, we follow it to see what is being said. In this case, I was intrigued enough to actually give a damn and follow.
The irony of it is that Vox and I am more apt to disagree than agree. On this, though, I think he's quite right. Feminists tend to vascillate between using the "ohhhh poor baby can't get laid" insult and then scream that he objectifies women. Vox's point still stands. Many women flock to a guy with a Porsche and record contract and he gets to write the vantage point of a man who was down that path and then presumably changed.
"Women's rights" are flawed because a man should not be promiscuous. Regardless of perspective, promiscuity damages societal bonds and leads to weaker family support for children. By becoming "liberated" women have abandoned any leverage they had to keep most men loyal. Now a man can get laid and even have kids without obligation except child support. It's a cold, hard fact of life and it would really do us all a lot of good for more "liberated" women to realize that.
Feminism is all built on that old, flawed pile of rubbish known as Tabula Rasa. Male nature cannot be changed through indoctrination. Women can encourage men to do better and be better, but "liberation" gives men no practical reason to be better. Only an idiot would believe that if most men can get what they want without paying for it, that they're going to want to pay a price for it. Feminists can rail against "patriarchical religion," but Judao-Christian religious laws regarding marriage primarily restrict men, not women, in practice. By abandoning that tradition in favor of "enjoying their sexuality," women have also abandoned all of the old safeguards that gave them and their children all but consistently guaranteed security.
It's really amusing to me to see the usual left wing explanations for society's decay. That old class warfare bullshit is getting old. America was more stable back when wealth was actually harder to get, so maybe it's not actually wealth that's the issue. Maybe, it's the collapse of traditional life. One of the days, the liberated feminists will realize that a woman cannot be a playa because she carries the burden of sex inside of her for 9 months.
p-dawg wrote:
Of course it does. And if my words cause you to judge my character harshly, be my guest. But since you yourself are engaging in judging others and attempting to mock them, it will only display your hypocrisy if you do so. I don't think there's anything wrong with judging others and neither do you, I'm sure. I also don't think there's anything wrong with mocking people. If that causes someone to think I'm a bad person, I can live with that. It won't exactly keep me up nights.
Crystal Lake wrote:
Obviously you're not bright enough to understand the distinction here. Making a judgement and making an empirical or factual claim are not the same thing. It's perfectly acceptable to say that you think someone is an asshole; that's a judgement. It's not acceptable to make false factual claims about someone that you can't back up. Claiming that I enjoy kiddie porn is such a claim. Hence, your comparison and conclusion are wrong.
Please see the above explanation of the difference between judgements and factual claims, which is not only the legal distinction but the logical one as well. See, here's the difference. All of Theodore's little bootlickers have come here and called me all kinds of names, compared me to horse manure, and so forth. Those are all judgements they've made about me based on the fact that I dared to criticize the object of their affection. You are all free to make those judgements and I couldn't possibly care any less that you don't like me. In fact, I rather take it as proof that I'm doing something right. So I'm not gonna whine about it, I'm just going to keep on mocking you all for the absurdity of your positions and the juvenile manner with which you express them. But if you want to make false factual claims about me, then you're leaving.
Opening this thread is like watching an accident pile up on the freeway.
" I couldn't possibly care any less that you don't like me."
I like you Ed. I like making fun of you too. It's loads of lauphs. Do You like making fun of Vox? And do you like Vox?
Mike,
I am unsure why women's rights need to be repealed in order to keep men from being promiscuous. My wife works, so do I. I've never cheated on my wife. In fact, I've never cheated on any girlfriend I've ever had -- and all of them were very "liberated." What kept me from being promiscuous were some tired old words from virtue ethics -- "integrity" and "loyalty." In other words, I take personal responsiblity for my own behavior and I take pride in having a good character. Whether or not I have natural propensities to cheat on women (which I think is a debatable topic anyway), it is up to me and my good ol' faculty for free will to decide, in the end, whether such propensities should be actualized. To claim that whether I cheat or not on women requires that women give up their rights is a straightforward rejection personal responsibility (to say the least). It's just that simple.
MikeT wrote:
This is simply one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. I fully agree that promiscuity is a bad thing and I am strictly monogamous myself. But what does that have to do with women's rights? If it's wrong for men to sleep around, as you claim here, why do we have to take away the rights of women to prevent them from doing it? Why not put the blame on the men, who as rational beings presumably have the ability not to sleep around? What right of women, specifically, would you like to take away in order to assure that men don't sleep around?
Ah, so men just can't help themselves, it's in their nature to want to fuck anything that moves, and therefore we have to place legal restrictions on women so they can force a man into violating his true nature? Did you really type that bullshit with a straight face? I'm a man, and it's not in my nature to fuck any woman who will say yes. I spent almost 5 years on the road as a comic with groupies in the club every night and didn't sleep with a single one of them. And it has nothing to do with biological imperatives and even less to do with "Judeo-Christian religious laws", which I rejected then and still do today.
Really? Which biblical law regarding sex or marriage applies only to men and not to women? I can think of laws that apply only the other way, like Deuteronomy 22:13-21, which commands that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding day she is to be stoned to death. That law doesn't and can't apply to a man because there is no physical evidence that a male is not a virgin. Then there is Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which says that if a man rapes a virgin woman he pays her father 50 pieces of silver and he gets to marry her. Boy, that's really restrictive on male sexual behavior, isn't it?
I can't imagine what that has to do with me or this discussion. I'm a libertarian. I'm all for getting rich and allowing others to do so as well, with as little interference from government as possible.
Oolong-
Very well said. I think it's utterly absurd that I need to get rid of women's rights so I won't be promiscuous or cheat on someone. What I do is up to me, not to whether women have equal rights or not. It's this little thing called personal responsibility.
I'm just going to keep on mocking you all for the absurdity of your positions and the juvenile manner with which you express them.
Continually stomping on an anthill because you keep getting bitten by ants is an example of a logical absurdity. This practice is akin to your current situation with respect to Vox's blog readership. Ponder it.
Damn you Soup!
So, the Vox readership think of themselves as ants?
OK.
So, the Vox readership think of themselves as ants?
OK.
Posted by: roger tang at August 11, 2005 05:23 PM
Obviously you are unable to distinguish between the personal and the abstract.
You must be a regular here...
Ed, the comments haven't been this amusing since Robert O'Brien was a regular contributor. I'm just hoping Gregg, Soup, and p-dawg* make their way to one of your posts on evolution, I'd love to hear what they have to say on the issue (although I already know).
*had to stop for a second to laugh after typing that.
Matthew
That would be fun.
Great. More amazingly brilliant remarks about poop.
I can't wait.
"Great. More amazingly brilliant remarks about poop."
I will use fossilized poop to disprove evil-lution. Just kidding, but evil-lution is a dead theory to all but the ignorant and the athiests.
Gregg wrote:
LOL. First, what's an athiest? Would that be someone who is really, really "athy"? Second, you couldn't be more wrong about evolution. It's certainly not dead to the thousands and thousands of scientists who work in the fields in which evolution has remained the dominant theory for a century and a half, a sizable portion of whom are not atheists. Ken Miller is certainly not ignorant, nor is he an atheist. The same can be said of Keith Miller, Glenn Morton, Howard Van Till, Wes Elsberry and thousands of other Christian scientists.
Ed
You ain't nothing but a name dropper. You have not refuted my original point that evil-lution is dead. Where did you get the statistics of "THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS". I mean how do you quatify that? Do you have data to support this assertion. It is my opinion that evil-lution is dead. You made a factual assertion, prove it.
Taking potshots at "p-dawg" and the rest of these tools is kinda like whack-a-mole (only with less sympathy for the target). While fun and all, does this make anybody else think that they're all about 13 or so? It feels kinda cruel.
"LOL. First, what's an athiest?"
Well that is another subject, but if you don't know the simple definition is someone who doesn't believe in God. But that is not my definition.
Gregg,
Since Ed could, if he wished, simply point to the fact that every major research institution in the United States supports evolution as a theory, I think -- geez can you believe it? what gall I must have to say this! -- the burden of proof is on you to prove that evolution is "dead." Do YOU have any data to support this? Go ahead -- throw out you best shot. Let's see what you've got. This should be good.
" does this make anybody else think that they're all about 13 or so? It feels kinda cruel"
What an insult you ass, I am 14-1/2. So get it right.
"Since Ed could, if he wished, simply point to the fact that every major research institution in the United States supports evolution as a theory"
Yeah OK I know why that might be. But unlike people who really care to prove something, you provide no source, you just run your mouth.
Where's Ed with his statistics and link to it. He makes stuff up. Even a 14-1/2 year old knows this.
Just like I suspected. You got nuthin'. Come on -- throw out your absolutely best piece of evidence. Remember, we are all weenies here, we can't really argue. So what do you have to lose? Put out that monster evidence you have and put us in our places.
It won't happen. Why? 'Cause you ain't got nuthin'. You'll just keep on mouthin' because you have no real substantive facts to put forth. Go ahead, prove me wrong. You won't. You'll just keep mouthin'.
Please take it easy on Gregg.
In reality he's mentally challenged, or "special" if you'd prefer.
Save your bitter - albeit amusing - vitriol for those who are equipped with at least mediocre to nominal mental faculties (such as seem to be possessed by most who frequent this blog).
Thanks for caring enough to share!
Soup
Leave me alone. I like picking on the mentaly challenged. Bah
Gregg,
Evolution is indeed accepted by anyone who has actually studied biology. When you're old enough, you may actually attend some sort of college or university (however, your current reasoning skills and level of education make that unlikely). If you are so fortunate, you will find that such instituions actually have an entire course of study, called a "major", which focuses on the aforementioned subject. However, if you care to look at the web pages of any suitably large university, you'll find that these entities actually have an entire professorial staff devoted to teaching evolutionary theory. Were you to open any research journal on biology, you would find that articles on the mechanisms, effects and past history of evolution are common to all of them. As a matter of fact, there are some jounals that are devoted entirely to the subject. I would particularly recommend "Trends in Ecology and Evolution" as one of the better ones.
Now, what evidence do you offer to show that "evil-lution is dead"?
"throw out your absolutely best piece of evidence."
Get with the program Oolong, I am not the one putting foward the theory of evil-lution,it is you guys. The burden of proof is on the evolutionist
effects and past history of evolution
Is there another kind? Future history perhaps? Present history?
An awkward statement at best.
As a matter of fact, there are some jounals that are devoted entirely to the subject.
Some journals are dedicated entirely to "art" created from feces as well...not entirely dissimilar to this blog methinks...
G. cuvier
"Evolution is indeed accepted by anyone who has actually studied biology. "
Prove it, your hot air tells me nothing.
When 150 years of science is massively unified against you, you have the burden of proof. If that seems odd to you, I'm not sure what else to say.
Anyway, as I said, you proved my point. Nice try though. Feel free to keep mouthin' however. When you actually have a challenge to evolution to utter, I'll pop back in here.
I won't hold my breath, though, cause you got nothin' and seem for some strange reason to enjoy proving that point repeatedly.
Whack-a-mole indeed.
Is this all you guys got? Comments without data. Damn this is easy. What's your favorite color?
"When 150 years of science is massively unified against you, you have the burden of proof. If that seems odd to you, I'm not sure what else to say."
What part of theory do you not understand. Do you even know what theory means. Go get a dictionary, and you will find who the burden of proof is on. At 14-1/2 even I know that.
Ed, why doesn't your Trackback seem to work? I can't remember the last time I successfully pinged one of your posts.
Women's Rights: A Disease That Should Be Eradicated
Gregg,
While I am more than passingly familiar with the subject ofbiology and those who study it, I am unable to name every currently working biologist, give you their names and home phone numbers. However, if you were able to follow my advice and actully look for universities with evolutionary biology departments you would find they are exceedingly common. Were you to visit a library or check PubMed, you would find tens of thousands of scientific monographs on the subject. Since you are unwilling to undertake even this small effort, there is little more I can do. It's rather like asking me to prove that it's raining while refusing to look out of a window. However, you still have yet to offer any proof of your assertion that "evil-ution is dead".
As for you, Soup. I'll have to take your word on the art journals. I don't have your interest and expertise in feces. The difference is that while "art" (if one can apply that term to most modern horrors) is largely a collection of odd fashions, science is a bit more selective about publications and journals. I suspect that you would be hard pressed to find a single periodical in the biological sciences that hasn't published dozens of articles concerning evolution. I would be exceedingly surprised if you could name one. Feel free to give it a whirl. Good luck in your future endeavors.
Well I guess they just blow their mouth with no data for how "thousands" of Christian scientist accept evolution. Just what I thought. Good night, I'll check in tommorow to see if they can come up with something, that a physics major, at 14-1/2 could accept as proof.
"While I am more than passingly familiar with the subject ofbiology and those who study it, I am unable to name every currently working biologist, give you their names and home phone numbers."
You still don't get it, when someone tells you that "Thousands" of Christian scientists believe evil-lution, they got to get that from somewhere. Where the hell did they get it, if it is just his opinion that's ok. But Ed presented it as fact. Let him present the evidence.
Wow, these people really must be teenagers. They're doing the easiest thing in the world: deny the existence of what's right in front of them and demand that everyone else prove it exists. I'm surprised they're not demanding proof of the existence of the Internet.
I wonder what they'll do when they "graduate" and find out they can't get decent jobs because they never learned anything? Probably blame the Jews and start a war...
Gregg it comes from polls of the American public.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
And since you seem pathologically incapable of working for yourself let me help you:
A full %40 of scientists are Theistic Evolutionists. That is actually one percentage point higher than the general public. Given that this was a Gallup poll of American opinion, you can safey assume the majority of those are Christians.
deny the existence of what's right in front of them
I have never witnessed something changing from one species to another completely different species.
Gregg wrote:
LOL. What's to refute? It was an entirely unsupported assertion. My answer: uh, no it's not. What I did do was challenge your utterly false assertion that evolution is dead to everyone who isn't either ignorant or an atheist by naming people who advocate evolution who are neither ignorant nor atheists. And I only named a few of the ones I actually know personally.
Well one prominent survey showed that about 40% of all scientists are theists of one stripe or another. Given that the US has tens of thousands of scientists and most theists in this country are of the Christian variety, it was a safe estimate, but it was only an estimate. Even if it's only a few hundred, your argument that only atheists or the ignorant accept evolution is still completely false.
No, that would be an atheist, not an athiest. The word is atheism, not athiesm, so "athiest" would be an adjective form of something that is really "athy".
This whole burden of proof argument is quite idiotic. I can easily list several lines of evidence for which evolution is the only logical explanation, but let's just start with one, biostratigraphy. Do you have an explanation for the successional order of appearance of the various forms of life on earth other than evolution? If so, please give us your explanation so we can test it against the evidence.
HHS wrote:
Did you expect to see it in your backyward or on the way to work? That you have not witnessed it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Speciation has been observed and documented in both the wild and in the lab involving many different types of animals and plants.
Gregg wrote:
Ed has been playing poker for the last several hours, as he always does on Thursday nights.
I have a feeling I'll regret wading into this, but here goes.
I actually followed Gregg's advice about looking up a definition of theory. The 4th definition was what our friend here was probably thinking of: "Abstract reasoning; speculation" However the first definition is a bit more applicable when we're talking about a scientific theory "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena" In the case of evolution there is a whole lot of evidence to support this theory, a good place to start is the Talk.orgins archive
Given this more accurate useage of theory, I'd say oolong was correct in thinking the burden of proof is on you to explain why you think this evidence is wrong.
Also I noticed the poll data is a bit old (Nov 1997), in case anyone was wondering there's more recent data, as well as other polls on the subject here If you scroll down a bit there's the Gallup poll with pretty much the same numbers. It doesn't have them broken down into scientists, but I imagine that hasn't changed much either. Besides the I doubt all 40% of the people claiming that they believe God evolution is guided by God are ignorant, so this seems to falsify your statement that evolution is accepted by only the ignorant and atheists (assuming you didn't actually mean the people who are very athy, I don't know much about their views).
As for evolution being dead, that definitely is not the case, there is a lot of research about this aspect of biology. As an experiment I went to 3 of the major journals to see if there were any evolution related papers out in the current issue. I'll admit I haven't read all of these yet and only one lets me even look at an abstract at my house so this is a little speculative, but this came up with an interesting list that should keep me busy while I'm running some protein gels tommorrow at work.
First Nature
Well, there's a couple articles about Bush's comments on ID, but I won't count those. But how about drug-resistent bacteria, a couple about humans' control on evolution with genetic modification, the rice genome sequence will probably have discussion of its evolutionary past,I believe over at pharyngula the post about the fly alchohol tolerance paper mentioned some evolutionary aspects.
Next up is The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
A commentary on the evolution of photosynthesis,a paper about monkeys' ability to recognize themselves in a mirror thus showing a connection between humans and monkeys, another human controlled evolution this time with the scientists setting what criteria to select for in order to evolve a particular protein, a couple of strucure papers that always need to have some discussion to fill out the pages, with evolution being a nice way to do this, as well as a whole section of papers subtitled Evolution.
Finally Science
There's a couple developmental papers that often discuss evolutionary aspects, an explicit connection of this with a book review on evo-devo, the genome sequence of a virus. Based on these three, evolution doesn't seem very dead to me.
If you're interested in some other research on evolution you can check out the website of most universities as was already mentioned, but I'll point you at my school as an example where we have the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.
Gaaa, I must have messed up the html somehow, I know I'm a bit rusty, but I'm not sure how I ended up with underline bold and not links.
Anyway the links should be to dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
www.talkorigins.org
www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
www.nature.com
www.pnas.org
www.science.com
www.colorado.edu/eeb
What? No one's going to mention the Steve Project?
Ed,
I dropped back by again, against my better judgment, and I see that thanks to Soup and Gregg and crew the discussion has devolved into near anarchy. Normally I skip bloggers that start off with ad hominem attacks and digress into logical fallacies, but in your case I'll make an exception.
As I understand Vox's position, he believes that women entering the workforce in mass, since the 1970's has had a negative effect on real wages, which in turn has produced some unintended consequences, namely more women have been force to enter the work place to maintain their families standard of living. Vox believes that this is having an over all negative effect on American society as a whole. He then provides some comparisons to the economic impacts of population growth and evaluates the performance of nations in Europe who are farther along the path than we are, and prognosticates what may befall the US.
Please tell me:
What was the effect of women entering the job market on American Society circa 1970ish to present?
Was it positive?
Was it negative?
Did it make no difference?
Explain.
I'm going to be far away from my computer communing with a mountain stream till Tuesday. I'd be happy to debate you on this topic. Feel free to use Vox's article, or any of his material as a starting point, or make up something of your own. I believe that the Suffrage Movement and Woman's Liberation has had many negative effects on modern society, intended or not, that don't compensate for the other nominal gains they achieved. I'm happy to do a point counter point or any other form of debate you wish, provided you're serious about the issue and able to deal in facts and logic.
Otherwise, when I was 23 I owned a Volkswagen Fox.
As I understand Vox's position, he believes that women entering the workforce in mass, since the 1970's has had a negative effect on real wages....
Maybe it has, but the sad little secret that people seem to want to ignore is that women were in the work force "in mass" prior to the 1970s. Primarily lower and lower middle class women, and certainly immigrants. They were doing menial labor (a term I use advisedly) and factory jobs. From the 1970s, they were competing for white-collar jobs, and that's when they became noticed.
Ed, I think the proper response is "Non-sequita, biatch!"
Only homeboys with street slang play the field? Tucker Max will be shocked, shocked I tell you!
Non-sequitur?
McMillan-
I fixed your html. You just left out the quotation marks around the URL.
Res Ipsa-
Please scroll up and see any of at least a half a dozen times where I made very clear that I never made any statements about the validity of Theodore's conclusions in the column I cited. I never attempted to dispute it (which doesn't mean it's true, by the way) and I have little interest in debating it. My argument was not an ad hominem because I didn't try to disprove his conclusions, I merely pointed out that his argument that he couldn't be bitter toward women because he drives a nice car and fucks a lot of them was both stupid and shallow. That's all I said and I was right. It has nothing to do with whether his larger point in the column was true or false, nor was it ever intended to have anything to do with it.
"I have never witnessed something changing from one species to another completely different species."
Ever had a flu shot? Ever notice they have to give you a new one every year? Ever wonder why? It's because the flu virus EVOLVES, nimrod.
Evolution isn't dead. People who actually live in the real world deal with it every day.
Res Ipsa: if you believe that a woman's ability to speak for herself in the public forum, live a live and establish a career independent of men, and be treated as legally and politically equal to men are only "nominal gains," then go ahead. But that's only your prejudice, not an objective fact.
What baffles me about these Voxites is that they think thier conclusion -- women's rights should be revoked -- is somehow hinging on the truth of the premise that "since they have entered the workforce, real wages have declined."
I mean, are they really serious or is this a gag? Even if I accepted that women's rights are partially to blame for:
1. Real wages declining since 1970
2. Families must work harder to make ends meet
3. Population growth declining
it is still a massive -- and I mean massive -- jump in logic to conclude that "women's rights should be taken away." I mean how many unbelievably controversial assumptions have to be added to the argument to reach this conclusion?
For one, last time I looked, Americans valued freedom over all other things, even if having freedom did not lead to some allegedly optimal utilitarian world where wages are really high and men can have as many babies as they want.
To say this this Vox guy values the American belief in the right to self-determination is a bit of a joke -- to say that he considers himself a libertarian is a bigger joke.
Res Ipsa,
You seem to be making quite a few ad hoc arguments. You and Vox make the same mistake, causation doesn't mean correlation. Particuarly is the complex arena of national economies.
You said:
'he believes that women entering the workforce in mass, since the 1970's has had a negative effect on real wages, which in turn has produced some unintended consequences, namely more women have been force to enter the work place to maintain their families standard of living'
Is it simply that women entering the workforce that caused this. Highly unlikely. There are 100's of reasons far more likely. The fact that women work to maintain a set standard of living does not correlate to the fact that wages are reduced for males because of a female presense.
Any society that doesn't use more than half of it population doesn't have the brightest of futures. In Vox's thinking, back ass as it is, he thinks many bright women should just sit back while being lorded over by males. Fortunately there are many women far brighter than he.
Ed
I don't have the time to rumage through those sites. If you have a specific article you would like me to look at I probably would. Just sending me to the home page of a website is not cool for me.
Who ever the idiot was that called me a nimrod because virus mutate, let me make myself clear. I'm not talking abour micro evolution, I'm talking about macro evolution. Apes to man
Gregg,
Your a nimrod, there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. It's a dubious term used by halfwits to 'attempt to discredit evolution while not realizing they are accepting the premise.
Stop making yourself look like an imbecile.
Gregg
Since you do agree that "microevolution" exists, I'm curious -- since it seems intuitive that lots of micro changes over very long periods of time would lead to macro changes, can you explain to us what biological barrier (or any other kind of barrier) exists, as you understand it, that prevent "micro" changes from becoming "macro" changes?
" Ed
I don't have the time to rumage through those sites. If you have a specific article you would like me to look at I probably would. Just sending me to the home page of a website is not cool for me. "
Actually, I don't think this is a cool request at all.
The evidence for evolution is MASSIVE. And you really can't pick and choose among it--you have to deal with all of it, or you aren't being very honest.
For example, the "division" between microevolution and macroevolution depends on the biological and scientific definition of species, which is not as solid as many non-scientists think. People who try to think that macroevolution doesn't exist really don't realize the implications their stand generates.
Gregg: you asked for information, and you were given information. Now you say you don't have time to look at the information you were given, free of charge, upon your direct request. So how do you end up having time to come here and repeatedly demand information you don't have time to look at? Would you have time to look at a web-site on how to manage your time more efficiently?
The guy who called you a nimrod is calling you a nimrod again: you are a nimrod, and will remain a nimrod until you actually learn what you already claim to know and clearly don't. Yes, it takes a lot of time. So does Bible study.
Forgot to add...the reason why you can't pick and choose is that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is THE major organizing princple of modern biology. You can't make any progress in biological research without touching upon Darwin and his princples. Throw out Darwin, and you throw out all of modern biology.
"neo-Darwinian synthesis is THE major organizing princple of modern biology."
I don't dispute that, I was specifically talking about evolution from one species to another. And yeah you could solve this whole question by providing clear evidence that this has happened. Raging Bee go look at where he sent me. I ain't doing his work for him, the web pages he sent me to say nothing about evolution.
Gregg,
'evolution from one species to another'
Define species Gregg. It is a very simple thing to understand even using your own lanquage. If alot of 'microevolutionary' changes occured over say 1 million years what makes you think that the current form 1 million years post and who knows how many 'microevolutionary' changes later would even recognize the form from a million years previously?
Their is so much evidence to support this I feel sorry for those who can't read.
Species
"An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse."
"If alot of 'microevolutionary' changes occured over say 1 million years what makes you think that the current form 1 million years post and who knows how many 'microevolutionary' changes later would even recognize the form from a million years previously?" Chance, fitting name.
If a frog had wings it woudn't bump its ass on the ground everytime it jumped. Show me the evidence, got fossil records to prove your "If"?
Gregg,
Please don't take this lightly, I realize your a young kid so but I don't want to talk down to you.
Your arrogance in assuming you know more than the worlds greatest biologists is off putting and really encapsulates the problem completely. Whats sad is that your mind is closed so early in life. I genuinely feel sorry for you. I entered the discussion hoping that a young person would open their mind a little, but now see it's unlikely.
Your weak analogy was:
'If a frog had wings it woudn't bump its ass on the ground everytime it jumped. Show me the evidence, got fossil records to prove your "If"?'
Gregg, if you don't find the truckloads of fossil evidence compeling, or genetics. Well just give us a better way to explain it all other then evolution.
And you never, big suprise, addressed the question.
It's one thing to throw stones out of ignorance, an entirely other thing to offer something reasonable and even more compelling.
Chance
You can talk down to me, makes no difference to me.
"It's one thing to throw stones out of ignorance, an entirely other thing to offer something reasonable and even more compelling."
OK let's analyze your compelling argument to me. I wasn't going to do this, but since you insist:
Chance: "Define species Gregg"
Gregg "An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse."
Question answered.
Chance: If alot of 'microevolutionary' changes occured over say 1 million years what makes you think that the current form 1 million years post and who knows how many 'microevolutionary' changes later would even recognize the form from a million years previously?"
Gregg: "If a frog had wings it woudn't bump its ass on the ground everytime it jumped. Show me the evidence, got fossil records to prove your "If"?"
How can I answer your question when you cannot? As you yourself say "and who knows". That's what I been asking you. Your question sadly proves me right, because you admit that no one really knows.
After that you contridict your self with this:
Chance: "Their is so much evidence to support this I feel sorry for those who can't read."
Now which is it. And thank thank you, but I read just fine. To prove that, you should have used "there" instead "their". But don't worry I accidently do that stuff all the time.
'evolution from one species to another'
Just to remind you all, "species" is a human devised taxonomy. From what I have read, there is often a substantial disagreement among biologists as to whether a particular sample belongs to one species or another, or whether it represents a sample of a new species. Species is nothing more than a taxonomy.
These evolution issues have been dealt with over at http://www.talkorigins.org and there really isn't any particular need for me to try to rehash them here.
well you did get the definition of species as per the lanquage usage, now define species as it is commonly used in biological circles.
I can't believe i'm doing this but:
'How can I answer your question when you cannot? '
I can, as can virtually every other biologst on the planet. With the theory of evolution.
'Your question sadly proves me right, because you admit that no one really knows.'
We have a rational, workable, testable theory. Confirmed by reams and reams of experimental and observed data. Produce evidence for a new theory and the world will listen.
Gregg, your a nimrod. My question wasn't one I don't have an answer for it was posed to show you how simple and sensible the theory is and that microevolution is nothing more than silliness. There is evolution period.
Oh and your spelling correction was cute, given the horrid spelling in your posts throughout this thread. But hey, we all make mistakes.
Raj
I am not looking for your new definition of species. We have to have a standard. I asked my question based on the standard. Changing the standards to fit a theory is not going to work. For example, and Ape is a different species than a Man. That's clear to all. Now if we got to get from ape to man, then we need to use the standard taxonomy.
"Oh and your spelling correction was cute, given the horrid spelling in your posts throughout this thread. But hey, we all make mistakes."
I was not judging your spelling, I was disproving the assertion that I cannot read. And Chance, you with all your posts, have not told me anything I don't already know except that I am a nimrod. Now I don't care to respond to your genralizations and insults, our conversation is over.
I wasn't even aware it was a conversation. It was more you making arrogant ascertions and me making sure your ascertions and the person behind them were correctly identified. Nimrod.
and to further represent your nimrodness:
'We have to have a standard.'
Oh yeah, like working biologists don't,how did they get along without arrogant no nothings leading the way.
'Changing the standards to fit a theory is not going to work.'
The standards aren't changing to the theory, gosh your entire argument is just arrogant and baseless.
'For example, and Ape is a different species than a Man.'
Yes, yes they are, great. Now tell us why.
'That's clear to all.'
Ok good, now why?
'Now if we got to get from ape to man, then we need to use the standard taxonomy.'
And evolution does. So I guess you now agree with the theory, Great.
This, from another website sums it up nicely. From a nonscientist layman:
'I don't know if "evolutionary theory" is true, or sound. It seems to me to make much more sense than the Genesis story. As with all science, future discoveries may require its extension or modification or that it be discarded like Newton 's physics or Scholastic mathematics or Aristotelian dentistry. But I do know that "intelligent design" is Creationism drawn not from the wells of honest inquiry, but from the fear of modernity and ignorance of logic and language, and precedes not from a fact to belief in a Creator, but from a belief in a Creator to a desire to see science dethroned.'
Oolong
"Gregg
Since you do agree that "microevolution" exists, I'm curious -- since it seems intuitive that lots of micro changes over very long periods of time would lead to macro changes, can you explain to us what biological barrier (or any other kind of barrier) exists, as you understand it, that prevent "micro" changes from becoming "macro" changes?"
The reason I don't believe that is because it is not reflected in the fossil records. For example there are no fossil records detailing fish aquiring feet then morphing into land dwellers to say dinasours. That's just a made up example, but the contium is always broke. The missing links are never found.
Ed:
That you have not witnessed it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Oh, that's right. That argument works to support evolution, but isn't applicable to any other possible explanation of origins...
Speciation has been observed and documented in both the wild and in the lab involving many different types of animals and plants.
(and from Raging Bee)
It's because the flu virus EVOLVES, nimrod.
Speciation is not what evolution is all about, is it? The flu virus isn't going to become a dog any day now, is it?
From Chance:
Your a nimrod, there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. It's a dubious term used by halfwits to 'attempt to discredit evolution while not realizing they are accepting the premise.
You must have been rolling in a pasture, because you smell of fresh manure.
I don't dispute minor speciation, nor does anyone else of reasonable intelligence that doubts the Darwinist hardliners. What I dispute is that animals become completely different creatures, rather than just a modified one. For example, at what point did the eyeball pop into existence? What changes would be made that leads to this happening? Remember, evolution argues for survival of the fittest, so the changes would have to be functional, eh? What changes could come together to create a functional eye first time?
From Uber:
This, from another website sums it up nicely. From a nonscientist layman:
Citing the opinion of unnamed non-scientist laymen is not valid, since both sides have that going for them.
By the way, Ed, why do you think your name-calling is not an ad hominem attack? It doesn't have to be combined with other things to make it an ad hominem. Have a little integrity, eh?
Ed, thanks for fixing that. If you have a chance feel free to delete the second post from before.
Gregg
"Ed
I don't have the time to rumage through those sites. If you have a specific article you would like me to look at I probably would. Just sending me to the home page of a website is not cool for me. "
It seems like this is more directed at me than Ed, so I'll respond to it.
I wasn't necessarily expecting you to read all those papers, especially since some of them are going to be fairly technical and difficult for a nonspecialist to understand. The main point was in demonstrating how much work in science is related to evolution. These are what I just happened to find in the current issue. If you do want to take a shot at reading some I'd say go to the either de Waal et al "The Monkey in the Mirror: Hardly a stranger" or Jones and Begun "Parellel Evolution of Chimeric Fusion Genes". The first seems like it might be a good example of how evolution can get tied into a subject that at first seems not directly involving evolution. The second explains how genes are analyzed to show the common relationship between different functions. As I said the actual articles will probably be a bit technical. The reason I recommended the talk.origins site is because as raj said it has a good overview of all the evidence on this subject in a way that a layman could understand. You don't have to read all of it right away, but if you want to start discussing evolution you should probably become familiar with what's on that site.
I don't think you gave a very good response on what kind of barrier exists to keep many "microevolutionary" changes from adding up to "macroevolutionary" ones. This relates to people's criticism of your definition of species, which in my opinion is a bit incomplete. Basically it amounts to saying something is a species because we say it's a species which is very circular, a more accurate definition should include why these are considered seperate species. What Chance was hinting at, and raj said explicitly is that this distinction is mostly an arbitrary one on the part of humans, which is why there really is no barrier between micro and macroevolution. Some evidence that this actually does occur is seen in fossils. Earlier Ed asked you to explain the biostratigraphy, which is the fact that fossils do seem to gradually change over time. You're right that it's not complete, but that's because fossilization is a relatively rare event compared to the huge number of living things that have existed. Even more clear evidence of this change can be seen in the genetic history, for example the second paper I mentioned in this post. The same concept works to compare different species as well.
McMillian I am kind of busy tonight, idid however read the short articles. I'll get back to you later, may be as late as tommorw night. In the mean time I thought HHS had a good question, how could an eyeball evolve, it would be useless without all its component parts; could you address that?
HHS
The same objection applies to you as it does to Gregg, saying you accept small changes commits you to explaining why these can't add up to large changes. Your eye example is one that I've seen addressed many times. Here's a shot at a reasonable story. Some cells were able to become photosensitive, this doesn't need to immediatly relate to sight, since some bacteria use a similar protein for photosynthesis. This light sensitivity is an advantage because it allows early animals to sense where they are in relation to food supplies that will tend to be near light. Having the light sensitive cells gradually move to a position that is indented into the body gives a better ability to sense the direction of light. If it becomes enclosed there is protection for this primitive retina, as well as allowing the further development of better ways to focus light and give clearer images.
Ed,
As far as the original subject goes I have a few comments. I know you're not taking these guys seriously, but I think they do have a bit of a point that you're avoiding the subject by just pointing out that Vox was being ridiculous with his introduction. If didn't want to even bother reading the rest of his writing it probably wouldn't be good to even bring the subject up. That being said there's plenty wrong with Vox's ideas that can be addressed. The most obvious seems to be how much Vox and this guys are willing to dismiss the huge positive that comes with people being able to determine how their lives, which was greatly limited while women were forced to not have much of a life outside the home while doing nothing but take care of the kids and the house.
McMillan,
Thanks for the response.
Concerning your objection vis-Ã -vis micro+micro=macro, I can see your point, but I disagree. To claim, for example, that all life came from one initial organism whose offspring mutated ad infinitum is quite hard to swallow. I asked about the eye (and will respond to your thoughts below), but perhaps something more difficult to explain away is this: when sexual creatures developed, two distinct sets of reproductive organs must have developed at the same time and in the same geographic area (such that the new male and female could find each other to reproduce). Since evolution teaches that change is not directed (that is, changes occur without a specific long-term goal), how would Asexual Creature 1 produce a sexual offspring with the necessary male parts while Asexual Creature 2 produces a sexual offspring with the necessary female parts, and how would this happen in the same vicinty for future development of the new species (for lack of a better word)?
Now, regarding the eye, your answer is good but seems lacking. We are not talking about mere photosensitivity. What I am asking is how does something make the leap from photosensitive cells to vitreous humor + aqueous humor + retina + fovea + pupil + conjunctiva etc.? None of these in themselves are particularly useful, except in combination with the others.
On women's rights, I leave the argument to others--I'm too interested in the science talk :).
I'm at my business partner's house and we're waiting for the other two to arrive, so I have some time to address some of these comments. Gregg wrote:
I think you're having difficulty with your reading comprehension. I did not give you any list of sites to read. Someone else did and I just fixed his html so they would appear as actual links. I simply asked you one question, which you have not bothered to address. That question is:
The primary means by which we test a theory is by its ability to explain the data and make accurate predictions/retrodictions (which function virtually the same way). Evolution is the only coherent explanation for a vast range of data in a dozen fields of science. It explains not only the patterns of biostratigraphy, but also the patterns of biogeography. It explains and predicts the nested heirarchies that are formed only by such a branching process, and it doubly explains the fact that we can build such nested heirarchies based upon not only anatomical and fossil evidence, but also on the basis of shared endogenous retroviruses and the result are almost identical phylogenetic trees. And it explains much, much more. I would be happy to look at some competing explanation to see if it has anywhere near the explanatory power that evolution has, but no one has yet come up with one. But rather than focus on all of those lines of evidence, let's just focus on the one that I brought up, biostratigraphy. Here is the text of a specific challenge that I have offered to innumerable anti-evolution folks; all have failed to give a coherent answer to it. Perhaps you'll do better:
Please bear in mind that this question has nothing to do with the existence of gaps in the fossil record, which of course exist and will always exist because we will never have fossil evidence for every species that has existed. It's about the undeniable and invariant pattern of appearance in the fossils that we do have, and the fact that the pattern repeats itself not only in the higher levels of the phyletic orders - mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, etc - but also within each of those taxonomic levels. The fact that this pattern exists is impossible to explain without evolution. Gregg again wrote:
This is quite simple to do. The TalkOrigins archive, in fact, has an FAQ with numerous instances of observed speciation. Two of them, actually. You can find the first here and the second one here. Both contain numerous examples, with references to the scientific literature that one can check. There is also the excellent example of an entirely new trait (a trait that perfectly fits Behe's "irreducible complexity", since it required multiple mutations in multiple proteins, each of which is required for the trait to function effectively) observed as it evolved in just the last 30 years, the nylon-eating bacteria. Gregg continued:
Well, no one says that fish became dinosaurs, so this claim is irrelevant. But in terms of the fish-to-amphibian transition, there is an incredible fossil record documenting how this transition took place. Have you ever bothered to look at that fossil evidence? I highly doubt it. The information isn't difficult to find. Carl Zimmer wrote a tremendous book called At the Water's Edge that looks at the transitions out of and back into the water (fish to amphibian and artiodactyl to whale) in great detail. For that matter, you could pick up any of Sean Carroll's vertebrate paleontology textbooks and find all of the documentation. It's rather irrational to declare that no evidence exists when you clearly haven't bothered to look. The transition is well documented through fossil specimens of numerous species from the mid-Devonian (Osteopolis and Eusthenopteron) to the late Devonian (Acanthostega and Icthyostega) to the early Mississipian (the Labyrinthodonts).
HHS wrote:
Like most people, you seem confused as to what an ad hominem actually is. It isn't just an insult, it's a logical fallacy - arguing against a position based upon an irrelevant personal characteristic of the person taking the position. For instance, "HHS is wrong about evolution because he's an alcoholic" would be an ad hominem because even if you had that personal characteristic (and I'm obviously not saying you do, it's just a hypothetical) it would not logically follow that your position on evolution is false. "Theodore is an idiot" is an insult, but it's not an ad hominem because it's not being used to make an argument against any position that Theodore takes. And what any of that has to do with my integrity, I have no idea. Insulting someone has nothing to do with integrity. HHS wrote:
It didn't "pop into existence" and I have no idea why you think it did. Eyes have actually evolved several times independently of each other in different lineages. This is well known and documented in pretty much any basic biology textbook. We know that all of the intermediate stages are fully functional because they actually exist today in numerous species that function perfectly well.
I'll give you several references that explain it quite well. The PBS Evolution series had a segment on it, which you can view here. The TalkOrigins FAQ on the evolution of color vision in mammals is here. There's a thorough explanation of the subject here by Bob Patterson. And Richard Dawkins has an article going into a lot of detail on the evolution of the eye here.
Well like I said I am really busy tonight, but Ed if you could stop the insults I would appreciate it. Mcmillian is cool!
"Over time, amphibians become more and more diversified and less fish-like, with later forms being successively more terrestrial and less aquatic."
Why do we still have fish?
This is all I got time for, but I will listen to what you have to say, and I will respond to your last post in total later.
Well
Mom is going to take me to my baseball game, gotta go. We are gonna kick but tonight we are playing the lions.
Why do we still have fish?
Gregg, you are descended from your mother....so, how is it possible that she's still here to take you to a baseball game?
Gregg wrote:
I hope that's a joke. If it's not a joke, you have no business ever discussing evolution in any context because you are completely ignorant of it.
I don't like you Ed, my brother and I are home schooled.I am tired of you making fun of my older brother. Dad says you are evil and are part of devils plan. Don't talk to my brother that way.
Well "Gena", being home schooled is totally irrelevant, and no-one twisted your "brother's" arm and made him post here, did they?
Dave
He is the best baseball pitcher there is. They even say he may make the majors. He has lots of talent, and you people dont't. Even though I am only 13, I know there is no evolution. You are older than me and you don't even know.
I hope that's a joke. If it's not a joke, you have no business ever discussing evolution in any context because you are completely ignorant of it.
Now Ed, you grew up at some point and learned some basic logic. Let Gregg grow up and learn too. :)
Logically, Gregg, whether or not fish evolved into other lifeforms, they still are certainly suited for some environments (those being bodies of water), so it makes sense to have fish. The question of why fish, who are indeed excellently suited for underwater life, would seek to live on land is another question. :)
Ed, I'll address your post to me tomorrow when I have more time.
Have a good night, all.
Greg said:
"Why do we still have fish?"
You don't really think that when the first amphibian crawled out of the water all the fish in the sea died, do you?
If French is derived from Latin why do we still have Italian?
For the assertion that evolution is dead here are more sites for you to ignore:
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations
Statements from Religious Organizations
Looks like I need to work on my HTML tags. I'm still trying to figure it out.
Fish did not seek to live on land. There were open niches available and those able to exploit them did. As they became better adapted to these niches other niches became accessible. No seeking involved.
Hi Gena. Tell your father that if Gregg stops repeating the ignorant things he hears at home, presumably,we will have no choice but to leave him alone.
As is stands, Gregg came here of his own accord. If you have a problem with that then you should take it up with him.
And while you're at it, please tell your father that that lying to a captive audience of children, who do not have the experience or education to know better, is about as low as it gets.
In fact, why don't you tell him to come here and see if he can get away with that sort of thing when he's talking to an educated audience?
Have a great day! =)
HHS
I personally find the opposite to be true, knowing that there are small changes occuring I can't see how they can't lead to the development of many different species given a few billion years. While it could be possible that there could have been multiple "first lifeforms" the evidence we have seems to point more to all life on Earth being related to a common ancestor. There was an article that I find pretty interesting by Carl Woese a few years back speculating that the earliest lifeforms were similar enough that they could pass all their genes among each other, so lateral transfer was more a driving factor in evolution than descent with modification. This would mask the multiple origins in the past. I'm not sure where to really take the conversation for you to see this more clearly other than to ask you to look into the evidence more. I still want to address your more specific points though since I don't think we've quite reached the point of giving up conversing about this.
For the origin of sexual reproduction to take place, it isn't necessary for two seperate sexes to develop at once. There's quite a bit of species that reproduce sexually by being hermaphrodites. I believe this is more common in plants, though I haven't had any botany since my AP bio class 5 years ago. However there are plenty of animals that reproduce this way. I remember reading about a snail species that basically have a sword fight with their penises in order to impregnate each other, whichever one is impregnated will have larger resource cost. A better example to see how sexual reproduction could have evolved is in C. elegans. These worms are are more commonly hermaphrodites and can self-fertilize. However if the X chromosome doesn't segregate properly it results in an XO which is a male. This form is a bit more common than would be expected compared to other species because it allows some sexual reproduction to occur, which is beneficial to the population because it gives more genetic variation. This is a good example of how things might have initally started out. In this way it wouldn't have been necessary for two different sexes to have appeared together, the sexes would have been a modification that occured later.
Your objection to the eye seems to be somewhat related. I get the impression that your viewing things as having to have appeared in the present form. The whole idea of evolution is that the earlier forms were much simpler and lacking some componants seen today. The examples you gave,
all except the retina wouldn't have even been present in the earliest stages. Most wouldn't appear until late in eye evolution. I admit my description was very rough, the links that Ed gave are probably a better place to look for exactly how it's thought this would have occured. I based mine mostly off my memory of the PBS segment he used.
Gregg
I personally didn't see Ed's last post as being insulting, he was a bit more direct than I am being, but he also is a lot more involved in these types of debates than I am, so I think he's probably a lot more tired of hearing people make the same arguements that he has to respond to. I'm also a lot less confrontational in general than Ed seems to be from what I've read.
That being said Ed made some really good points in his comment especially about the biostratigraphy. This is really strong evidence that needs to be addressed by anyone claiming that evolution is not occurring.
This really is a bad statement to make. Answers in Genesis (a group that supports young earth creationism) says an arguement very similar involving humans and monkeys shouldn't be used because it is so easily refuted and whoever makes it seems foolish. That's why Ed hope's you were joking with this comment. Others already have addressed this, but I'll throw out my own analogy that's similar to Dave S. but a bit more accurate. If you're related to your grandparents why do you have cousins?
I hope you'll continue to post a bit more, despite what your sister said you've been told by your dad. We're not part of the devil's plan. For me I'm just interested in knowing the truth and trying to give people facts that they may not know about.
Dad's in the other room, but I can't talk until tommorrow. Good night Mcmillian.
Dad's in the other room, but I can't talk until tommorrow. Good night Mcmillian.
I had left Gena on there sorry.
Gena, when I was 13, I also didn't accept evolution. But as I grew older and researched the evidence more, I learned that my previous reasons for not accepting evolution were wrong. If you really want to know the truth, you can also look at the evidence for yourself. The website talkorigins.org is a good place to start. You will learn that evolution does not and cannot prove that no god(s) exist.
If you have specific reasons for not accepting evolution, please check to see whether they are included in this list. If you still think your reasons are valid, then you could post here or the talk.origins news group or the pandasthumb.org website.
After reading Gena's and Gregg's posts, I am saddened to learn they are being poor witnesses for their faith. They have been arrogant, rude, and lazy. The Bible has strong words to say about these sins.
The Bible says, "Brothers and sisters, don't think like children." (I Cor 14) I hate to condescend to you two, but you are acting like children here.
You are also displaying a lazy arrogance in saying that you, in your early teens, know more about biology than scientists who've spent their lives laboring in the field. The Bible says, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." (Prov 16:18)
Please consider before God what kind of witness you are displaying. It saddens Him.
There is more pride here than I have ever seen anywhere else. "They have been arrogant, rude, and lazy. The Bible has strong words to say about these sins." I don't think Gena was ever rude, and she is a gifted person, to some of you that means disadvantaged, so watch what you say about her, I won't let her back on here again, you people will hurt her, because most of you are mean. While we are on the subject pride comes before the fall, since you are so biblicaly literate why don't you try reading Genesis again.
Gregg,
I have read Genesis many times and I don't see it as a literal account, so to me it's language doesn't solve the question of creation.
I happen to believe that God indeed suvervised the development of life.
If I were to take the Bible seriously, God says a lot of things of which I disapprove.
I believe in God, but I don't worship because God doesn't meet my moral standards.
Regarding the most recent posts by "Gregg" and "Gena," I have two guesses:
1) Gregg finally realizes he's way out of his depth here, and is admitting he's a kid in order to gain sympathy and avoiding being trashed as an extremely ignorant adult (and a dirt-poor witness for his faith); or
2) Someone else is posting as "Gregg" and "Gena" to mock them.
(ED: can you verify whether all of "Gregg's" posts come from the same IP address?)
Gregg, remove the beam from your own eye before removing the mote from your brother's.
So you admit you were rude. Get a grip here, Gregg! With your poor witness, you are defying the Lord God Almighty! If you have even a smidgen of respect for your faith, you will humble yourself before God and ask forgiveness. If you don't apologize and ask for forgiveness here, I will consider you a troll and ignore you.
It's not us hurting her and you. We aren't the ones who raised rude children who revel in their ignorance as they defame the name of God.
Admit your sin. Don't try avoiding it. You were rude, arrogant, and lazy, and you don't want to face that fact before God and the Bible.
Further, I have read Genesis, many times. In fact, some of my doubts YECism started after having read Genesis for the first time. Your flippant response shows that you are not having any concern for your witness before God and do willfully continue in your sin.
I'm expecting an apology to us for your arrogance, rudeness, and laziness. If it's not forthcoming, I will know you to be either a troll or a horrible witness for your faith. In either case, you won't be worth the effort of responding to.
I have read Genesis many times...
Just to point out, unless you can read Aramaic script, what you were reading was a translation filtered through many generations of people who had axes to grind and who put their axes into their translations. You weren't reading Genesis. You were reading a translation of a translation of a translation (etc., etc., etc.).
Actually guys I just came here to harrass you, and it worked. You are a bunch of close minded hard line Darwinists. Hey if you want to make fun of people you know nothing about, as Ed did with Vox, don't expect not to get the same shit from other people. And I find you people quite amusing since it took you this long to figure out I was pulling your chain. No I am not 14-1/2. Your religion is Darwinism, mine is Christianity. I don't care what you believe, but you guys seem to care what I believe. And I proved it. Raging Bee, all you had to do you ignorant ass is read the comments here, you didn't have to look to Ed to figure this out. Although it was pretty obvious if you lazy bastards took the time to read all my posts. But what would you expect from a bunch of narrow minded people? And none of you idiots ever thought to read the comments over at Vox's place where we were making fun of all you guys. I am still lauphing.
My comments above do not apply to Mcmillian, he is a good guy, I shouldn't have taunted him, that was wrong. Mcmillian I would surely say you are a friend of truth, even though we disagree.
Is that it? You're done? I thought you were going to disprove evolution. You didn't even try. I'm very disappointed.
"I'm expecting an apology to us for your arrogance, rudeness, and laziness. If it's not forthcoming, I will know you to be either a troll or a horrible witness for your faith. In either case, you won't be worth the effort of responding to."
Sorry Bill, I apologize. now hold that same standard to all who post here. Yep I have laughed at you guys, and you thought you had leverage on me because of my faith. But you have not asked anyone to apologize to me. Why not if you believe what you say? Does this standard only apply to Christians? If you don't "Believe" then why do you care?
"Is that it? You're done? I thought you were going to disprove evolution. You didn't even try. I'm very disappointed."
No bud, I did not come here to disprove evolution, I came here to harrass you. And yep that is it. I did give all the chance to prove evolution, and the only one that who even tried was Mcmillian. The rest of you did nothing but insult me and speak in generalizations. Instead of you people trying to get people to disprove something, why don't you offer them a positive. You won't ever go to a reasonable site where people believe in Christianity ask you to disprove it.
Well, now we know what kind of people support "intelligent design." Thanks for clearing that up, Gregg.
Greg said
Too bad. The discussion of evolution, such as it was, was the only part of the conversation that was based on fact rather than opinion, therefore the only part I found interesting.
Gregg at August 13, 2005 01:40 PM
Your religion is Darwinism, mine is Christianity
It's nice to know that you own the "Christian" trademark. What makes you believe that you are Christian? Because you claim to be? Don't be silly.
/sarcasm
All I need is Proverbs 26. Verses 18,19 say, "Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who deceives his neighbor and says, "I was only joking!"
Verses 24-26, "A malicious man disguises himself with his lips, but in his heart he harbors deceit. Though his speech is charming, do not believe him, for seven abominations fill his heart. His malice may be concealed by deception, but his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly."
Gregg, you said the words, but you did not apologize. True repentance comes from the heart, and you continue on in your sin.
I did not see anyone from Ed's side even close to being as worthy of rebuke as you. You deserve every bit of the ridicule you got here and then some for your vile witnessing for your faith, your lies, your deception, your arrogance, rudeness, and laziness.
Verse 3, "A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!"
I will end with this. i thought you to be either a troll or a horrible witness for your faith. I was wrong: you're both. I will now follow the advice of Proverbs.
Verses 20,21, "Without wood a fire goes out; without gossip a quarrel dies down. As charcoal to embers and as wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife."
Verses 4,5 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."
I will not respond to such a vile fool who mocks God with his witness any more, unless it is needed to keep him from being wise in his own (and the audience's) eyes.
If you find yourself standing before the Bright-eyed Judge one day, you will horribly regret your despicable actions here.
This is actually a pretty accurate way that I would describe myself, I do consider truth and honesty to be the most important virtue. The reason I got into this in the first place was because I was seeing statements that seemed obviously false.
You shouldn't be surprised that when you were throwing around insults, people respond the same way. That's what I meant when I mentioned that it seemed like Ed wasn't taking any of you guys from Vox seriously, compared to other posts on this site and others he writes this whole thread consisted of fairly low levels of discourse. I think David Holland is right, that the evolution aspect seemed to be the most interesting; if anyone like HHS really wants to continue that aspect they can do it by email, but I think I'm done with this thread. The only thing I want to add is that I'm in agreement with the last post by Bill and raj
For the record, I thought it was incredibly obvious that Gregg was not 14 and that all that stuff about his sister was bullshit. That's why I didn't bother to do as others did and try to be nicer to the "young people" who just hadn't learned enough. Gregg was obviously trolling. I do find it amusing that they'd all be sitting back and laughing about it. What exactly was proven here? Did you actually say, "Hey, I bet if I say a bunch of really stupid shit, I can get them to point out that I'm saying a bunch of stupid shit"? How profound a discovery you've made. What we've learned from this, I think, is that Theodore's little sycophants are as juvenile and pathetic as he is.
Here's the punchline to the whole thing. "Gregg" apparently works for the US Department of Agriculture, as that is where all of his comments on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday during the day originated from. Once 5 pm hit, the IP address changes to level3 communications, which resells almost all of its lines to cheap dial up internet companies. I've now banned those IP addresses simply because trolls are boring and he obviously has nothing of substance to add. He and his fellow bootlickers and idiots will just have to sit at Vox's blog and publicly fellate each other over what a brilliant job they did of making utter asses of themselves over here.
Mcmillan, thanks for the discussion; it's been interesting. I remain unconvinced of undirected evolution, and you are unconvinced of a theistic creation. C'est la vie, n'est-ce pas? I don't eliminate a possibility of theistic evolution, mind you. I hope you haven't eliminted the possibility that there could have been a supernatural influence.
Ed, regarding the ad hominem discussion, I think it's applicable here. After all, you have, in the course of these two threads, and on the basis of one paragraph and two posters ("Gregg" and "Crystal Lake"), determined that Vox and those who participate in his blog are "bootlickers", "idiots", "juvenile", "pathetic", etc. This is clearly made with the intent of implying that his reasoning in this and indeed in other matters is suspect, and thus it is a logical fallacy.
That said, I read and participate in his blog, and you have roundly insulted me by association. I think that your attitude, insofar as the related threads are concerned, has been poisonous and unbecoming of an honourable person. While you berate Vox Popoli's participants as mere bootlickers and sycophants, I should be able to make the same accusation against a couple of yours (specifically I refer to Raging Bee and Oolong, who seem to have tried to match Gregg's level of ... what's the word I'm looking for? ... without demonstrating the least bit of wit).
Well, it's your playground and you're free to do with it as you wish. I guess the only thing to do, as mcmillan has ditched the thread, is to bid good day to you and your sycophant bootlickers (aforenamed, no others implied in that moniker).
HHS wrote:
No, it was clearly made with the intent of implying that they are juvenile, pathetic idiots and bootlickers. Where Gregg has attempted to make a substantive point, I have answered the substantive point, but he gave up on that quite some time ago. Crystal Lake was an obnoxious git from the word go, here only evidently to humiliate herself by acting stupid. And the fact still remains that an insult is not an ad hominem.
Well of all the folks who came streaming over here, you have clearly been the most reasonable and the most interested in having an actual discussion. And my interaction with you has been pretty much exclusively civil and substantive. I treat each person as they deserve to be treated. Hence, you were treated respectfully and they were not. I think that's entirely justified in both cases.
Perhaps so. But I think any objective person examining this thread and the two threads at Theodore's blog would conclude that the folks here have behaved far better. I could easily cite the litany of "he's ugly" or "probably a pedophile" comments there.
I've been away all weekend, seems I've missed about 80 replies.
So where exactly have my responses been on the level of Greggs, which frankly I find insulting? I am also missing the sycophantic element of my posts. Perhaps I am self deceived. If I've said anything unreasonable or mad bad arguments, point it out.
I'm also a bit miffed that Ed would simply say "perhaps so" in response to such a claim -- unless he agrees and if so, again, I don't see the evidence for it.
Regarding my wit, I'll have to work on it. I didn't realize this was a rhetorical contest.
I've been away all weekend, seems I've missed about 80 replies.
So where exactly have my responses been on the level of Greggs, which frankly I find insulting? I am also missing the sycophantic element of my posts. Perhaps I am self deceived. If I've said anything unreasonable or made bad arguments, point it out.
I'm also a bit miffed that Ed would simply say "perhaps so" in response to such a claim -- unless he agrees and if so, again, I don't see the evidence for it.
Regarding my wit, I'll have to work on it. I didn't realize this was a rhetorical contest.
oolong wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was agreeing with him. I didn't have a lot of time and was not on my computer, so I didn't want to actually track down comments and show him to be wrong. I just wanted to point out that even if he's right, I'd be happy to have the replies here compared to the comments about me and my readers on Theodore's blog.
Here's the punchline to the whole thing. "Gregg" apparently works for the US Department of Agriculture...
I hope he's not one of the guys in charge of keeping mad-cow disease out of the US.
Ed,
I stopped back, fair enough.