Comment history

Scientists: Upright walking trait may have begun in trees

shockchalk acts all offended, claiming he's not a liar. Yet here was a pretty blatant lie right in the first post I saw from him in this thread:

>"But, the more scientist study the THEORY of evolution, the more reasons
> they are discovering that it isn't, and wasn't, possible."

It's only "disrespectful" to call someone a liar if they're actually NOT lying. He obviously was. That is far more disrespectful, to us.

And when someone makes such an assertion about the consensus of scientists, it's not too much to ask for them to back it up with valid sources showing there actually is such a consensus.

Of course, he doesn't do this because 1) he IS lying, 2) he knows he CAN'T find such sources, and 3) the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that the OPPOSITE is true.

So he argues "I don't feel the need to cite a source for everything I comment on." Probably true. He doesn't FEEL THE NEED. But if he wants to be taken as anything but a liar, yes, he needs to, if he makes such claims about what "scientists say". Especially when it goes against what people educated on the subject have learned.

His statements ARE at odds with "the rest of the world", which clearly says evolution is an accepted scientific fact. That the USA is down around Turkey for how well accepted evolution is shows how uneducated most people are about it in America. And thus they spout things like shockchalk did, feeling no need to be responsible or honest as they state their ill-formed opinions as if they are scientific facts.

That evolution happens is a universally accepted, observed fact in science. The theory is the explanation of how it works. 150 years of testing and new evidence has fleshed it out and made us even more sure it's a good explanation of what's happening to biological organisms in nature. Any credible biologist would laugh at his assertion and tell him what I just did.

June 4, 2007 at 10:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State board dumps anti-evolution standards

Careful, Kodiac, or you'll get godot whining about our "mutual appreciation society" or whatever. *grin*

But thanks. I can only put up with so much of that nonsense, and that seems to be all gr is capable of. Pity, too. I think there IS a mind in there. You have to be somewhat smart to be THAT slippery. That, or use lots of grease. ;)

February 16, 2007 at 4:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Science standards evolve again

Yes, and it's going off on a tangent, probably because my offhand "limited success" comment was all gr could find to mock in my post.

Not the main point, that 1) it doesn't have to be repeated in the lab to be studied by science, and 2) just because it HASN'T been repeated in the lab YET doesn't mean it won't in the future. Usually when we've studied it enough to be able to recreate necessary conditions, etc. Not to mention our level of technology catching up enough to do it.

But we've beaten crono over the head about that enough, I hope.

February 16, 2007 at 4 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Science standards evolve again

That's interesting about the protobionts, though. I didn't know about that.

February 16, 2007 at 7:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Science standards evolve again

By the way, my "limited success" comment wasn't just referring to the Miller Urey experiment. I seem to recall other, more recent announcements, like one where they made a virus (polio?) from scratch. I don't have the particulars, or I'd give them.

Ah yes. A simple search came up with (among others):

First Synthetic Virus Created:

Although this seems to be more in line with "building" a virus from a "recipe" than in actually causing "abiogenesis" to form it as nature did, but that's not relevant to my original point.

February 16, 2007 at 7:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Science standards evolve again

gr laughably said,
"Next, gr8dane will be telling us science doesn't have to be observable to be science."

(responding more for others than for gr, a known troll)

To which I make my usual "bait and switch" "vague" answer. Yes and no.

It depends what you mean by observable. (in science, lots of answers depend on lots of variables.) Events themselves dont' have to be observable, as I've already said. We don't have to repeat them (ourselves in the lab, or see them repeated in nature), to study the evidence left behind by past events.

However, studying that evidence can fit the definition (in science) of being observable. The EVIDENCE is observable, testable, studiable (is that a word?).

So in other words, yes and no. Yes, because we have to have EVIDENCE something occurred, and no, because that evidence doesn't necessarily require observing an event or process itself, and can be evidence that IT HAPPENED. Studying that can help us puzzle out how/why it happened.

February 16, 2007 at 7:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

State board dumps anti-evolution standards

gr added,
"I believe in biological evolution. You have yet to explain where my beliefs differ from "what science ACTUALLY says". I've said before, I don't subscribe to micro-macro delineations."

If that were true, you wouldn't be playing all these dishonest games.

As for explaining where your beliefs differ from "what science ACTUALLY says", I cannot do that. You won't ACTUALLY share what it is you "believe". You dance around evasively, playing "bait and switch", accusing others of it falsely, and other fallacies, attacking posts of people trying to explain science to the creationists and the borderline people who hear the creationist fallacies and want to know if they are true...

You refuse to actually say what you "believe", instead concentrating on attacking (with transparently dishonest tactics) the points of everyone defending and explaining science.

I'm used to many creationists claiming NOT TO BE creationists, while making all the usual creationist fallacies. Another tactic many of them use, so they'll be taken more seriously. If it waddles like a creationist, it's probably a creationist, even if it tries to disguise its quack.

So excuse me when I don't believe your assertions that you are not a creationist, and accept evolution (the scientific version of it). Especially since you gave the impression of only "accepting" it facetiously, like placating someone who's mad. "There there, I believe you, you're totally right... put the knife down." *grin* I'm sure to many creationists, they consider the rest of the world "mad". Mainstream religions (that accept science, seen as compromise to fundamentalists), politics (especially 'liberals'), and yes, science and all the things it discovers that are a threat to their faith...

Then in a later post, you admit you don't actually accept all that, that it's just a pretend "conversion", based on our alleged "vagueness" (which isn't vagueness, but just you calling it that because yes, in science and in life, words and phrases can mean different things in different contexts, and we insist on using proper contexts when you try to switch contexts dishonestly). Same thing. You were pretending you accept mainstream science in an attempt to MOCK it, to insinuate it's "another religion" and you've "converted"...

Anyway, I could keep going, debunking your statements one by one, but as I've said before, that would be a full time job. That was only three of your paragraphs I dissected. Your blatant dishonesty is thoroughly disgusting. Moving on. Go play in traffic, gr. I'm done with you. You've been exposed again.

To everyone else, I'm sorry for replying as much as I have to this troll, with my verbose responses. When I see a fallacy, I feel the need to correct it. I'm funny that way. Even when the person in question is well known for using those fallacies.

February 16, 2007 at 6:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

State board dumps anti-evolution standards

gr continued lying,
"Now that I notice it, I see you did a classic bait and switch. Purplesage questioned the "fervency of the evolutionists". You replaced it with "scientists"."

Hahah. "bait and switch", "bait and switch". That's your favorite fallacious rebuttal.

It was not a bait and switch, as I've ALSO explained before (including to you). As a creationist (apparently), purplesage probably meant "evolutionists" in the general "anyone who believes in evolution" context, which is meaningless because all honest, educated people without a religious bias against accepting evoluiton are "evolutionists" in that context. It's like calling people "gravitationalists" for accepting gravity as the fact that it is. It's meaningless. The only definition of "evolutionist" that makes sense is "scientists who work on and promote evolutionary science", mainly biologists and related fields.

And his post that I responded to could be taken in a more general sense that "evolutionists" meant the overall community of scientists themselves, who pretty much accept the consensus that evolution is a fact, supported by all the evidence and testing. His post actually makes more sense in that context, and is more consistant. It was referring to the "zeal" of evolutionists, which could be a creationist interpretation of the desire of scientists and educators to keep proper science taught in public school science classes, and their attempts to educate the parents about how the creationist set of standards will harm their children, and Kansas in general.

So I gave purplesage the benefit of the doubt and took it that way. You don't like me choosing a context that makes more sense. Too bad. Get over it.


gr continued,
"You surely don't expect us to make your leap that ALL evolutionists are scientists and ALL scientists are evolutionists."

Depending how you define "evolutionists" (as I did above), the former is true, although the latter is not. There are some "creationist scientists", either scientists working in a non-biology field who reject evolution for religious reasons, or some who got into science (usually something biology related) specifically to debunk evolution (like Jonathan Wells, the Jehovah's Witness), but don't do any research, just use their degree as a sort of "listen to me, what I say is true because I have degrees!" statement.

Of course, there's a third group, those who are scientists in other fields, haven't studied enough biology to come to a conclusion about evolution, and are neutral until they do. Although even they will tend to admit that there IS a consensus about evolution among scientists who HAVE studied biology, that it is an accepted fact that it happens. But you probably don't want to hear that part, and will erase it from your databanks after reading it. :)

February 16, 2007 at 6:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

State board dumps anti-evolution standards

And gr continues spinning out falsehoods and sophist arguments. How surprising (not).

For instance,
"From your comment, you don't sound like one who wishes to "explain what science ACTUALLY says and why"."

Heh. From gr's biased perspective, anyway. The rest of us see me doing a lot of "explaining what science ACTUALLY says and why", in this and other threads.

Of course, creationists LIKE to stick to their misconceptions of what THEY think science says (and why), even when pointed out what it ACTUALLY says, so not surprising gr is sticking to her version of science and not the real thing.


gr8dane said,
"I'm defining evolution the same way science is. I'm using it in the same context they are. Biological evolution."
gr ad hommed,
"Again, a statement not exactly conveying very much information. Maybe you are not one of them there scientists."

I've never claimed to be a scientist. I've specifically said I wasn't one. But I do listen to what they say, and read their work.

You, on the other hand... good attempt to get it around to me again, by the way. Common creationist tactic. Get the focus off yourselves and your claims, and get the opponent on the defensive.

The "statement" conveyed as much information as it needed to. You insinuated I was using some "bait and switch" (your favorite fallacy) definition of evolution and didn't define WHICH evolution I was talking about.

In the context of this discussion, there IS ONLY ONE. Arguing that there are more than one IS a bait and switch, and YOU are the only one guilty of it, setting up for your "micro and macro" fallacy or whatnot. My response showed that quite well.

I'm using the only definition of evolution relevant to the context of this discussion. Biological evolution as explained by the modern theory of evolution, aka "neo-darwinism". I've already defined, in great detail, what that is to you several times in earlier threads. Claiming "bait and switch" is just a common copout I see from you to make it look like I'M the one being evasive.

February 16, 2007 at 6:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Science standards evolve again

jonas and Das_Ubermime, yes, hence why I said LIMITED success. But my point is still valid. Our inability to repeat it (fully) in the lab doesn't mean it didn't happen in reality, and doesn't mean we can't study it scientifically, from the evidence left behind (including life itself). Nor does it mean we won't succeed at doing it some time in the future. Our inability to do it SO FAR is not a valid argument that it didn't happen. I was responding to crono's false claims about scientific method and its requirements, specifically.

February 16, 2007 at 6:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )