259 replies to this topic

[struct]

  Several species of Elephants, but all the humans on the earth are just one specie.

Not really. You, for example, seem to me as a different breed, a different species actually; so does elijah and his friends but a little bit, just a little bit, different from you.
monkey, monkey, monkey, donkey, donkey, donkey, cat, snake, dog,
o I forgot the elephant. elegant elephant. and the flies.

[Aegist]

Quick Education in basic evolution of 'speciation':

http://whozoo.org/herps/tetrapods.htm
Once upon a time there was a species of organism which was totally unique. It was furry, warm blooded, carried its offspring internally until term at which time they were born ready to go. This animal, we will call "Mammal". This unique species was so good at surviving (due to its success rate with offspring survival, and its ability to survive the cold (or whatever) that it numerated massively. There were millions and millions of them, and they found that their food supply was running out: Too many of them competing for the same food source. Sooo, some of them starved to death. Some of them however, found that they could eat insects, and theyhad an advantage over those who didn't have that option. Some found they coul climb trees and eat leaves that others couldn't, and they had an advantage of those others of their species, while others still found that they were particularly strong, or had sharper claws than the others, and they could just kill and eat their competition etc.

And bit by bit, over thousands of generations variations within the millions of individuals within this populations of 'Mammals' (the species) started to find themselves in unique situations which allowed them to survive without directly competing with each other. Now the 'mammal' which found it was consistently stronger and better at fighting than the other 'mammals' become so different from the species which climbed trees and ate leaves which was again very different from the species which ate insects, and with time they became so different that they could be consisdered not the same species anymore. They are now: 1. Carnivora, 2 Insectivora, and 3. Glires (obviously I am ignoring all of the other species which asserted themselves down different evolutionary pathways here in the interest of not writing too much)

http://whozoo.org/ma...rephylogeny.htm
The 'Species' Carnivora, in the family 'Mammal' now finds itself being very successful. There are so many mammals around still, and it can kill and eat anyone of them, and it has all of the same reproductive success as they all had, so it numerates. Many millions of them are born of the coming hundreds and thousands of years and they of course start finding that they are now competing with themselves again, and to make it worse, the easy prey they had was dying out, and most mammals left are now as fast if not faster than they are, or it is resistent to them, or can climb trees, or hide in burrows etc. And so food is becoming scarcer. Again, because there are millions and millions of this species (carnivora), there is a great deal of variation and some of them are particularly lucky to find that they are physically nimble and able to climb trees. Others find that they can work with others in their family or group very effectively and are able to trap their prey without needing to be as fast, while others still find that they are able to swim particularly well and there is a whole lot of food in the waters. These varieties of the 'Carnivora' species each have their own specific success. over many thousands of generations again, they diverge far enough so that they can be distinguished as two different species, the "feline", the "canine" and the "Seals"

http://whozoo.org/ma...t_Phylogeny.htm
And so on.
http://whozoo.org/st...echh/bengal.htm

This is what Darwin said in the very first publication on this topic, Chapter 14:

On the view that species are only strongly marked and permanent varieties, and that each species first existed as a variety, we can see why it is that no line of demarcation can be drawn between species, commonly supposed to have been produced by special acts of creation, and varieties which are acknowledged to have been produced by secondary laws. On this same view we can understand how it is that in each region where many species of a genus have been produced, and where they now flourish, these same species should present many varieties; for where the manufactory of species has been active, we might expect, as a general rule, to find it still in action; and this is the case if varieties be incipient species. Moreover, the species of the large genera, which afford the greater number of varieties or incipient species, retain to a certain degree the character of varieties; for they differ from each other by a less amount of difference than do the species of smaller genera. The closely allied species also of the larger genera apparently have restricted ranges, and they are clustered in little groups round other species -- in which respects they resemble varieties. These are strange relations on the view of each species having been independently created, but are intelligible if all species first existed as varieties.

As each species tends by its geometrical ratio of reproduction to increase inordinately in number; and as the modified descendants of each species will be enabled to increase by so much the more as they become more diversified in habits and structure, so as to be enabled to seize on many and widely different places in the economy of nature, there will be a constant tendency in natural selection to preserve the most divergent offspring of any one species. Hence during a long-continued course of modification, the slight differences, characteristic of varieties of the same species, tend to be augmented into the greater differences characteristic of species of the same genus. New and improved varieties will inevitably supplant and exterminate the older, less improved and intermediate varieties; and thus species are rendered to a large extent defined and distinct objects. Dominant species belonging to the larger groups tend to give birth to new and dominant forms; so that each large group tends to become still larger, and at the same time more divergent in character. But as all groups cannot thus succeed in increasing in size, for the world would not hold them, the more dominant groups beat the less dominant. This tendency in the large groups to go on increasing in size and diverging in character, together with the almost inevitable contingency of much extinction, explains the arrangement of all the forms of life, in groups subordinate to groups, all within a few great classes, which we now see everywhere around us, and which has prevailed throughout all time. This grand fact of the grouping of all organic beings seems to me utterly inexplicable on the theory of creation.

In summary, Varieties become species. Species become families. Families bcome kingdoms.

Either that, or they become extinct. Normally they become extinct.

Every species you see is most likely the consequence of one 'common ancestor' who was very special who started a long line of 'special' varieties within its species until it was so special, we identified it as a species.

[biknut]

No we didn't.

there is yet a further subclassification of apes (which as I mentioned, includes humans).

Hylobatidae, which includes gibbons, and hominids, whose living members includes, humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

White flag guys. I get the point. I didn't know a chimpanzee or gorilla is a hominid. I never heard that before. I thought apes were a different family of animals. I think elrond is studying to be a doctor so he probably knows.

[struct]

Come on Aegist, don't give them all the details about evolution. Keep some as 'classified'. We're still competing for food/resources, you know. If biknut-gang/eliijah-gang master the concept of evolution and become as intellegent as us (sorry if sounding arrogant) they won't die out and we (the other gang) have to really struggle to survive.

[biknut]

  Several species of Elephants, but all the humans on the earth are just one specie.

Not really. You, for example, seem to me as a different breed, a different species actually; so does elijah and his friends but a little bit, just a little bit, different from you.
monkey, monkey, monkey, donkey, donkey, donkey, cat, snake, dog,
o I forgot the elephant. elegant elephant. and the flies.

Yep, I'm different alright.


Can't you tell from my picture I'm a chinese lion. lol

[Aegist]

No we didn't.

there is yet a further subclassification of apes (which as I mentioned, includes humans).

Hylobatidae, which includes gibbons, and hominids, whose living members includes, humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

White flag guys. I get the point. I didn't know a chimpanzee or gorilla is a hominid. I never heard that before. I thought apes were a different family of animals. I think elrond is studying to be a doctor so he probably knows.

Well I think you will find that a large portion of the population here are trained biologists (I've completed my degree in Molecular Biology, and a degree majoring in History and philosophy of science). Elrond is definitely studying something, but I doubt it is medicine, because most people here aren't interested in being doctors, they are usually much more interested in research.

Anyway, the article here says I am an american evolutionary biologist. Beat that!
(see the 6th result down : http://www.google.co...1&start=30&sa=N which is in german, but you can get the gist: "der amerikanische Evolutionsbiologe Shane Greenup" LOL)
(of course its wrong on two counts, but I still laugh my arse off everytime I google my own name.)

[Aegist]

Come on Aegist, don't give them all the details about evolution.  Keep some as 'classified'.  We're still competing for food/resources, you know.  If biknut-gang/eliijah-gang master the concept of evolution and become as intellegent as us (sorry if sounding arrogant) they won't die out and we (the other gang) have to really struggle to survive.

maybe thats a concern for you struct, but i'm one of those special ones which will end up starting my own 'kingdom'....

(now that is arrogant [tung] )

[struct]

Can't you tell from my picture I'm a chinese lion. lol

No I can't. Your picture looks like ... hmmmm...... let me see. ........... I can't tell. Maybe it's a colorful piece of crap.
But I could tell from your superficial writings.

[eternaltraveler]

Elrond is definitely studying something, but I doubt it is medicine, because most people here aren't interested in being doctors, they are usually much more interested in research.

I am studying medicine, I am also studying microbiology(medical bioremediation specifically). I'm working on a dual degree, an MD/MSc (which may or may not end up being a MD/PhD). Currently my thought is my MD/MSc will allow me to do the research I want, so going all out for the MD/PhD might be overkill at best and a waste of time at worst, but we'll see).

I am interested in being a doctor and a researcher, because not only do I want to develop aging therapies, I'd like to apply them too )

[struct]

Come on Aegist, don't give them all the details about evolution.  Keep some as 'classified'.  We're still competing for food/resources, you know.  If biknut-gang/eliijah-gang master the concept of evolution and become as intellegent as us (sorry if sounding arrogant) they won't die out and we (the other gang) have to really struggle to survive.

maybe thats a concern for you struct, but i'm one of those special ones which will end up starting my own 'kingdom'....

(now that is arrogant [tung] )

Not a concern for me either; I hardly see them as competitors. I just wanted to bring the point that even small groups of individuals of the same species or even a couple (male&female) could be originators of a new species which could also branch to other ones. You brought a good example also "i'm one of those special ones which will end up starting my own 'kingdom"". I think, ignoring for a moment the definition of a species which somewhat is arbitrary, every individual could be seen, under a 'super fine speciescope" as a seperate species.

[stephenszpak]

But if the Father doesn't move, those that don't know God here will
regard such posts as crazy stories.

But you do believe God could use posts such as we make to move the hearts of unbelievers? Wouldn't it be nice if God turned a bunch of the atheists and agnostics that participate in these forums into believers? Aegist and others might, at least, arrive at a new understanding like professor Antony Flew did.

I don't know if this will surprise anyone or not, but it isn't the Father's will
to save everyone.

But doesn't 2 Peter 3:9 say the Lord doesn't want anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance?

See personal e-mail.

-Stephen

[Aegist]

I think, ignoring for a moment the definition of a species which somewhat is arbitrary, every individual could be seen, under a 'super fine speciescope" as a seperate species.

Absolutely. I think this is 100% correct.

'Species' is just an arbitrary term which we decide to bound to what we will. Same as a 'gene' and a 'colour'. In reality there is no such thing as 'a gene' or 'a colour' or 'a species', there is a continuum of DNA, a continuum of lightwave lengths and a continuation of individuals. Our attempt to nominate a species is basically saying 'You all look like you have come from one common ancestral individual or population which has diverged from the main population.

Maybe not every speciation can be traced back to one single common ancestor, but it certainly seems likely to have happened in most cases, hence all the talk about 'mitochondrial eve', the one ancestor which we can trace back via our mitochondrial DNA to show that she was the common ancestor to us all (not necessarily the most recent, but at least one of the).

Elrond: Cool. Doctor AND Research. Thats hardcore I always worried more about the research than the application (since the application will be irrelevent until the science has been made), but there is no doubt a huge benefit in understand the application for additional consideration in the research process!

[biknut]

Can't you tell from my picture I'm a chinese lion. lol

No I can't. Your picture looks like ... hmmmm...... let me see. ........... I can't tell. Maybe it's a colorful piece of crap.
But I could tell from your superficial writings.

Hey struct... piece of crap?

Just because I'm a beautiful $1000 Chinese lion, and you're obviously a common ordinary ***** , you don't need to get sore about it.

You could learn a lesson from elijah3, and a few others around here. I don't think I've agreed with elijeh3 in one single thread we've posted in, but he's never once felt the need for a caricature assassination. If I'm going to live another 1000 years I'd rather it be with the likes of his species than your arrogant foul mouthed homo species.


Edited by Live Forever: Please don't use those kinds of names to describe people.

Edited by Live Forever, 02 March 2007 - 06:38 PM.

[struct]

First, you were kind of begging for a comment about your avatar and, honestly, I still think that your avatar looks more like a beautiful moldy piece of crap than a Chinese lion. You should ask others 'what they think of it'.
Second, I was just giving my opinion about your avatar (since you ask for it) and did not make any offensive comment about you personally.
I think your last comment ('arrogant foul mouthed home species') could be interpret as offense even though it does not affect me much, and if that is your true opinion I respect that.

Yea, that will be good if you stick with elijah's gang for the next 1000 years (if you can make it that far).

[biknut]

First, you were kind of begging for a comment about your avatar and, honestly, I still think that your avatar looks more like a beautiful moldy piece of crap than a Chinese lion.  You should ask others 'what they think of it'.
Second, I was just giving my opinion about your avatar (since you ask for it) and did not make any offensive comment about you personally.
I think your last comment ('arrogant foul mouthed home species') could be interpret as offense even though it does not affect me much, and if that is your true opinion I respect that.

Yea, that will be good if you stick with elijah's gang for the next 1000 years (if you can make it that far).

That's fair enough. I felt your comment was meant to be offensive so I responded in like kind. I guess I'm not as evolved as elijah3 because he gets quite a lot of offensive comments directed at him but I haven't seen him respond in the negative. Maybe we could both learn something from him. At any rate if you say you respect my opinion, then of course, I'll respect yours.

[Live Forever]

Let us all keep in mind that it is perfectly reasonable to argue against someone's ideas, worldview, religious doctrine, whatever, but personal attacks are not permitted.

[struct]

I felt your comment was meant to be offensive so I responded in like kind.

Since you accepted that your response was an offensive kind of response and since Live Forever (navigator) identified at least one of your words as offensive, shouldn't you apologize to me?

[eternaltraveler]

Let us all keep in mind that it is perfectly reasonable to argue against someone's ideas, worldview, religious doctrine, whatever, but personal attacks are not permitted.

Indeed. Please keep things civil.

[biknut]

I felt your comment was meant to be offensive so I responded in like kind.

Since you accepted that your response was an offensive kind of response and since Live Forever (navigator) identified at least one of your words as offensive, shouldn't you apologize to me?

Sure, Please accept my apologies for any comments I made that you may have found offensive.

[william7]

Wow, Aegist.

I am impressed.

I haven't seen a smack down like that since Tyson fought that one white dude in the mid-90s and knocked him out in the first minute of the first round.

Good work.

Knowledge and critical thinking is the enemy of religious dogma.

I'm kind of curious about what caused a college educated agnostic to applaud Aegist's atheist dogma. I hope I haven't ticked you off in anyway. It's not my objective to tick off Aegist or anybody else with my posts. My apology goes out to anyone who may be offended by my posts - including Aegist. My intent is to be helpful and inspire the critical thinking you approve of.

I'm very disappointed that you would compare me and Ageist's discussion to a professional heavyweight fight. What is your purpose in that? Professional heavyweight fights are basically two fools beating each others brains out for a large sum of money. They risk death and serious brain damage in later life and are negative examples to youth and the community. The aggressive behavior they role model definitely isn't pro-longevity by any means.

I'm going to try and catch up with all the posts in this thread and respond. We just experienced a nasty storm that knocked out the power. I was up all last night wrestling with generators and kerosene heaters and shoveling snow and slush during the day. I also experienced my first Internet withdrawal symptoms. I need to recuperate a bit.

[Live Forever]

Lol, elijah. I wasn't ticked off, I was just thoroughly impressed with the way that Aegist went point by point and rebutted everything said in a swift series of posts, while doing so in a way that was highly logical and made a lot of sense. (to me at least) No disrespect intended, it was just an impressive display I thought.

Oh, and the reference to boxing was just because I like watching boxing (and mixed martial arts) on tv.

[struct]

We just experienced a nasty storm that knocked out the power.

nasty storm knocking out the power....... hmmm ......... knock out as in boxing/wrestling

I was up all last night wrestling with generators and kerosene heaters .......

So who is the winner? I Hope you knocked the generatores and the kerosene heaters out.
Excuse my english; it's my second language but I thought 'knock out' and 'wrestling' are used in sports like in heavyweight fight. Are you comparing or hinting some similarities of these two situations with the heavyweight fighting?
thou judge not so that thou don't get judged (or something like that).

[william7]

Lol, elijah. I wasn't ticked off, I was just thoroughly impressed with the way that Aegist went point by point and rebutted everything said in a swift series of posts, while doing so in a way that was highly logical and made a lot of sense. (to me at least) No disrespect intended, it was just an impressive display I thought.

Oh, and the reference to boxing was just because I like watching boxing (and mixed martial arts) on tv.

I thought you were trying to irritate or provoke me. "Smack down" is pretty harsh language where I come from. I remember a post you made sometime ago where you basically admit to trying to run off religious types from these forums. Even though you changed your position in response to someone else's post, I considered it a Freudian slip that revealed your true self in the matter. So, I was just wondering if you were up to your old tricks again?

By the way, Aegist didn't come close to smacking me down as you say. He was unable to adequately refute the points I made in support of my position and opposed to his. Take, just for example, where Aegist suggests that college educated people are some how better than those without such degrees. This is a big fallacy unsupported by facts and evidence. After close examination, I'm sure you'll find that it's really those college educated people that are mucking up the world and causing all the problems. Isn't it the college educated rich who are oppressing the poor, uneducated common folk of the world with crafty capitalistic ideas and obviously false theories of evolution without an intelligent Creator behind the process? James 2:5-7.

The same goes for the point Aegist made about the statistics on prisoners in correctional facilities showing large numbers to be religious. I know this to be absolutely false. Those prisoners, for the most part, are atheist wolves in sheep's clothing from my experience. They take on the cloak of religion in order to survive their situation and as a tool to manipulate others to their own advantage as a part of an antisocial agenda. Statistics are very misleading when it comes to to how people really feel and act as opposed to what they say when they fill out the form used as a basis for the statistic. People can be very deceptive - even deceiving themselves at times.

Edited by elijah3, 03 March 2007 - 12:18 PM.

[william7]

We just experienced a nasty storm that knocked out the power.

nasty storm knocking out the power....... hmmm ......... knock out as in boxing/wrestling

So who is the winner? I Hope you knocked the generatores and the kerosene heaters out.
Excuse my english; it's my second language but I thought 'knock out' and 'wrestling' are used in sports like in heavyweight fight. Are you comparing or hinting some similarities of these two situations with the heavyweight fighting?
thou judge not so that thou don't get judged (or something like that).

No, not at all. We're experiencing one of those language misunderstandings from what you say. Here in the United States people frequently use "knock out" when referring to the lose of power in a storm. I'm only repeating the term others use for describing the same situation as I'm sure others who speak English fluently will tell you. The same goes for "wrestling" with something. I think these uses of language are called metaphors if I'm not mistaken. They're linguistic devices for artfully describing a matter - not to be take literally.

You're English is pretty good from what I've seen. I wouldn't of known it was your second language had you not mentioned it. It must be nice to be bilingual. I wish I had a second language. I have enough problems with this one, however, to start on a second one.

[Live Forever]

I thought you were trying to irritate or provoke me. "Slap down" is pretty harsh language where I come from.

I never said anything about slapping. Slapping is girly. I said smack down, and used it in reference to boxing. I used it in relation to the logical superiority he showed with the arguments he expressed. I never mentioned anyone personally, I mentioned his smack down of ideas.

I remember a post you made sometime ago where you basically admit to trying to run off religious types from these forums.

Please find a reference for this. I don't think I ever said that it was good to run off anyone. I am for the inclusion of as many people as possible in our movement. If you have seen any of the outreach efforts I have been a part of, then you would know I was. But, I don't know why I should feel the need to justify myself to you...

Even though you changed your position in response to someone else's post

I am always open to new ideas and am willing to change my position on a whole host of things based on new information. However, I have to admit I don't know what you are talking about in this particular instance of how I changed my mind.

, I considered it a Freudian slip that revealed your true self in the matter.

Uuuh, perhaps. I still don't know what you are talking about though. I was only congratulating Aegist on a nice performance.

So, I was just wondering if you were up to your old tricks again?

This is bordering on an ad hominem attack on my character. I have never used "tricks" as you state. Please do not attack my character. You are free to attack any ideas or arguments I put forth, but attacking someone by calling them names is expressly forbidden.

By the way, Aegist didn't come close to slapping me down as you say.

Well, 1) again I didn't say "slapping", 2) I certainly didn't say it was you he was smacking down, it was your ideas, 3) it wasn't just your ideas he was smacking down. (other people were included) But, if you feel that way then argue him point by point, and quit spending time attacking me.

He was unable to adequately refute the points I made in support of my position and opposed to his.

That is your opinion. Tell him where he made mistakes. This is the basis of a good argument, showing the flaws in the other person's logic.

Take, just for example, where Aegist suggests that college educated people are some how better than those without such degrees. This is a big fallacy unsupported by facts and evidence.

I was talking more about his arguments in favor of evolution, but wherever you think he made a misstatement, then feel free to back up your opposing hypothesis with data. I do not know of any studies showing that non-college educated individuals have a higher intelligence rating than those who graduate college, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

After close examination, I'm sure you'll find that it's really those college educated people that are mucking up the world and causing all the problems. Isn't it the college educated rich who are oppressing the poor, uneducated common folk of the world with crafty capitalistic ideas and obviously false theories of evolution without an intelligent Creator behind the process? James 2:5-7.

Do you have any hard evidence to back up this assertation that it is the college educated people who are "mucking up the world and causing all the problems" as you say, or is it purely conjecture on your part? Again, I would love to see some evidence supporting your claims.

The same goes for the point Aegist made about the statistics on prisoners in correctional facilities showing large numbers to be religious. I know this to be absolutely false.

Then provide evidence to the contrary. You can't just say something, you have to provide a study or some evidence for you to win on a particular point.

Those prisoners, for the most part, are atheist wolves in sheep's clothing from my experience. They take on the cloak of religion in order to survive their situation and as a tool to manipulate others to their own advantage as a part of an antisocial agenda. Statistics are very misleading when it comes to to how people really feel and act as opposed to what they say when they fill out the form used as a basis for the statistic. People can be very deceptive - even deceiving themselves at times.

Again more conjecture. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but unless you provide evidence (polls, studies, anything!) that backs up your claims, then they are only claims.


Now, I am happy to argue with you all day, but please quit calling me names and insinuating that I am somehow devious in the way I argue. I have beliefs that are backed up by data and reasoning. I am happy to provide the reasoning behind any of my beliefs, and am even happy to change my beliefs should evidence support a different conclusion than the one I had originally formed. Now, if you want to go through Aegist's arguments and tell me why they are incorrect (using evidence, not just saying they are wrong because it is something you believe) then I will be more than willing to hear it, but until then my original praise of the quality of his arguments stands.

[william7]

I never said anything about slapping. Slapping is girly. I said smack down, and used it in reference to boxing. I used it in relation to the logical superiority he showed with the arguments he expressed. I never mentioned anyone personally, I mentioned his smack down of ideas.

Live Forever, I stand corrected on the "slap down" part. As you'll notice, I changed this a minute before you made your post. Still, a "smack down" is basically the same thing. I can't see a major difference. In fact, it evoked the same thing in my mind.

Please find a reference for this. I don't think I ever said that it was good to run off anyone. I am for the inclusion of as many people as possible in our movement. If you have seen any of the outreach efforts I have been a part of, then you would know I was. But, I don't know why I should feel the need to justify myself to you...

Here's the link to where you say we usually run religious types off. I do realize you are a dedicated Imminst member. You do, do an excellent job at this. Better than most.

I am always open to new ideas and am willing to change my position on a whole host of things based on new information. However, I have to admit I don't know what you are talking about in this particular instance of how I changed my mind.

Here's the link to where you modified your response.

This is bordering on an ad hominem attack on my character. I have never used "tricks" as you state. Please do not attack my character. You are free to attack any ideas or arguments I put forth, but attacking someone by calling them names is expressly forbidden.

I'm in no way calling you names by asking you if you might be up to your "old tricks again." This isn't name calling by any stretch of the imagination. In light of the previous post you made, this is only a phrase used to ask a legitimate question. But if you insist that this is an insult, please except my apology and consider the wording of my question to be are you up to your "old tactics again?"

Well, 1) again I didn't say "slapping", 2) I certainly didn't say it was you he was smacking down, it was your ideas, 3) it wasn't just your ideas he was smacking down. (other people were included) But, if you feel that way then argue him point by point, and quit spending time attacking me

I'm in no way "attacking" you as you say. I'm only questioning you as to your motives.

I was talking more about his arguments in favor of evolution, but wherever you think he made a misstatement, then feel free to back up your opposing hypothesis with data. I do not know of any studies showing that non-college educated individuals have a higher intelligence rating than those who graduate college, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

Do you have any hard evidence to back up this assertation that it is the college educated people who are "mucking up the world and causing all the problems" as you say, or is it purely conjecture on your part? Again, I would love to see some evidence supporting your claims.

Sometimes there is no data or hard evidence in the form of research reports that you would consider to be authoritive or substantial proof. Sometimes the only thing available is commonsense reasoning from observation and experience. To me it's painfully obvious that it's the so-called highly educated people on the higher rungs of the social ladder in big business, government, newsmedia, etc., who are causing all the big problems in life. It certainly isn't the poor uneducated people without power or privilege. This should be commonsense.

Isn't it the purpose of these forums to show where research is lacking or where such research is flawed for failure to address certain matters accurately?

Again more conjecture. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but unless you provide evidence (polls, studies, anything!) that backs up your claims, then they are only claims.

Again, the form of evidence you respect may not be available. However, I might be able to find something that a criminologist or correctional official has said in the newsmedia that supports my point. I know there are court opinions that mention the problems of religious gangs in prisons, but I can't think of one I can turn up easily without doing a major legal research which would take time. I don't have the computer programs, like Westlaw provides, for doing serious legal research.

Now, I am happy to argue with you all day, but please quit calling me names and insinuating that I am somehow devious in the way I argue. I have beliefs that are backed up by data and reasoning. I am happy to provide the reasoning behind any of my beliefs, and am even happy to change my beliefs should evidence support a different conclusion than the one I had originally formed. Now, if you want to go through Aegist's arguments and tell me why they are incorrect (using evidence, not just saying they are wrong because it is something you believe) then I will be more than willing to hear it, but until then my original praise of the quality of his arguments stands.

Again, I have in no way intentionally insulted you or called you any names. You are obviously being overly sensitive on this point. Possibly the next time you congratulate someone you consider as being the victor in a debate you could point to the actual flaws in the reasoning of who you consider to be the loser of the debate. This would help that person understand what you consider to be the flaws of his argument and give him an opportunity to improve on it or shore up its weaknesses.

[william7]

But if the Father doesn't move, those that don't know God here will
regard such posts as crazy stories.

But you do believe God could use posts such as we make to move the hearts of unbelievers? Wouldn't it be nice if God turned a bunch of the atheists and agnostics that participate in these forums into believers? Aegist and others might, at least, arrive at a new understanding like professor Antony Flew did.

I don't know if this will surprise anyone or not, but it isn't the Father's will
to save everyone.

But doesn't 2 Peter 3:9 say the Lord doesn't want anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance?

See personal e-mail.

-Stephen

I checked out your e-mail. I agree that Aegist doesn't appear to be interested in Creationism at this time. That could easily change, however. People do modify their beliefs due to intake of new ideas presented in different ways. Professor Flew is certainly a good example of this process taking place.

I would much rather be arguing my model of Christian communism for solution of world problems and for substantially extending the human lifespan which I consider to be the more important matter of the Scriptures. Have you ever checked out the UCG booklet Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? and their video at http://www.beyondtod...ProgramID=bt015? I guess people do have to make the first step with a belief in the existence of God before they can do a serious study of the Scriptures and come to an understanding of what God wants them to do to improve the quality of their life and the lives of others. What do you think?

I'll take what you said in your e-mail into serious consideration. Thanks!

[Live Forever]

[quote][quote]I never said anything about slapping. Slapping is girly. I said smack down, and used it in reference to boxing. I used it in relation to the logical superiority he showed with the arguments he expressed. I never mentioned anyone personally, I mentioned his smack down of ideas.[/quote]
Live Forever, I stand corrected on the "slap down" part. As you'll notice, I changed this a minute before you made your post. Still, a "smack down" is basically the same thing. I can't see a major difference. In fact, it evoked the same thing in my mind.[/quote]
Yes, that is fine. As I said, it was used in relation to a logical superiority. Whether it is slap or smack is irrelevant to that point.

[quote][quote]Please find a reference for this. I don't think I ever said that it was good to run off anyone. I am for the inclusion of as many people as possible in our movement. If you have seen any of the outreach efforts I have been a part of, then you would know I was. But, I don't know why I should feel the need to justify myself to you...[/quote]
Here's the link to where you say we usually run religious types off. I do realize you are a dedicated Imminst member. You do, do an excellent job at this. Better than most.[/quote]
You can't be serious. You are taking a post I clearly made in jest (I used the shifty eyes and everything) to mean you think I actually want to run religious people off? Surely you are joking. If you are then haha, jokes on me, but if you are truly serious, then I can see how you easily misunderstand things. Wow. that is all I have to say about that, haha. I am going to go on the assumption that you are joking on this one, because there is no possible way that anyone could take a one line post that is clearly in jest to be my entire view on the subject. I am simply floored at this one.


[quote][quote]I am always open to new ideas and am willing to change my position on a whole host of things based on new information. However, I have to admit I don't know what you are talking about in this particular instance of how I changed my mind.[/quote]
Here's the link to where you modified your response.[/quote]
Nope, no modification. In fact, it is just a clarification. Obviously it was in jest. I never changed any position, just stated it clearly. So, no, I didn't change my view on anything.

[quote][quote]This is bordering on an ad hominem attack on my character. I have never used "tricks" as you state. Please do not attack my character. You are free to attack any ideas or arguments I put forth, but attacking someone by calling them names is expressly forbidden.[/quote]
I'm in no way calling you names by asking you if you might be up to your "old tricks again." This isn't name calling by any stretch of the imagination. In light of the previous post you made, this is only a phrase used to ask a legitimate question. But if you insist that this is an insult, please except my apology and consider the wording of my question to be are you up to your "old tactics again?"[/quote]
What old tactics are they that you speak of? Using logic and reasoning? Those most obviously aren't tricks. I can see that you are up to your old tactics of conjecture, avoidance, non-information (I would say "disinformation" but for the most part it is devoid of any content at all), and quite obviously changing the subject to pick a fight with me when I simply applaud someone for making some very sound and seemingly airtight arguments. (which is possibly why you have still yet to respond to them and instead focus on me when I am quite obviously not the focus of this thread)


[quote][quote]Well, 1) again I didn't say "slapping", 2) I certainly didn't say it was you he was smacking down, it was your ideas, 3) it wasn't just your ideas he was smacking down. (other people were included) But, if you feel that way then argue him point by point, and quit spending time attacking me[/quote]
I'm in no way "attacking" you as you say. I'm only questioning you as to your motives.[/quote]
My motives are to extend human lifespans as much as possible. In the context of this thread, however, my motive was simply to say someone made some great logical arguments for evolution. (the subject of the thread) Personally, I believe evolution is above reproach. There is a virtual unanimous decision among any scientist even remotely related to a field having anything to do with evolution that it is indeed a fact. You said yourself that it could be that God used the process of evolution to attain his means. As I stated a couple times already, I am very much in favor of anyone's right to hold that position, as long as they aren't discounting good science. Anything outside of scientifically observed phenomena, I feel people have every right to speculate on, but to say that evolution isn't correct when it clearly is discredits an entire religion, and gives the appearance of what some might make fun of.


[quote]
[quote]I was talking more about his arguments in favor of evolution, but wherever you think he made a misstatement, then feel free to back up your opposing hypothesis with data. I do not know of any studies showing that non-college educated individuals have a higher intelligence rating than those who graduate college, but I am happy to be proven wrong.[/quote]
[quote]Do you have any hard evidence to back up this assertation that it is the college educated people who are "mucking up the world and causing all the problems" as you say, or is it purely conjecture on your part? Again, I would love to see some evidence supporting your claims.[/quote]
Sometimes there is no data or hard evidence in the form of research reports that you would consider to be authoritive or substantial proof. Sometimes the only thing available is commonsense reasoning from observation and experience. To me it's painfully obvious that it's the so-called highly educated people on the higher rungs of the social ladder in big business, government, newsmedia, etc., who are causing all the big problems in life. It certainly isn't the poor uneducated people without power or privilege. This should be commonsense.[/quote]
First off, I think you meant to say "It certainly is the poor uneducated people without power or privilege.", because if you are truly asserting that poor, uneducated people have lots of power and priviledge, then that makes no sense.

But, aside from that, you are clearly changing what you originally said.

Your original statement:
[quote]Take, just for example, where Aegist suggests that college educated people are some how better than those without such degrees. This is a big fallacy unsupported by facts and evidence. After close examination, I'm sure you'll find that it's really those college educated people that are mucking up the world and causing all the problems. Isn't it the college educated rich who are oppressing the poor, uneducated common folk of the world with crafty capitalistic ideas and obviously false theories of evolution without an intelligent Creator behind the process? James 2:5-7.

The same goes for the point Aegist made about the statistics on prisoners in correctional facilities showing large numbers to be religious. I know this to be absolutely false. Those prisoners, for the most part, are atheist wolves in sheep's clothing from my experience. They take on the cloak of religion in order to survive their situation and as a tool to manipulate others to their own advantage as a part of an antisocial agenda. Statistics are very misleading when it comes to to how people really feel and act as opposed to what they say when they fill out the form used as a basis for the statistic. People can be very deceptive - even deceiving themselves at times.[/quote]
Is a whole lot different than the above one. If you say that Aegist says that statistics say one thing, and you say that is absolutely false (your words, not mine), then that would be a very easy thing to prove him wrong on. Just show that the statistics don't show what he says they show, and you have won the point! There really is only one way to show that he is wrong, and that is to show that when he says the statistics show one thing, that he is incorrect. You can't say things like "I know this to be absolutely false." if you haven't researched what he said. How do you know the statistics don't show what he says they show if you haven't researched the statistics?

Perhaps an example? If I said, the statistics show that a majority of women voted Republican in the last election. That statement is easily verifiable. You could look up the data and see if it is correct or not. But, if you said you knew it was false just based on an intuition you had, then it is not believable. Certain statements are verifiable one way or another, and Aegist's statements on whether there were higher concentrations of certain populations that believe one thing or another are clearly verifiable. You can't say that you "feel" they are incorrect and expect to persuade anyone.


[quote]Isn't it the purpose of these forums to show where research is lacking or where such research is flawed for failure to address certain matters accurately?[/quote]
Yes!!!! Thant is my entire point! If you point out where something is wrong, then you win the point of that argument. You can't say it is something you believe, though. You have to show evidence why you believe something. You can't simply make wild statements with no proof and expect them to be taken seriously. This question you are asking is a good starting point though! It shows that you are at least grasping the concept of what is needed to persuade people. Just always think of this question when you are trying to argue with one of us! If you are arguing something, and you feel the urge to say that you disagree with something because that is the way you feel, or that is what the Bible says, or something else, think of this exact question in your head, and think "What proof can I use to prove my point", or "What logic can I use to argue this point". I think you are getting closer to the kind of mindset that is needed. This is progress! (makes me very happy)

[quote][quote]Again more conjecture. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but unless you provide evidence (polls, studies, anything!) that backs up your claims, then they are only claims.[/quote]Again, the form of evidence you respect may not be available. However, I might be able to find something that a criminologist or correctional official has said in the newsmedia that supports my point. I know there are court opinions that mention the problems of religious gangs in prisons, but I can't think of one I can turn up easily without doing a major legal research which would take time. I don't have the computer programs, like Westlaw provides, for doing serious legal research.[/quote]
You are twisting the question. I said the above in response to this statement:
[quote]Those prisoners, for the most part, are atheist wolves in sheep's clothing from my experience. They take on the cloak of religion in order to survive their situation and as a tool to manipulate others to their own advantage as a part of an antisocial agenda. Statistics are very misleading when it comes to to how people really feel and act as opposed to what they say when they fill out the form used as a basis for the statistic. People can be very deceptive - even deceiving themselves at times.[/quote]
So it is your assertion that Aegist was correct in his statistics statement (which is a clear departure from what you said originally, but that is fine) but that the statistics in question are faulty because people are deceptive when they answer questions. Well, there are clear ways in which surveys and things are conducted that can normalize this phenomena, through the use anonymous surveys and the protection of the identity of those who respond (so that they would have no incentive to lie, because the information would never get back to the gang about what they actually said). I am fairly positive that these are the types of conditions that are used to conduct these types of surveys.

If your assertion that prisoners lie on these surveys is correct, then there would be evidence to support such a claim, either through retractions, or a number of other means. (of which I can innumerate further) In short, if Aegist is correct (again, I have not done the research myself, just simply going on what he has said) then he has clear evidence to support his position. If you dispute his evidence, then you would need to show evidence that his data is faulty in some way. It can't just be a "feeling" that he is wrong.

[quote][quote]Now, I am happy to argue with you all day, but please quit calling me names and insinuating that I am somehow devious in the way I argue. I have beliefs that are backed up by data and reasoning. I am happy to provide the reasoning behind any of my beliefs, and am even happy to change my beliefs should evidence support a different conclusion than the one I had originally formed. Now, if you want to go through Aegist's arguments and tell me why they are incorrect (using evidence, not just saying they are wrong because it is something you believe) then I will be more than willing to hear it, but until then my original praise of the quality of his arguments stands.[/quote]
Again, I have in no way intentionally insulted you or called you any names. You are obviously being overly sensitive on this point. Possibly the next time you congratulate someone you consider as being the victor in a debate you could point to the actual flaws in the reasoning of who you consider to be the loser of the debate. This would help that person understand what you consider to be the flaws of his argument and give him an opportunity to improve on it or shore up its weaknesses.[/quote]
When you say I am "up to my old tricks" it is very clearly an insinuation that I use dirty tricks. It is not overly sensitive to say exactly what you said. I have no need to point to the flaws in the arguments of who I consider the "loser" (even though I didn't consider the debate over, I was simply saying he made some excellent points) because by definition, everything that the person I was congratulating just said was what I thought the "loser" (your term, not mine) fell down on. In other words, I could restate exactly the same points again, but that would serve no purpose whatsoever. The act of me congratulating him meant I agreed with what he just said. I could have restated it again, but that would have been pointless.


Could you please stop arguing with me now. I congratulated him and you have drawn this entire thread off topic arguing with me about it. If you don't want to argue about evolution vs creationism (the topic of this thread) then start another thread about something else, (your perceived grievances with me if you wish) but this is not the thread for it.

[william7]

Could you please stop arguing with me now. I congratulated him and you have drawn this entire thread off topic arguing with me about it. If you don't want to argue about evolution vs creationism (the topic of this thread) then start another thread about something else, (your perceived grievances with me if you wish) but this is not the thread for it

Since you've requested I stop arguing with you and have called these matters off topic, I will discontinue any further effort to reason with you on these points. My most humble apologies if you have been offended.

[Live Forever]

Could you please stop arguing with me now. I congratulated him and you have drawn this entire thread off topic arguing with me about it. If you don't want to argue about evolution vs creationism (the topic of this thread) then start another thread about something else, (your perceived grievances with me if you wish) but this is not the thread for it

Since you've requested I stop arguing with you and have called these matters off topic, I will discontinue any further effort to reason with you on these points. My most humble apologies if you have been offended.

Its all right, mate. I don't mind arguing with you about anything you want; I just was trying to keep this thread on topic. I was in no way offended. (don't worry about that, I am not easily offended)