Posted on 05/12/2013 1:02:58 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
What is it w this person? I wasn’t even posting to him, & he posted to me a bald-faced lie. That is the reason he has never backed up the accusation w a shred of evidence. (I.e.: a direct quote from me.) There IS no evidence. It is a completely scurrilous smear. When I point this out, he resorts to embarrassingly childish tactics. This is truly the lowest of the low.
Just how proud are you fellow evolutionists of these tactics? When they are used against a Christian, do you fully approve? Or is this just a rogue evolutionist, doing his best to make you all look bad?
That is a most curious argument.
Self-evidently, some critter-groups readily interbreed, others only reluctantly, and still others cannot be forced to interbreed under any conditions.
Normal scientific conventions identify groups which easily interbreed as different breeds or sub-species -- i.e., breeds of Dogs, sub-species of, say, Zebras.
If different groups interbreed only rarely, and unusually, then they get classified as separate species -- for example, Polar Bears and Brown Bears are known to occasionally interbreed in the wild, and are therefore classified as separate species.
When related groups can no longer interbreed, then they will be classified in a different genus, family, order, class, etc. depending on their degrees of separation from each other.
An example is Elephants -- African versus Asian.
They can't successfully interbreed, so are classified as different genera within the elephantidae family.
Within the African elephant genus are two species -- Bush and Forest Elephants.
Those are believed capable of interbreeding, though it has never been seen in the wild.
And the same is true of the three Asian Elephant sub-species.
By contrast, again consider Polar and Brown Bears -- once in separate genera, were recently reclassified as different species within the genus Ursus.
One reason is: they were found to have successfully interbred in the wild.
Point is: the scientific definition of "species" does not mean "impossible to interbreed with others", only unusual and/or difficult.
"Impossible" does not begin until the genus level, but even then some species in different genera can be forced to interbreed and produce viable offspring.
The example of beefalos comes to mind.
mbj: "The problem with any non-repeatable, unobservable, highly abstract theorizing like this is that it is simultaneously untestable and proves nothing."
Well... First of all, in formal scientific terms, no theory is ever "proved", so if you require "proof", then you won't find it in science.
Instead, science offers hypotheses which are explanations that can be falsified or confirmed through their predictions.
Second, examples of unconfirmed hypotheses are abiogenic and/or panspermic origins of life.
Scientists have looked and worked for decades to find confirming evidence, with limited success.
Third, when hypotheses are adequately confirmed, they are called theories.
Examples include theories of evolution and "old earth" time scales.
Now apparently you are claiming these theories have no value -- they "prove nothing", you say.
In fact, they are fundamental to our scientific understandings of nature and life.
Without them, we would comprehend very little of the world around us.
mbj: "Such a theory, even if false, might still have a feeble value if it could predict or model what we actually observe.
(Such a limited scientific value would be similar to prior incorrect models of the heavenly bodies.)
But the abstract, unobserved, untestable and unreproducible theory of evolution across species has been found of little worth in improving men's lives and also does not even help us begin to understand the creation of life."
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
First, the basic evolution idea (descent with modifications, natural selection) is not "abstract, unobserved, untestable and unreproducible" -- just the opposite, those are observed & confirmed facts.
Second, all of our understandings of genetics are based on evolution: i.e., how to improve farm animal breeds & crop varieties, are based on replacing evolution's "natural selection" with human selection.
Third, all of our understandings of DNA and the relationships among various life forms are built on the Evolution Theory model.
Fourth, evolution is confirmed by many other branches of science, and in return informs them.
For one example, understanding the Earth's age and geological "evolution" are essential to finding various mineral resources.
mbj: "Thankfully, Louis Pasteur put to rest the evolutionary nonsense of spontaneous generation from rotten meat that was strongly held in his time."
First, it's important to understand that the older Darwin himself knew nothing about genetics or DNA -- all that evolution-confirming evidence came later.
Nor did Darwin invent the idea of "spontaneous generation."
The younger Pasteur's work helped debunk that very old idea, and nobody since then has been able to demonstrate abiogenic origins of life -- though many have tried, and still try today.
Abiogenisis (like panspermia) remains an intriguing but unconfirmed scientific hypothesis.
mbj: "But 'An (allegorical) frog plus a hundred million years = prince', this is 'science'.
No, it's only science falsely so called."
Of course, no scientist has ever said exactly that, so the "falseness" is a figment of your imagination.
What the fossil, radio-metric & DNA records show is:
On average, large species lasted around a million years before either going extinct or significantly changing, so we are talking about at least hundreds of different species separating ourselves from the last common ancestor with frogs.
mbj: "What we see in truth is a marvelous panoply of intricate designs that vary in tiny ways to form the individual, within set limits of the species.
Species that men can't even begin to duplicate from scratch!
Amazing, wonderfully complex (yet spectacularly adaptable!) designs that reflect the splendid brilliance of nature's God!"
All true except that fossil & DNA evidence suggests: over long time periods there are no "set limits of the species".
Instead, there is a more-or-less average rate of genetic mutations which over time can result in modified life forms.
Over very long times, those new forms no longer interbreed and so are classified by scientists as new species, genera, families, etc.
mbj: "Evolution cannot even begin to explain the genesis of life!"
Basic evolution is not a theory of life's very beginning.
Only in a metaphorical sense -- such as we might say, "the Universe has evolved" or "the solar system evolved", neither having to do with biological evolution -- can we say "life's origin evolved".
How life might have originated is a subject of several unconfirmed hypotheses, any of which, as of today, are equally likely, or unlikely.
mbj: "My original point still stands: it is not in least bit foolish to consider there was a superseding set of laws in operation when the earth was formed and God created life, perhaps like aerodynamics supersede gravity."
Sure, that might have happened, and if it is necessary to your religious faith that it did happen, I'd say that's fine.
But by definition of the word "science", it's impossible -- or more precisely: it's not scientific.
Since science, by definition, is: "natural explanations for natural processes", and can only deal with real evidence, then regardless of your religious convictions, your suggestion has no scientific validity.
I posted no "bald-faced lie".
I've stated repeatedly, in so many words, that you respond to disagreements with personal attacks.
You have proved that correct in every post since.
So what is it with you?
Fantasywriter: "Just how proud are you fellow evolutionists of these tactics?"
The fact that you refuse to discuss evolution itself, and focus only on making false accusations against me, are surely not matters of pride to your fellow anti-evolutionists, are they?
Or is that itself, perhaps, the core-essence of anti-evolution arguments?
mbj: I have not been following this discussion at all. I lost all interest in evolution-related threads after witnessing a simply extraordinary level of dishonesty on them. I can’t tell you what to do, obviously, & wouldn’t presume to. If I were you, however, I’d shake the dust off my shoes & spend the valuable time God has given me elsewhere. Fwiw.
It is a simple indisputable fact that you have no real interest in the subject of this thread, and instead have spent nearly 100% of your efforts in personal attacks on me.
On another thread you attacked others who disagreed with you, rather than address the issues raised.
So your statement in post #26 of this thread simply continues your pattern of personal attacks:
And, that makes my response in post #27 totally accurate:
Of course your objective here is totally obvious, since you make no effort to hide it, ie., post #85 to mbj:
So, truth of the matter is, nobody here has been dishonest, except you, in your consistant pattern of personal attacks on those who disagree.
Indeed, it appears to me you've studied your Alinsky Rules rather carefully, and are putting them into practice here on Free Republic.
Here is the original smear:
“Clearly, a lot of misunderstandings here, beginning with Fantasywriter’s suggestion that those who disagree with her/him are “obnoxious & dishonest”.
Here are the direct quotes in which I said or implied such a thing, that have been posted as evidence to support the original smear:
It looks like I’m going to have to spell this out after all. I really resent having to take this much time, & I am appalled that there are adults w such a piddle poor grasp of logic that they can’t figure it out on their own. Nevertheless, here we go.
In a discussion, there are four general possibilities:
(1) you can agree w me & do so in an honest, minimally courteous way.
(1) you can agree w me & do so in a dishonest & discourteous way.
(3) you can disagree w me & do so in an honest, minimally courteous way.
(4) you can disagree w me & do so in a dishonest & discourteous—in some cases even obnoxious—way.
Why should I have to make such a basic point of logic in an adult setting? It’s ludicrous that some people can’t figure this out on their own. Maybe only evolutionists have this problem?
For the record, I encountered evolutionists who exhibited wholesale dishonesty & gratuitous obnoxiousness. This had nothing to do w whether they agreed w me or not. It had everything to do w dishonesty & obnoxiousness as stand-alone categories.
Sorry, but the only "wholesale dishonesty and gratutious obnoxiousness" I've seen on these threads came from Fantasywriter's personal attacks on FReepers who disagree.
I have named three of those posters: myself, Swing_Ladder and goodusername, and posted links to some of those attacks, for example, here.
The key and astonishing element is: through all of dozens of posts, no other topic seems to interest Fantasywriter.
So I say: Fantasywriter apparently has little interest in discussing the pros & cons of dinosaurs or evolution, but a passionate obsession with impeaching those who disagree.
Can these be anything other than Alinsky Rules? So we have to ask, why?
Quote the “personal attacks” verbatim.
>> “ and to explain why the fossilized specimen remained intact after 70-million years.” <<
.
These finds are showing evolution and old Earth fantasy for the joke that they are. But the patsies are still unable to take a look at reality.
>> “ Something is very wrong in science of age dating!” <<
.
What’s wrong is that there is no ‘Science’ involved.
Evolution and Old Earth theories are pure fallacy.
Note the links in post #86 for some of your assaults on Swing_Ladder and myself, FRiend.
If you need more, here is one of your attacks on goodusername.
And here is one of your insults to John Valentine.
That's why I really think you post under the wrong nom de FReep.
Instead of Fantasywriter, you should be Alinskywriter.
Then at least you'd honestly acknowledge the game you're playing here, FRiend.
Not at all.
Instead they demonstrate that under very unusual conditions, fossilization can begin before soft tissues have time to naturally decompose.
Say whatever pleases you, but both Evolution and "Old Earth" meet the criteria for confirmed scientific theories.
Yes, various hypotheses like abiogenic or panspermic origins of life are still basically unconfirmed, and therefore not considered valid theories.
But they all remain scientific hypotheses because they meet the first requirement of science: natural explanations for natural processes.
The reason you post links instead of quotes is because there are no personal attacks. If you posted the actual quotes you’d look silly, so you try to get by w links instead. Fail.
You know, this is really coming close to persecution. You made an original smear which is wholly untrue. You’ve never even tried to post a quote from me substantiating the smear because none exist.
Now you’re characterizing as “personal attacks” things that aren’t even close. Is all this acceptable because I am a Christian? Is lying about a Christian considered the fun thing to do on evolutionist threads?
No, believe it or not, I'm just trying to protect you from the embarrassment of having your nose rubbed in your own sins.
But it seems you are incapable of either honesty or shame.
You well know what you've said, and anyone reading here can see it all too, in full context, by following my links.
The fact remains that, sooner or later, you attack and insult nearly everyone who seriously disagreed with you on recent Evolution related threads -- all the while pretending that you are the one being "persecuted".
That's pure Alinsky, FRiend.
Post the “personal attacks” verbatim.
Click the links. Read them and weap, FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.