Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $52,305
59%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 59%!! Thank you all very much for your continuing support!

Posts by Vive ut Vivas

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Questions to Ask Mormons

    12/21/2009 11:04:26 AM PST · 6 of 17
    Vive ut Vivas to CondoleezzaProtege

    Would you like these standards applied to your religion too, CondoleezzaProtege?

  • New state board tackles evolution immediately (Kansas)

    01/11/2007 12:15:32 AM PST · 110 of 321
    Vive ut Vivas to csense
    Let me change that a little so we're clear: the phenotypic forms are all explainable by processes other than natural selection.

    Sure, they're all explainable by processes involving fairies and wizards. But we're interested in the best explanation that we can provide. As far as I am aware, natural selection is it in this case. I'm waiting for you to exhibit a better alternative (emphasis on "better").

    No, because you, not anyone else, has yet to show that natural selection is causal to genetic change.

    Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems trivial: genes that are selected out are selected out. They're gone. Whoosh! Bye!

  • New state board tackles evolution immediately (Kansas)

    01/10/2007 11:54:28 PM PST · 105 of 321
    Vive ut Vivas to csense
    Those phenotypic differences are all explained by processes other than natural selection

    Because you said so? Please elaborate, "sparky", what these processes are.
  • New state board tackles evolution immediately (Kansas)

    01/10/2007 11:44:05 PM PST · 103 of 321
    Vive ut Vivas to RussP
    If the physical universe itself was designed, why wouldn't life have been designed too? Because Richard Dawkins said so?

    Life could conceivably have been designed. But even if it were true that design was the best explanation for the existence of the universe as a whole, that would not in any way imply that design would be a better explanation than natural selection for the diversity of life on Earth.

    You might try reading something by Richard Dawkins, since he actually addresses (at considerable length in several different books) the question of why evolution is a better explanation for the properties of living things than intelligent design.
  • New state board tackles evolution immediately (Kansas)

    01/10/2007 11:34:32 PM PST · 102 of 321
    Vive ut Vivas to csense
    That's your answer? After that entire manifesto, you can't even answer a simple fundamental question that science itself demands?

    You asked this: why don't you tell me, and everyone else here, what physical, observable event, does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by mutation, drift, and/or recombination.

    Answer: large phenotypic differences between organisms with common ancestors living in different environments.
  • New state board tackles evolution immediately (Kansas)

    01/10/2007 11:18:17 PM PST · 99 of 321
    Vive ut Vivas to RussP
    And what if the "evidence" points to ID? Will scientists adopt that?

    Yes.

    Let me repeat a quote from Isaac Newton

    It was my understanding - and correct me if I'm wrong - that Newton lived nearly two centuries before Darwin.

    But I'll grant that Newton was "arguably the greatest scientist of all time", so I'd be very interested in what his argument was in favor of ID and particularly how it manages to withstand critiques based on our modern (i.e. post-Darwinian) understanding of biology. Perhaps you can summarize it for me.
  • New state board tackles evolution immediately (Kansas)

    01/10/2007 11:07:21 PM PST · 96 of 321
    Vive ut Vivas to csense
    Then why don't you tell me, and everyone else here, what physical, observable event, does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by mutation, drift, and/or recombination.

    mutation, drift, and/or recombination
    +
    death
    =
    Natural Selection
  • New state board tackles evolution immediately (Kansas)

    01/10/2007 9:45:46 PM PST · 90 of 321
    Vive ut Vivas to metmom; All
    Glossing over, ignoring, excusing, whatever you want to do about them, they still happened and fraud is STILL happening in science today. You can try all you want to make scientists look like the heros, but it's like painting a house that's falling apart; it may look good on the outside for a while, but it's integrity is still compromised and it's still going to collapse someday.

    I take it you're unfamiliar with the process of peer review. How unsurprising.

    The most laughable part of Creationist paranoia (and that's saying something) is that they envision this grand conspiracy, of evil "evolutionists" banding together to conjure up how they can keep the dying science of evolution alive - any day now, for 150 years, the mighty tower of evolution will come crashing down. The manufacturers of all those fake fossils will all be revealed. "God was here" will be visible on a strand of DNA and scientists will throw their arms up in resignation, because all the research they've been doing will have been made pointless....right. Regardless of the "rightness" or "wrongness" or evolution, its concepts allow for us to develop drugs and construct solutions to the problems around us. It provides a framework for the entire field of biology. It will be hard to "disprove" evolution, seeing how well it fits the model of nature, and it will only become more clarified with time. Evolution isn't going to come crashing down, leaving thousands unemployed, with nowhere to turn but to their local baptist church. When some major revelation occurs, biologists aren't going to be abandoning their labs in droves. They'll adapt their research to fit the new model and continue what they've always been doing. Those meds that you take aren't going to suddenly stop working once evolution is disproved, though part of me questions whether they ever worked for you at all.

    Ironically, those that base their entire lives around religion are the only ones that are not in pursuit of truth. They are forced to deny the clear evidence around them, because it interferes with their beliefs. The glorious thing about science is that if tomorrow, everything we've been doing is completely wrong, nothing about the scientific mindset or worldview will change. That's because science is the pursuit of knowledge - from scire, to know. If the evidence points to something, then the scientific mindset will adopt that until an even better explanation comes along. Creationists are stuck in the dark ages because they can't wrap their minds around the fact that they would be wrong. Scientists live their lives trying prove themselves wrong.

    I'm not sure what Creationists want to accomplish. Do they want scientists to stop investigating the world? Have published papers read "and then (insert deity of choice) causes this effect"? If just inserting "God" into a few key phrases in every paper will make you all shut up, I wouldn't be too opposed to it. It doesn't matter to me if you think fairies hold the atoms together. Whether or not fairies are that mysterious force behind everything is irrelevent in science, because science is only concerned with things that we can actually see. Okay, so humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, but God watched over us as we evolved. This doesn't enlighten us. This doesn't give us a greater understanding of how selection occurs. Do you want all research to stop, everyone throw up their hands and say "The world is the way it is because that's how God wants it, end of story!"?

    Believe what you want to believe. I am continually mystified at why you want people who are only concerned with observations of the natural world to justify your theological principles. The whole point of science education is to teach what the scientists think. I'm bewildered that a choice few seem to be unable to restrain themselves from sinning unless their magical friend in the sky is acknowledged by people for whom this magical friend in the sky is irrelevent.

    Creationists honestly frighten me because they act like the only thing keeping them from cannibalizing all of us is that the Bible says not to. Disprove the Bible, and it's hell on earth, so to speak. I suppose this is the reason they need those of us with half a brain to smile and nod to their silly arguments, because otherwise, they have no reason not to beat their wives and become flaming homosexuals.

    But it's okay, because when the mighty House of Science falls apart, we'll always have Darwin Central to take refuge. And make sure you donate every last dime to keep the lights on at FR, because it would be a shame if the House of Luddism falls down before the House of Science.
  • Dallas to promote "Gay-friendly tourism"

    01/07/2007 7:54:00 PM PST · 104 of 119
    Vive ut Vivas to driftdiver
    No, gay-friendly means being forced to give your approval, support and special cival rights for people whose lifestyles don't happen to jive with yours.

    Doing business with a person or group of people doesn't necessarily mean you "approve" of anything but their money.
  • Loving the Enemy - "I thought creationists were monsters, until I married one"

    01/07/2007 7:10:36 PM PST · 135 of 156
    Vive ut Vivas to GourmetDan
    Unfortunately, defining 'evolution' as a 'change in allele frequency in a population of imperfectly self-replicating organisms over multiple generations' means that 'evolution' is now perfectly consistent with a population that is in genetic decline from accumulating mutations.

    What is "genetic decline"?
  • Loving the Enemy - "I thought creationists were monsters, until I married one"

    01/07/2007 7:04:34 PM PST · 132 of 156
    Vive ut Vivas to metmom
    Those banned have been warned.

    All those that have been banned in this latest anti-science purge have been warned beforehand? I don't think you're quite right about that.
  • Loving the Enemy - "I thought creationists were monsters, until I married one"

    01/07/2007 6:04:51 PM PST · 119 of 156
    Vive ut Vivas to Ms. AntiFeminazi
    I never moderate a thread I participate on except to remove extreme obscenities if they appear.

    Too bad this policy isn't universally adopted by all the moderators, hmm?
  • Dallas to promote "Gay-friendly tourism"

    01/07/2007 3:16:29 PM PST · 20 of 119
    Vive ut Vivas to Jaysun
    "Gay friendly" simply means a place where you can readily find like-minded perverts to revel with.

    Funny, I thought it meant being accepting of people whose lifestyles don't happen to jive with yours.
  • Loving the Enemy - "I thought creationists were monsters, until I married one"

    01/07/2007 3:05:09 PM PST · 79 of 156
    Vive ut Vivas to Ms. AntiFeminazi

    Abortion is not one of these "science and politics crossing paths" issues. It's purely moral/political. When the discussion turns to a scientific area, like the TOE, then education becomes important.

  • Darwinian Evolution Incompatible with Catholic Faith says Cardinal and Author of Catholic Catechism

    01/07/2007 2:52:39 PM PST · 41 of 144
    Vive ut Vivas to Arcy
    When I look a painting, I know there is a painter.

    You know this how?
  • Loving the Enemy - "I thought creationists were monsters, until I married one"

    01/07/2007 2:42:08 PM PST · 76 of 156
    Vive ut Vivas to Ms. AntiFeminazi
    Who is having a discussion on the TOE, whatever that is? I was simply replying to a comment that someone says if they get banned, it will be for their pro-science comments, not their political beliefs, even though this is a political forum, not a science forum. I followed that with an observation regarding embryonic stem cell research, Christians, and conservatives. That requires me to know whatever TOE is? Who is the idiot?

    First of all, I didn't call you an idiot, just pointed out that you said something idiotic. Second of all, I was simply reacting to the statement you said that implied that nobody has to actually know anything about science to discuss it: When science and politics cross paths, science is open for discussion by everyone on this forum, not just so-called "scientists".

    And anyway, it seems that science is open to discussion by everyone on this forum but scientists.
  • Loving the Enemy - "I thought creationists were monsters, until I married one"

    01/07/2007 2:23:10 PM PST · 72 of 156
    Vive ut Vivas to Ms. AntiFeminazi
    I have no idea. Is what included and what is TOE and do I really need to know? I don't think so because this isn't a "science" forum. It is a political forum for conservatives. When science and politics cross paths, science is open for discussion by everyone on this forum, not just so-called "scientists".

    What an idiotic statement. You really think you can have a meaningful discussion on the TOE without knowing what it is? When science and politics cross paths, science is indeed open to discussion by everyone but that doesn't mean that the discussion isn't full of crap. I don't know what you think merits a discussion on evolution if you don't think needing to actually know anything about it is a prerequisite.
  • Tiktaalik' Simply Shows God's Divine Design, says Ken Ham

    04/25/2006 10:12:12 PM PDT · 40 of 139
    Vive ut Vivas to peyton randolph

    I see someone is a fan of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible :P

  • Dawkins: Religion equals 'child abuse'

    01/07/2006 11:11:31 PM PST · 10 of 282
    Vive ut Vivas to LibWhacker
    Richard Dawkins, dubbed "Darwin's Rottweiler,"

    That never fails to amuse me. Although Dawkins is rather...extreme...I have to say that: Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads is worth repeating.
  • Dover district legal fees likely to top $1 million Intelligent design suit lawyers dismissed

    01/07/2006 10:18:32 PM PST · 206 of 238
    Vive ut Vivas to DBeers
    In my opinion the real issue is WHY is the state eradicating God from public institutions?

    How else can the government refrain from taking sides?