segnosaur

Do you even know what the word "excerpts" means? I gave you the links, didn't I? Actually, for the Darwin quote you posted in the other thread you did not. As for this thread, while you did provide a link to the initial article, you didn't quote text that went against your point. (It may also be that the whole article you linked to was quote mined, since it was a second-hand account of statements Dawkings made, and not original material from him.) You see, with quote mining, if you take a quote out of context and use it to support your argument, it is still dishonest, even if you provide a reference to the original text. Its your use of the quote that's the issue. Your posts contained distortions. Sorry if you don't like being called out when you post material based on a lie. If you want to avoid my 'disruption', I'd suggest you actually learn a little science.

Actually, if you read the other thread, I give a more complete definition of what quote mining is. You see, Quote mining is not simply searching for a statement by someone, it also involves taking that statement and taking it out of context. In your Darwin example you took a quote where he was discussing how certain material wasn't going to be published in one particular book, and stated that it referred to the fact that he didn't believe the theory as a whole. In this case you're taking comments that Dawkings made regarding origins of the universe, and you are warping them to suggest he might support creationism or intelligent design. Now, before you post any more of your nonsense, please go back and re-read this post. Pay close attention to the part where I point out that quote mining involves taking quotes out of context. I'm sure we'll be seeing you do it again and again. (After all, creationists are some of the most dishonest people around.) But when I point out future incidents of you engaging in that practice, I want you to understand what exactly the term means. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining Quote mining is use of the fallacy of quoting out of context, repeatedly employing misquotation in an attempt to skew or contort the meaning and purpose of the original author regarding a controversial topic. .

Uhhh... no. You see, this is basically just a different form of 'quote mining'. Remember in the other thread when you repeatedly took some statement Darwin made out of context to suggest it meant something that it didn't? Well, this is just another form of that. What Dawkings is referring to is not that he'll start believing in some supernatural 'god', or that he's about to refute evolution. He's referring to the belief that many people have that, as we learn more about the universe, we'll uncover more about how things and why things were created.

Heh! Stop nagging me about Raelians. I'm not into science fiction....that's more up your alley! You're the one who keeps suggesting that we explore all options... And if we're going to explore all options, you should be prepared to explain why your little pet idea should be given credibility while others aren't. The Raelians certainly don't believe their beliefs are 'science fiction'. They are just as committed, and believe their is just as much scientific evidence to support their ideas as you think supports your ideas. If you don't want to deal with the Raeliens, explain why we shouldn't give cretibility to the Norse creation myths. Or the ancient Egyptian myths.

What Betsy is doing is engaging in a long-standing dishonest process known as 'Quote Mining'... quote mining happens when a creationist searches through evolutionary literature and picks up some phrase and takes it out of context. You see, Darwin never actually questioned his own theory. He was very confident that he had determined the proper mechanism for the change in species. The particular phrase that Betsy likes to repeat came at the start of Origin of Species, and the purpose was not to suggest evolution was 'wrong', but as a preamble preemptivley indicating that all possible objections to his theory would be dealt with. The Origin of Species was not designed to be a comprehensive, self-contained work, but to refer to and be referenced by other material that had been published. In fact, the introduction of Origin of Species ends with the following statement: I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable [changeless]; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendant of some other and generaly extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged variations of any one species are the descendants of that species.. http://books.google.ca/books?id=PvkRAAAAYA...esnum=9#PPA4,M1 (See: Page 4) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/revised-quote.html Strange how Betsy keeps repeating Darwin's quotes suggesting he doubted his own theory, while totally ignoring the above quote which stated quite strongly that he has 'no doubt' about evolution. I guess its easier to keep repeating quotes out of context rather than actually reading up on what Darwin ACTUALLY said. Does anyone else notice the irony? Betsy claims to be a christian. One of the commandments in the Bible that she thinks she follows is "Thou shalt not lie". Yet in order to try to prove her point, she engages in practices that are quite deceptive (namely quote mining.) Except for the fossil record, and genetic analysis, and actual observed cases of speciation and natural selection... But when would you let actual science get in the way of the Bible, a book that things Bats are a type of bird? Well, this rather illustrates a complete ignorance of science on the part of Betsy. You see, I've pointed this out before... The scientific definition of the word 'theory' has a specific meaning. It does not mean 'guess', or 'belief'; it means some explaination/principle which has withstood tremendous scrutiny. And evolution has. Ummm... no. Please point out this mass of 'equally qualified scientists' who refute evolution. Point to all their peer reviewed publications on the subject. You know, this has been pointed out to you before, but I guess its against the nature of a creationist to, you know, actually deal with stuff honestly... there are religious groups who also accept evolution as the correct explaination of how species are created. Somehow, others are able to assume that the existance of god is not contradicted by, you know, actually understanding science.

Because you're so full of "talkorigin!" ha-ha-ha I've also posted references to Origin of Species, university web sites, and peer reviewed articles. You see, I have a grasp on the basics of science. Your average creationist, on the other hand, does not. Just out of curiosity, what exactly was your reason for posting this quote? Are you by chance trying to argue that creationism or ID must be examined because darwin suggested "both sides" need to be examined? In that case, what is your position on the Raelians? Should their theories of creation be "examined" as well? Do you think their particular "theories" should be given weight? Or is it just the beliefs that you have that you feel are credible alternatives. I had asked that question before, but as expected, you ran away from it. Certainly not unexpected... after all, the creationist mindset is so full of irrationality, ignorance and faulty logic that, when presented with an actual dilemma they can't handle it.

What makes you think we haven't been informed about ID and other beliefs? You see, that type of attitude is common among belivers in creationism or ID... They love to point out little 'facts' that they learn, thinking that its the greatest discovery since sliced bread, even though in the vast majority of cases their 'discovery' has long been debunked. Yet given enough time, yet another creationist will re-discover the exact same 'fact', and the garbage gets recycled. We've seen the arguments for ID/creationism and against evolution. They've pretty much all been debunked. The difference is, those scientists who think that evolution is the correct theory for explaining life on earth are in the vast, vast majority of the scientific community. Those that are saying 'baloney' make up probably less than 1% of scientists, and many of those aren't even doing scientific research. Any challenges to evolution have already been made. Evolution won. The fact that a certain portion of the population who is ignorant of science thinks there is still a reason to 'debate' doesn't mean that evolution stands a chance at being declared 'wrong'; it just means that our education system must do a better job teaching critical thinking skills and science. Oh, and I notice you ignored one of the questions I asked... Since you think that evolution should have to deal with all "challenges", do you think that the Raelian theory of human origin should be given equal weight with ID and evolution? After all, its considered a 'challenge'. Isn't it worth discussing? Simple, because its the only 'theory' that actually comes close to describing the actual data, and those 'holes' are either A: cases of ignorant people not understanding science to begin with, or B: some refinement of the details of evolution by scientists which don't change the overall concept. No, Darwin did not "refute" or "question" his theory. He died knowing that he had come up with the correct analysis. As I pointed out, not only do a majority of the scientific community accept evolution, but many religious organizations, including the catholic church (representing over 1/3 of the population of North America) and the Episcopalians (anglicans). Well you've certainly put a lot of time and effort into cutting and pasting words from other people's web sites. But do you actually understand any of the science behind those articles? If not, why are you simply repeating other people's words? Why don't you try stating things your own way?

If talk.origins was just some web site put up by some anonymous individual, then yes, you'd have reasons to be skeptical. But, as someone else has pointed out, many of the people with articles (both on the site and in the newsgroup) actually do engage in original scienctific research, and the site does provide a multitude of references to peer-reviewed papers (even if the site isn't a peer reviewed site itself.) If you don't trust talk.origins, a more authoritative source is just a click away... How about removal of extraneous information? Correction of typos? Discussion of the merits of various content? Remember, a lot of people on talk-origins are doing cutting edge research. In some cases, they may be working on hypothesis for which there is reason for scientific debate. (This doesn't mean that they dispute evolution, just that they are working out some of the fine details.)

The idea that species may remain relatively stable over time, then change within a short amount of time was actually suggested BY DARWIN HIMSELF... But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly ... nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Origin of Species, Page 91... http://books.google.ca/books?id=PvkRAAAAYA...num=7#PPA91,M1) So, Darwin had a theory, and the evidence (in the form of the fossil record) supports that theory. Puncuated Equilibrium is not some concept that overrides Darwin's theories, but they basically represent a fine-tuning. Strange... about the only ones suggesting that there are 'holes' in the theory are those that don't do significant work in biology and related fields. I wonder why that is... Actually no, he didn't. And there is nothing wrong with his theory. Actually, no there aren't. You see, there is a particular definition of "theory" which is used by scientists... theory does not mean "guess" or "belief"... the term is only applied to concepts that A: have withstood considerable analysis, B: can be falsifiable. The vast vast majority of people who work in biological fields accept evolition as the only reasonable explaination that fits the observed data. Well, lets see... The Raelians have an idea of how humans came to be on earth. Should we give their alternative a look? If yes, then I have to ask, just what would it take for you to discount ANY alternative as being useless? And if you said no, then why the hypocracy? Why assume that YOUR beliefs are acceptable but the Raelian's are not? The theory of evolution has also been accepted by the Catholic church, Episcopalians (Anglicans), and others. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ristianity.html http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm So, its not just athiests who have accepted evolution.

Source? You know, I really don't know what you're asking for here. After all, the concept of 'selective pressure' is such a fundamental concept of evolution that trying to point out a source like trying to find a source that shows an automobile needs wheels. Its like trying to find a source that says the sky is blue. A more flippant answer might be to say "Go read a biology book". However, if you want a few references: You could start with Wikipedia... Natural selection can act on any phenotypic trait, and selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment... However, this does not imply that natural selection is always directional and results in adaptive evolution; natural selection often results in the maintenance of the status quo by eliminating less fit variants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection If you don't like Wikipedia, here's a basic text-book type discussion... Some variant offspring may, by chance, be better suited for survival and replication under the prevailing conditions than are their parent molecules. The prevailing conditions exert a selective pressure that gives an advantage to one of the variants. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?...yer.section.194 Once of the best scientific resources for understanding evolution (and debunking creationist nonsense) is the talk origins archive. (One of the nice things about that site is that they provide plenty of references.) From Talk Origins: Some types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html Likely? This sounds like mere speculation. Your source? Ummm... do you actually know anything about bacteria? Even today, there are thousands of species of bacteria. Did you somehow think there was one species of bacteria billions of years ago, and still only one species? Source? Well, how about: The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html (Its from an article about the coelacanths , but it can be applied to all organisms) And how about: Some so-called fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species of various shapes and sizes. Species may also evolve in ways that are not obvious. For example, the immune system of horseshoe crabs today is probably quite different from that of horseshoe crabs of millions of years ago. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930.html I'm quoting the bible because your posts suggested that you thought it had some sort of scientific validity. It doesn't matter whether you brought the subject up yourself, or another poster mentioned it first. The important point is that you seem to believe the (very flawed) concepts in the bible. (If you didn't believe the bible, you should have said so.) Except the vast, vast, VAST majority of scientists (especially those that work in the biological field) reject any sort of biblical explanation for the origin of species, preferring evolutionary theory.

By losing the (scientific) instruments to backup your views. Hmmmm... you claim the 'smart' people don't have the scientific instruments to back up their views. Ok, lets forget for a second the fact that those 'smart' people wouldn't necessarily need an special equipment to actually come up with some sort of description of 9/11. (They'd need to think logically and rationally, which of course they can't.) The opening post of this article dealt with and artical which was published by 'researchers' who claimed to discover explosives. Now you're saying that they don't have the 'scientific instruments' to back up their views. So now, are you saying that whatever research they did was faulty? After all, if they really didn't have the 'scientific instruments', then doesn't that mean that their research (and their claims) of explosives is bunk? So what is it, are the researchers 'silenced', or are their claims bunk?

How can you be 'half silenced'? And once again, if there were some evil conspiricy running around killing off people who questioned the 'official story', why would Jones even be allowed to publish anything? Why are people like him and Judy Wood allowed to speek at various Troother conferences? And once again, given the fact that the 'conspricy' hasn't stopped people like Jones and Wood from speaking out, why have neither you nor they come up with some sort of plausible description about what happened on 9/11?

Actually, no, its not. Your little 'definition' lacks some key points, such as selective pressure caused by an individual organism's potential for reproductive success. Except the bacteria that you see in the ancient rocks are likely quite different (in terms of genetic makeup, chemistry, internal strctures etc.) than modern bacteria. Except that, once again, fossils do not give any indication about changes that have happened to the interna structures, chemistry, etc. over time. Those "worms" of the past may look like modern worms, but there would have been differences (e.g. in the types of diseases they'd have to deal with, etc.) I could also point out the fact that if there is no requirement for a species to change if there is no change to the environement and no selective pressure. The same argument can be applied to every one of those "examples" that you have cut and pasted in this thread. The bible also says that: - Bats are a type of bird (they're not...) Leveticus 11:19 - Rabbits chew their cud (they don't... only ruminants do) Leveticus 11:5-6. - God created light, but didn't actually create the sun until later. Maybe god used incandescent lights. Wonder what his power bill is like. Genesis 1:1-16 So, tell me, why exactly would anyone want to use the bible as any sort of description of how the world works?

Except for the fact that this whole thread was started by someone posting a reference to a recent paper regarding demolition of the towers. If people are 'scared', then why are there supposedly "smart" people trying to publish their junk science? Why hasn't Jones been silenced if there is supposedly some evil conspiricy? Once again, you have illustrated a lack of critical thinking skills. You HAVE to be doing this as a joke... aren't you.

Perhaps before you start running around demanding new investigations, you should sit down and, you know, come up with some sort of description of 9/11 events that, you know, actually makes sense. Hey, you supposedly have a lot of 'smart' (ha ha!) people to draw on, like Jones. Should be able to come up with something. And just out of curiousity, do you think the existance of 'supermen' (you know, about to be in a collapsing building so they can witness 'explosions' yet still surviving) is somehow proof of something? And where is your demand for an investigation into whether the earth is really round and not flat?

Let me get this straight.... You use Hess as 'proof' that there was an explosion (as part of a controlled demolition) even though you yourself admit his recollections contradict with other evidence you yourself presented. This has to be a joke, right?

Hmm, I wonder how the explosion tasted? Maybe he was actually seeing dead people, and that was one of the 5 senses....

Same question I asked before, and you seem to be ignoring (not suprising, since you're likely unable to answer this question...) If this Michael Hess were close enough to experience WTC7 explosions first hand, and those explosions were part of a controlled demolition, how exactly did he survive? During controlled demolition, the building collapses only seconds after explosions are set off. If he were inside WTC7 during a suposed demolition, he'd likely be crushed under a few tons of rubble. Or are you suggesting that Michael Hess is some sort of superhero, able to withstand the crushing effects of a ton of concrete landing on him? Or maybe he has super-speed like the Flash, and was able to see and here the explostions and run out before the building collapsed.

and this would account for the (lack of) action/response by private-care advocate, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli? No, it wouldn't. I was simply pointing out that people characterizing this as a "Private health care is wrong" example are barking up the wrong tree. This "private" clinic was likely acting under the rules of our "public" health care system. Chaoulli himself may be guilty of having a rotten bedside manner. He may be responsible for medical malpractice (although I doubt it goes that far). But this case is irrelevant in the public vs. private health care debate. No I can't. In fact, MOST clinics right across the country probably operate under the same system... privately owned/run by doctors, but paid for by medicare under the banner of "public" health care, with fee schedules that can't be changed.

And the planes would have been refuled by UFOs on their way back to Roswell.

Ummmm.... This has been pointed out by 2 different posters (myself and Smallc). Although this clinic may have been considered 'private', fees were still likely paid through Quebec's health care plan. As such, this 'private' clinic shouldn't really be considered typical for a system which is able to freely operate on its own terms (even setting its own fee schedule and charging patients directly.)

And I'm pretty sure most investigators know that ramming a plane filled with jet fuel into a building is going to cause significant damange and perhaps contribute to structural failure. Tell me, do you think Aliens could be responsible for 9/11? After all, you seem to think you should keep an open mind....

I see... So, can you point me to the institution where you got your degree in structural engineering from? Do got to wonder why exactly you're calling it a 'matchless event'... I figured having a plane impacting a highrise at several hundred km/h, with a large load of jet fuel would be enough to explain how a fire might start even without matches. Or do you think that when a plane hits a building it should just sit there?

Before you get out the knives, keep in mind that there are some things that aren't exactly mentioned in the article. - The clinic is described as a 'private medical clinic'. However, how were services paid for at the clinic? If the fees were paid through Quebec's health care plan, then labeling it as a private vs. public health care issue is inaccurate, since that "private" clinic isn't exactly operating under the rules of "free enterprise". - The article had the lines: ...Sauvageau waited until his heart stopped and his dentures fell out onto the floor. Even then, the famous doctor who came to tend to him did a cursory exam and didn't try to revive him.... From reading that line, it sounds like Sauvegeau knew what was going on with the patient, when he might never have actually seen him or knew what was going on. Furthermore, I do have to wonder about the phrase "cursory exam". How many people in the waiting room had ever seen a doctor determine whether a patient had died? A couple of years ago, I went to a medical clinic. This was in Ontario, where we have a Liberal government who is intent on protecting 'public' health care. I had a ruptured appendix. I ended up waiting until everyone else in the waiting room (most were there just for flu vaccines) got handled first. I do not blame the clinic however; I recognize that there is a large demand for a service, and the ability to prioritize patients is not necessarily an easy thing to do.

Yes, I think an independent invesitgation should do that. You know, conspiricy believers tend to think there are a lot of qualified people in their movement. (There aren't... most actually range between unqualified to positively moronic.) They point to their little "journals", and to the supposed "experts" in their little videos. So how come, with all those supposed "experts", have they not been able to come up with a relatively complete theory? So, tell me, what else do you think should be investigated? Should we launch a scientific investigation into whether the earth is really round? After all, it COULD actually be flat. What would be lost if we launch an investigation? The only people who would lose from such a re-investigation are those people that manufacture globes! So, I expect to see you put just as much of a demand into the re-investigation of the shape of the earth as you put into demanding another investigation into 9/11. Don't take no for an answer! The oppression of the globe-makers must be stopped!