Video debates and Interviews

ToadBrother · April 10, 2011

You know what, Toadbrother....I've got a big problem with this term "NON-FUNCTIONAL."

Let me quote my source again:

This reminds so much of vestigial organs. Remember? The presumed non-functional organs such as the appendix, the tonsils etc..? Let me refresh your memory.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html

And now here you guys go again jumping to hasty conclusion with these ERVS.

Be patient. With hi-tech you probably need not wait a century to discover why it's been Designed that way.

I'm sorry, where exactly did I say ERVs are non-functional? Their functional or non-functional status is besides the point. The point is that if you have two populations, and both have ERV insertions at the same points in the genome, it's a reasonable, indeed the only explanation beyond various magical invocations, that the two shared an ancestor. ERVs are likely one of the mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer, and may play more of a role in evolution than simply being useful metrics for change.

As to this non-functional red-herring. Yes, we thought some things were non-functional in the past, some are no longer seen as non-functional. But still, atavisms like leg buds in whales are pretty clear demonstrations that they came from ancestors who lived on land.

And don't try to tell me you have a problem with something. By your own admission you don't even read what you paste. You have some Creationist sites you paste from. You're so uninformed even of what they say that you can't even put it in your words. I'm not debating you, Betsy. You wouldn't last six seconds in a debate against me if you had to debate in your own words.

It's become very clear that you have no idea what evolution is at all. You're just a copy-and-pasting windbag too small and too frightened to dare ever learn anything. Your obsessions with Dawkins, when in fact you don't even know who the real titans of evolutionary biology are is a good example. Why would a semi-retired British zoologist who has a few books on science and religion under his belt fill you with such terror, when it's guys like Mayr who basically wrote the book on evolutionary theory. But you wouldn't know that, because you don't know a damned thing about science.

Edited April 10, 2011 by ToadBrother

betsy · April 10, 2011

I'm sorry, where exactly did I say ERVs are non-functional? Their functional or non-functional status is besides the point. The point is that if you have two populations, and both have ERV insertions at the same points in the genome, it's a reasonable, indeed the only explanation beyond various magical invocations, that the two shared an ancestor. ERVs are likely one of the mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer, and may play more of a role in evolution than simply being useful metrics for change.

As to this non-functional red-herring. Yes, we thought some things were non-functional in the past, some are no longer seen as non-functional. But still, atavisms like leg buds in whales are pretty clear demonstrations that they came from ancestors who lived on land.

And don't try to tell me you have a problem with something. By your own admission you don't even read what you paste. You have some Creationist sites you paste from. You're so uninformed even of what they say that you can't even put it in your words. I'm not debating you, Betsy. You wouldn't last six seconds in a debate against me if you had to debate in your own words.

It's become very clear that you have no idea what evolution is at all. You're just a copy-and-pasting windbag too small and too frightened to dare ever learn anything. Your obsessions with Dawkins, when in fact you don't even know who the real titans of evolutionary biology are is a good example. Why would a semi-retired British zoologist who has a few books on science and religion under his belt fill you with such terror, when it's guys like Mayr who basically wrote the book on evolutionary theory. But you wouldn't know that, because you don't know a damned thing about science.

:rolleyes:

Oh boy, he's throwing a fit again! I tell ya the civility couldn't last. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Edited April 10, 2011 by betsy

Bonam · April 10, 2011

I'm sorry, where exactly did I say ERVs are non-functional? Their functional or non-functional status is besides the point. The point is that if you have two populations, and both have ERV insertions at the same points in the genome, it's a reasonable, indeed the only explanation beyond various magical invocations, that the two shared an ancestor. ERVs are likely one of the mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer, and may play more of a role in evolution than simply being useful metrics for change.

As to this non-functional red-herring. Yes, we thought some things were non-functional in the past, some are no longer seen as non-functional. But still, atavisms like leg buds in whales are pretty clear demonstrations that they came from ancestors who lived on land.

You're really trying to discuss things like this with betsy? :blink:

betsy · April 10, 2011

"Proof of evolution!" Pfffft.

There's been so many hoaxes and fraud committed in the name of evolution.

There's been so many irresponsible assumptions done in the name of evolution.

Boy, it's like dealing with the boy who cried wolf. Can you blame me?

Wake me up when you've got proof. Irrefutable proof.

ToadBrother · April 10, 2011

Oh boy, he's throwing a fit again! I tell ya the civility couldn't last.

Betsy, I've been posting on the Internet for a long time, and debating evolution even longer, and this may well stand out as being one of the most pathetic attempts at saving face I've ever seen.

You actually don't know what evolution is, do you?

ToadBrother · April 10, 2011

"Proof of evolution!" Pfffft.

"Proof of evolution!" Pfffft.

There's been so many hoaxes and fraud committed in the name of evolution.

There's been so many irresponsible assumptions done in the name of evolution.

Boy, it's like dealing with the boy who cried wolf. Can you blame me?

Wake me up when you've got proof. Irrefutable proof.

I did. I provided ERVs, but between pasting a handwaving crap article and trying to make ignorance look like humor, you ignored it.

ToadBrother · April 10, 2011

You're really trying to discuss things like this with betsy?

Look at her squirm. She hasn't even posted some out-of-context quote or some other tired anti-Dawkins copy-and-paste rant.

GostHacked · April 10, 2011

Look at her squirm. She hasn't even posted some out-of-context quote or some other tired anti-Dawkins copy-and-paste rant.

Her style is reminding me of the drive by poster who posts 'TEH END OF DA ATHEISM' ect.

ToadBrother · April 10, 2011

Her style is reminding me of the drive by poster who posts 'TEH END OF DA ATHEISM' ect.

Except that that guy is truly a post-and-run troll, whereas Betsy has this insane need to get the last word in, even if the last word is infantile blather.

GostHacked · April 10, 2011

Except that that guy is truly a post-and-run troll, whereas Betsy has this insane need to get the last word in, even if the last word is infantile blather.

Agreed. Also pretty quite around MLW today as well.

betsy · April 11, 2011

Richard Dawkins in bitter web censorship row with fellow atheists
The Telegraph

Heidi Blake 9:25AM GMT 26 Feb 2010

Professor Richard Dawkins is embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and “frivolous gossip”.

The prominent atheist faced a torrent of abuse from outraged fans after he announced that all further postings to the discussion forum on his website would be tightly moderated to ward off what he called “something rotten” in internet culture.

The cloak of anonymity under which many users contributed to discussions had allowed a culture of abuse and foul language to develop that would not be possible if they identified themselves, he said.

The discussion section is one of the internet’s busiest atheist forums, attracting 3,000 postings per day on subjects including science, religion and ethics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html

Edited April 11, 2011 by betsy

ToadBrother · April 11, 2011

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html

Fair trade after he and PZ Meyer weren't allowed into a screening of Expelled.

At any rate, it's amusing to see you moving on with your bizarre and pointless anti-Dawkins campaign.

betsy · April 11, 2011

In February of 2010, the news organization The Telegraph reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."[31]
Given that Wired Magazine and Vox Day declared for various reasons that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men, it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter. In addition, Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being abrasive.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Richard_Dawkins.27_battle_with_online_fans

No wonder the dispute was bitter among them. It's the classic pot calling the kettle black! If I'm a radical atheist, I'd be whacking Dawkins too! :lol:

Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins

Gary Demar commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).[137]

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:

His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good.

The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce."....

Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.[138]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Abrasiveness_of_Richard_Dawkins

His followers are just mimicking him...and yet, Dawkins ends up calling them names!

Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

Edited April 11, 2011 by betsy

cybercoma · April 11, 2011

Awww... the poor ignorant fools that don't believe in evolution. Is the big, bad evolutionary biologist being too abrasive for your tender sensibilities?

Moonlight Graham · April 12, 2011

Let's start with this video.

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

The question was so simple. It's right up his alley.

"Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"

Your whole process of logic & seeking truth is flawed. You reached the conclusion of believing in God & creationism first, likely since you were a child, and now afterward you seek to find evidence to support your preconceived conclusions.

One does not find truth this way. Truth is found by looking at all the evidence FIRST, then reaching conclusions afterward, not the other way around.

This isn't any different than Lictor, who was most certainly raised in a racist environment, and then sought "scientific" support for his preconceived racist conclusions.

Moonlight Graham · April 12, 2011

Also, you can believe in God and evolution at the same time. Just because someone doesn't believe in the hogwash campfire tale that is Genesis, it doesn't mean one is disqualified from believing in God, or Jesus, or anything else really.

betsy · April 12, 2011

Your whole process of logic & seeking truth is flawed. You reached the conclusion of believing in God & creationism first, likely since you were a child, and now afterward you seek to find evidence to support your preconceived conclusions.

I am not the one seeking truth. In my view, I've already found it.

One does not find truth this way. Truth is found by looking at all the evidence FIRST, then reaching conclusions afterward, not the other way around.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Actually that's the point of one of my argument with the radical evolutionists such as Dawkins and his followers, or those who would not consider Intelligent Design. As what one of our members here clarified that science is based on wanting to know. It seeks answers.

If you truly want the truth....you shouldn't put a limit as to how you will find it. You've got to be prepared to think and step outside the box, and have the courage to face whatever it is that gives the truth.

Edited April 12, 2011 by betsy

cybercoma · April 12, 2011

If you truly want the truth....you shouldn't put a limit as to how you will find it. You've got to be prepared to think and step outside the box, and have the courage to face whatever it is that gives the truth.

Good one. Care to take your own advice? There is no such thing as "personal truth", mind you. Edited April 12, 2011 by cybercoma

betsy · April 12, 2011

Good one. Care to take your own advice? There is no such thing as "personal truth", mind you.

Of course there is. We believers call it faith. And you just said it. It's personal.

betsy · April 12, 2011

This was written prior to the official founding of the New Atheist movement. Excerpt from...

Through a Glass, Darkly
Michael Ruse

Richard Dawkins once called me a "creep." He did so very publicly but meant no personal offense, and I took none: We were, and still are, friends. The cause of his ire—his anguish, even—was that, in the course of a public discussion, I was defending a position I did not truly hold. We philosophers are always doing this; it's a version of the reductio ad absurdum argument. We do so partly to stimulate debate (especially in the classroom), partly to see how far a position can be pushed before it collapses (and why the collapse), and partly (let us be frank) out of sheer bloody-mindedness, because we like to rile the opposition.

Dawkins, however, has the moral purity—some would say the moral rigidity—of the evangelical Christian or the committed feminist. Not even for the sake of argument can he endorse something that he thinks false. To do so is not just mistaken, he feels; in some deep sense, it is wrong. Life is serious, and there are evils to be fought. There must be no compromise or equivocation, even for pedagogical reasons

However, I worry about the political consequences of Dawkins's message. If Darwinism is a major contributor to nonbelief, then should Darwinism be taught in publicly funded U.S. schools? The Creationists say not. They argue that if the separation of Church and State keeps belief out of the schools, then it should likewise keep nonbelief out of the schools. There are issues to be grappled with here, and Dawkins does nothing to address them. Does Darwinism as such lead to nonbelief? It is true that Darwinism conflicts with the Book of Genesis taken literally, but at least since the time of Saint Augustine (400 A.D.) Christians have been interpreting the seven days of creation metaphorically.

I would like to see Dawkins take Christianity as seriously as he undoubtedly expects Christianity to take Darwinism. I would also like to see him spell out fully the arguments as to the incompatibility of science (Darwinism especially) and religion (Christianity especially). So long as his understanding of Christianity remains at the sophomoric level, Dawkins does not deserve full attention. It is all very well to sneer at Catholic beliefs about the Virgin Mary, but what reply does Dawkins have to the many theologians (like Jonathan Edwards) who have devoted huge amounts of effort to distinguishing between false beliefs and true ones? What reply does Dawkins have to the contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga, who argues that the belief that there are other minds and that others are not just unthinking robots requires a leap of faith akin to the Christian belief in the Deity? Edwards and Plantinga may be wrong, but Dawkins owes them some reply before he gives his cocky negative conclusions. Moreover, once he has proved the incompatibility of science and religion, I would like him to address the classroom issue. Would he keep evolution out of U.S. schools, and if not, what argument would he use? In one of these pieces, he complains that British A-level examination requirements necessitate coverage of so much other material that they exclude the proper teaching of evolution. What about the U.S. Constitution?

Finally, I don't want to sound paranoid or insecure, but I do wish that he and other science writers would cease assuming that philosophical issues can be solved by talking in a brisk, confident voice. I have no more liking of cultural studies than Dawkins, and I loved his talk of "the low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudo-philosophical poseurs." But this rhetoric is no substitute for hard analysis. Postmodernists claim that science, no less than religion and literature and philosophy, is infiltrated with culture. How does Dawkins respond to this charge, given the undoubted significance in science of metaphors that are based on the culture of the day?

There is more. I agree fully with Dawkins when he writes that

Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye; or than meets the all too limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-sized objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa.

But how then does Dawkins respond to the obvious retort of the religious, who have always stressed mystery? Some of the fundamental problems of philosophy are no closer to being solved today than they were at the time of the Greeks: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is this something not something else? What is mind, and are we unique?

Perhaps one agrees that traditional religions—Christianity specifically—do not offer the full answers. But what is to stop a nonbeliever like myself from saying that the Christians are asking important questions and that they are right to have a little humility before the unknown? As Saint Paul said: "Now we see through a glass, darkly." That apparently includes Richard Dawkins.

This Article from Issue

November-December 2003

Volume 91, Number 6

Page: 1

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/through-a-glass-darkly

For science to truly want to know, there is yet lots to explore....

Edited April 12, 2011 by betsy

GostHacked · April 12, 2011

This was written prior to the official founding of the New Atheist movement. Excerpt from...

Do tell, what is this New Atheist movement? I've not heard of it.

For science to truly want to know, there is yet lots to explore....

At least scientists understand this and live by this. It does not seem you have a grasp on it.

ToadBrother · April 12, 2011

For science to truly want to know, there is yet lots to explore....

Which does not give anyone license to simply make explanations up and call it science. That's what got the Dover school board slapped down in Federal Court.

GostHacked · April 12, 2011

Which does not give anyone license to simply make explanations up and call it science. That's what got the Dover school board slapped down in Federal Court.

Creationism, which evolved into Intelligent Design, is going to have to evolve yet again to try and get accepted, which will fail again.

ToadBrother · April 12, 2011

Creationism, which evolved into Intelligent Design, is going to have to evolve yet again to try and get accepted, which will fail again.

It has evolved, to some extent. Groups like the Discovery Institute have largely dropped ID as a means to sneak past the First Amendment down in the States, now promoting "Teach the Controversy" instead.

cybercoma · April 12, 2011

It has evolved, to some extent. Groups like the Discovery Institute have largely dropped ID as a means to sneak past the First Amendment down in the States, now promoting "Teach the Controversy" instead.

I'm trying to imagine a group advocating for history departments all over to "teach the controversy" in regards to holocaust denial.