Big money backs evolution

[phank]

While they may use evolutionary concepts somewhat indirectly, they most certainly use old earth concepts extensively, specifically geological concepts that help them determine the kinds of processes and time frames associated with various formations, especially underground.

Jim

Yep. Those concepts seem to work pretty well. I would argue that IF the earth were only 6000 years old and IF there were a pattern of some kind to where the oil got stashed, the oil companies would be interested in identifying and using that pattern, and wouldn't have any real need to understand WHY that pattern might be what it is. So they do not really represent big money behind "evolutionism" or whatever. They'll use whatever works, and evolutionary concepts work. But I guess my point is that even if evolution were false so no such concepts could have been developed, straight pattern-matching would still have worked for the oil companies.

[pancreasman]

The OP seems to trying to assert that there is a conspiracy of 'big money' that is attempting to push evolution and discredit ID (!). Some basic questions:

1. Whose 'big money' is it? Who is at the centre of this conspiratorial web?

2. Where does this 'big money' come from? How is it made?

3. What is the motivation of the conspirators? Why do they want to discredit ID?

4. Are there similar 'big money' conspiracies that are behind educational documentaries on space science? Are they attempting to discredit astrology and demolish geocentrist claims?

5. Exactly how much tin foil do you need to make a hat?

[Mark Little]

Why do you hate America?

On what basis did you conclude that I "hate America", as opposed to expressing an opinion about people who were clearly caught lying? Are you suggesting that *all* Americans are liars and desrve to be hated?

I certainly didn't, but you go right ahead and quote where you think I made any such inference that I "hate America".

I don't hate any of the people involved in the trial, unlike, it would seem, some of the people who didn't like the decision and started sending death threats and some of those threats against the children of the people involved. That shows real hate in action.


Mark

[Wally]

On what basis did you conclude that I "hate America", as opposed to expressing an opinion about people who were clearly caught lying? Are you suggesting that *all* Americans are liars and desrve to be hated?

I certainly didn't, but you go right ahead and quote where you think I made any such inference that I "hate America".

I don't hate any of the people involved in the trial, unlike, it would seem, some of the people who didn't like the decision and started sending death threats and some of those threats against the children of the people involved. That shows real hate in action.


Mark

Sorry, I was trying for humor."Why do you hate America?" was the cliche response to any accurate questioning of W's policies.

In your case you were absolutely correct in your assessment, "Why do you hate America?" would have been the response of someone who's run out of ammunition.

It was a lot funnier in my head.

[rogue06]

It was a lot funnier in my head.

Mine too I guess

[phank]

Here's a slightly more complex version of Wally's joke (which I also think is funny)

[rogue06]

Here's a slightly more complex version of Wally's joke (which I also think is funny)

Storkists are anti-cabbage patch

[Mark Little]

Sorry, I was trying for humor."Why do you hate America?" was the cliche response to any accurate questioning of W's policies.

In your case you were absolutely correct in your assessment, "Why do you hate America?" would have been the response of someone who's run out of ammunition.

It was a lot funnier in my head.

Ok. It has been my experience here that if there isn't at least some indication that it is a joke, no matter how silly it may seem, there is a fair change the poster is being serious.

Mark

[USIncognito]

It was a lot funnier in my head.

Same here.

Ok. It has been my experience here that if there isn't at least some indication that it is a joke, no matter how silly it may seem, there is a fair change the poster is being serious.

Usually the best indicator is "Originally posted by Magellan004".

[magellan004]

Ok. It has been my experience here that if there isn't at least some indication that it is a joke, no matter how silly it may seem, there is a fair change the poster is being serious.

This may be a joke- but on the other hand ...
Comic22jan12.pdf

Magellan

[Faid]

You know what? Loaded words and images aside, the basic content of the above IS true. It just needs a few minor corrections and clarifications.

[rogue06]

This may be a joke- but on the other hand ...
Comic22jan12.pdf

Magellan

It isn't like the clown-shoed one has been told this ad nauseam but maybe, just maybe, this time it'll permeate that brick that sits on his shoulders

Now I can already hear the objections: “Since biologists can’t agree on a universal and functional definition for species you can’t blame YECs for not defining kinds.” But there is a profound difference. Biologists realize that “species” is and needs to be an arbitrary grouping, since one species can slowly evolve into another shades of gray between them will exist and should be expected to exist.

Basically, the definition of “species” must be relatively open-ended if evolution is correct since all living creatures are related to each other. Species, by its very nature, is an inexact term because an animal isn't, for instance, either a lizard or not a lizard, with an exclusive set of traits that are either 100% lizard or 0% lizard, just like a pile of sand isn't either a pile or not a pile, with the addition of one grain of sand (the Sorites problem).

In stark contrast, YECs claim that “kinds” are distinct and that one can’t evolve into another – there are absolutely no shades of gray. Therefore, since “kinds” are “distinct,” it should be a rather simple thing to identify them (or at least explain why they must remain “fixed”).

But we don’t see distinct kinds like that. Instead, we see a nested hierarchy of similarities, with kinds within kinds within kinds. For instance, there are thought to be 350,000 species of Beetle so we are faced with wondering if each species is a kind or if beetles themselves are a kind, or are they members of the “Insect Kind,” or “Arthropod Kind” – all depending on how inclusive the kind is.

The point being, that no matter where you set the cut-off for how inclusive a kind is, there will always be a lot of groups just bordering on that cutoff. And as I already noted, this pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution not what one expects to see in the YEC model.

[pancreasman]

The OP seems to trying to assert that there is a conspiracy of 'big money' that is attempting to push evolution and discredit ID (!). Some basic questions:

1. Whose 'big money' is it? Who is at the centre of this conspiratorial web?

2. Where does this 'big money' come from? How is it made?

3. What is the motivation of the conspirators? Why do they want to discredit ID?

4. Are there similar 'big money' conspiracies that are behind educational documentaries on space science? Are they attempting to discredit astrology and demolish geocentrist claims?

5. Exactly how much tin foil do you need to make a hat?

Still no substantive response to the questions which, when answered, might support the OP.

[USIncognito]

On the kinds vs. species thing - Creationists claim that kinds must be distinct and have no connection via common ancestry. If that were so, then why can't they take my kinds challenge and tell me why 5 or 6 lists of three beings are a particular kind. Why the groups of three are or are not related to each other. And why the groups of three are or are not related to each other. The species problem is nothing when compared with the kind problem and it's lack of explanitory power.

[phank]

I might understand the species v. kind issue, or at least hazard a guess which would also explain clown's difficulties in grasping what a species is. In the world of kinds, all members of a kind are identical. No variation. There's no gene flow within a kind, because there's no place to flow TO if all members are genetically alike. Since kinds cannot interbreed with other kinds under any circumstances, there is also no gene flow between kinds. Sure, we observe that no two individuals are absolutely identical, but they are regarded as close enough not to make any cumulative difference. Since the model requires all members of a kind to be genetically identical, and mere observation says otherwise, observation cannot be credited with any meaning. We can AGREE that genetic differences exist between individuals, so long as we're careful not to observe what these differences imply in practice.

Because as soon as we notice that individual differences within a breeding population CAN (and often DO) become important enough that certain individuals simply do not breed with others, the "kind" model breaks down. Now we have to allow for "subkinds" different enough not to interbreed for some reason. And that's forbidden. We also have to have a reason for this variation, which is to say meaningful mutations, and that undermines the "kind" concept as well. Meaningful mutations means new genes. But "kinds" cannot tolerate new genes.

I think Clownie is trying to force a species to fit his concept of "kind" in these ways - no new genes, no meaningful mutations, no gene flow, no breeding isolation. Otherwise, a "species" keeps leaking out of a conceptually sealed container, and when it does, and therefore violates the "kind" restrictions, it becomes incomprehensible.