RE: Nidian Evolution/Time blog.

Nidian made a blog here in response to something I said to him in a thread awhile ago entitled “answering agnophilo” which referred to me consistently in the third person, often mocking me to his readers, and didn’t tell me about it.  I had to find out by accident.

So yeah.  Courage!

Anyway, here’s my response:

“Agnophilo’s writing style is rather disjointed, long-winded, and disorienting. This also makes it difficult to use in quotation. So I’m going to have to break his comments up and feed you the context myself.”

I’ll give you long-winded, but disjointed?  And disorienting just means you have trouble following ideas like my description of what time is below.  That can only be my fault if I did not speak clearly and coherently, which I did.

“In the first comment he’s responding to my argument that one’s credentials do not prove an argument’s validity.
One wonders what he means by “expertise” because the article we were discussing was written by a person with a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament from Freed-Hardeman University.”

No, one does not wonder what I meant by expertise because I made it very clear that I was criticizing the author for not having scientific expertise while criticizing areas of science like genetics of which he knew nothing.

It’s worth noting by the way that before I said this I wrote a response to the article he’s talking about totally debunking all of the scientific claims the guy made.  As usual no creationist took issue with that, and instead focused only on this peripheral stuff.

“But lets say for a moment he is correct. Even still arguments should be judged based on merit. As the scientific establishment becomes more and more dogmatic, this kind of fallacious thinking has gotten worse and worse. And will continue to do so. That’s called academic arrogance. In this current age one can study any subject with the same veracity as a full doctorate. Failure to get the establishment to recognize your abilities or lack there of says NOTHING of the merit of your arguments.”

If someone with a degree in engineering wants to tell me I have cancer and then ten doctors I’ve been to say I don’t, I’m gonna believe the doctors, because being an engineer doesn’t mean you know shit about cancer.

Knowing about the bible doesn’t qualify you to uproot the consensus in half a dozen fields of science.  And, as I told you in that blog, I only criticized his credentials AFTER debunking everything the dolt had to say on it’s own “merits”, and freely admitted that not having credentials alone doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re wrong, but being wrong does and not having any expertise doesn’t help.

“It’s fine that he went ahead and answered those example-questions that I pointed out, and I wish the establishment would follow suit. I dare say it would’ve been more meaningful toward his answers if he had addressed any of the points I raised in the same comment.”

I answered your question by explaining in a concise, clear and detailed way why it was an invalid question.  This is like asking me “why doesn’t gravity hold down rocks!?” and then when I say “well gravity effects anything with mass and rocks are made of atoms which have mass, so yes of course gravity effects rocks like it does anything else”, and you respond “See!  He can’t explain why gravity doesn’t hold down rocks!”

“But I found his answer to this example-question the most interesting, because he’s basically confirming that the point that is raised by that example-question is absolutely correct. That Fossils don’t prove decent. In fact he’s taking it even further by the second half of his comment confirming that I’m dead on when I say evolutionists start with their conclusion, (Evolution) and shape the facts around that conclusion.”

No, nimrod.  You didn’t ask how scientists establish common descent, if you had that’s easy (though complicated) to answer.  Oh and by the way don’t ask questions about complicated scientific subjects if you’re going to turn around and bitch about the “long winded” answers you get behind the back of the person kind enough to put up with your ignorance and take the time to answer.  Scientists do not start with assumption and shape the facts around those assumptions, in fact that is why you won’t ever see intelligent design in science books that aren’t produced by religious advocates.  Because that’s what ID does, not what science does.  You are ignorant of the wealth of evidence of common origin, the fact that every single animal on the planet shares countless characteristics in common, both genetic and physical, and that these characteristics appear in the fossil record and in genera in a way which consistently only indicates common descent, ie one branch of the phylogenetic family tree consistently develops as it’s ancestors without exception.  Even where a similar trait arises many times (light flight/wings) it is physiologically and genetically distinct in different lineages, bats have bat wings made of mammalian arms, birds have wings with feathers, a trait only elsewhere found in their dinosaur ancestors.  The same goes for an insect wing, etc.

We can compare the DNA of every species on the planet and based on the rate of genetic mutation estimate how many generations removed each species is from each other, and when we plug a few hundred genomes into a computer to be compiled thus we get this.  Which is identical to the evolutionary tree of life as predicted before the advent of modern genetics based on the fossil record and comparative morphology of different species.

I can go on, but that might be too “long winded”.

“The search for knowledge is actually done in the opposite direction from that procedure. Which is a common problem with being a part of most isms. The ism is imovable. So let’s follow the process forward and see what facts we do have.
Do we have any examples of speciation?”

Yes.  Google observed instances of speciation and you’ll find plenty.

“Well that depends a lot on how one define species.”

No, it really doesn’t.  That just changes what category you put different observed speciation events into.  All but one type of speciation have been observed.

“There are a few examples of adaptations and mutations that have been floating around the Internet for a while. I’ve looked into most of them myself, but I would invite everyone to check out the research anyways. The reason why is the criteria they use to claim the new species is different from the old is often questionable.”

There are different definitions of speciation because species are defined differently in different fields of science.  A geneticist and a scientist that studies animal behavior and a scientist that studies fossils which don’t have DNA all have different definitions of species.  That isn’t a trick.

“For example I remember one mentioning a type of rodentia that looked dramatically different from the parent species but could still breed with the parent species.”

I don’t suppose you remember anything else about it?

“Another was a type of fern that broke from it’s parent species about 10,000 years ago. (leaving one to wonder who was keeping scientific records 10,000 years ago.)”

Okay either you heard about it from some creationist dick who deliberately left out information about how they arrived at that estimate or you’re a creationist dick who is deliberately leaving out information about how they arrived at that estimate.  Either way you’re distorting and cherry picking your examples.

“The first example does bring up a major weakness in the anti-Evolutionist’s arguments. They really need to better define what they are saying can and cannot happen.”

They have you douche.  There are multiple definitions and mechanisms of speciation, all but one have been observed.  Go to the wikipedia page on speciation before you post this crap.

“It’s very demonstrable that many (if not all) species have an ability to adapt from generation to generation.”

Thank you.  That’s what biologists call “evolution”.

“Any dog owner can see the clearest evidence of that when he takes Sparky for a walk. The issue for the dogmatic evolutionist we’ve never created a whole new member of the Canidae family.”

Yes we have or no we haven’t, again depending on what definition of species you use.  We have not created dogs that are genetically incompatible with each other because that requires genetic isolation, which dogs have not had.  If however you go by another definition of speciation which is when a selective pressure leads to two animals anatomically not being able to reproduce, obviously that has happened already.  And that causes genetic isolation which will eventually lead to the other definition of speciation occurring.  Which yes, has been observed many times in nature, especially in plants and insects which reproduce and whose DNA mutates much faster.

“The answer commonly given to that fact is it must take hundreds of generations for such a change to occur. Fine!
We have some insect species that go through five or six generations a year. We regularly work with many of them in the laboratory. When I was in School we did that favorite experiment with mosquito’s. The one where we expose them to insecticides then the survivors will reproduce. Expose the next generation to the same insecticide and and this time there are more survivors. You can keep doing that through several generations, and build up the insect’s resistance to the insecticide. Yet we have never gotten an undeniably new insect from this experiment.”

So now your definition of speciation is “an undeniably new insect”.  Wtf does “new” insect mean?  If you mean genetically incompatible insect, insect that doesn’t recognize the rest as mates etc, yes we have and you are either lying or are willfully ignorant.

“Conclusive proof it can’t happen? Of course not. But declaring speciation a fact? Well to the dogmatic-evolutionist it’s all the evidence he needs.”

No, we’ve observed it dozens of times you shithead.

“The next section of his comment he’s attempting to answer (Or rather give his reason why we shouldn’t ask) the example-question about dragon legends:”

He didn’t mention “dragon” legends, he claimed dinosaurs lived within the past few thousand years and cited carvings and drawings as “proof”.

“So he assumes that I saw “a few” depictions “on TV” of some stones that turned out to be frauds.”

No, I meant that they resemble the few dinosaur species you’ve seen on tv.

“That’s more of the intellectual arrogance I mentioned above. In his mind since I’m a Christian it’s impossible for him to believe that I’ve earned a degree in history.”

I’ve never said any such thing you asshole. 

“But again my credentials (Or his lack of being able to accept I have credentials) is irrelevant to the validity of the arguments.”

Wtf are you talking about.  I criticized someone for having no expertise in the field they were lecturing about.  If you have expertise in history that doesn’t qualify you to build a bridge or perform heart surgery.  How is saying as much an attack on christians?

You are desperate to be persecuted.

“Lets start with the breathing fire bit. A unicorn is basically depicted as a horse with a horn. To use the logic Agno presents here, we could point to a picture of a unicorn to prove that horses never existed.”

No, it isn’t possible to prove that anything never existed.  However if someone wanted to prove that horses did exist I’d expect them to have more to go on than a picture of a unicorn before I’d believe them.

“Just this past year in Texas they’ve discovered the legendary Chupacabra.  Now the original reports of the animal, described it to be a reptilian, almost humanoid, monster with a dog shaped face. Once we got a specimen for genetic testing it turned out to be a hairless hybrid of coyote and wolf. My point is, just because an ancient culture attributes some extraordinary ability to an animal that doesn’t mean the actual would really have that ability.”

You can’t possibly establish that some weird animal they found is what the people claiming to have seen the chupacabra were all talking about.  Nor have you found a living dinosaur or remains of one younger than 65 million years old.

You might as well argue that dinosaurs exist because “what if we found one.”  Well yeah, then they’d exist alright…  Sadly not the first time I’ve heard if-then-therefore-is logic.

“Further if an ability a creature seems to have is extraordinary, that does not mean it’s a magical ability.”

Are you actually arguing the existence of fire breathing dinosaurs?  Were you the dude who made that claim today in a blog comment section?

“So here are the facts around Dragon legends. At least 80 percent of known cultures and sub cultures have some form of legends of animals with serpentine or otherwise reptilian traits. This includes most often ancient cultures. (And several cultures that you wouldn’t expect. Ancient Egypt for example) Some of these legends are far fetched, some are not so far fetched. Most note worthy are the cultures that were completely isolated from the rest of humanity for more than 10,000 years till Europeans landed on our shores. (My ancestors also have a universal flood legend, BTW) There are many that do look remarkably similar to known species of dinosaur.”

Most cultures have legends of animals with serpentine or reptillian traits.  Wow, that’s impressive.  Especially since most places in the world have reptiles and serpents.  I mean how the hell do they come up with this shit in isolation?  Boggles the mind!

“Though Agno is correct that there have been some forgeries, same as there have been in all fields of archeology.”

The only ones I’ve seen that really look like dinosaurs or look like several different distinctly dinosaur species are admitted or proven forgeries.

“Agno uses the argument that the human brain is a pattern recognizer. That argument has merit when we’re talking about seeing the ghost of Mrs Penis in paint-pealing of a portrait of Agno’s great grandma,”

Wtf is wrong with you dude?

“but it’s not sufficient to dismiss deliberately made artifacts and legends across so many diverse and unrelated cultures that had no contact with each other. That’s just Agno showing off his ignorance.”

This is the kind of shit we can see when there isn’t anything there at all.  It’s not difficult to grasp the idea that we might see similarities between hollywood depictions of real creatures that once existed and deliberate, manmade depictions of animals from mythology.

[Time is a description of relative motion, it does not objectively exist, but rather is a man made system to quantify behavior. It is a metric we impose on reality in order to understand, predict and organize activity in the cosmos. For instance what is an hour? It’s one 24Th of one rotation of the earth. Time = motion.]

“This is certainly not true. Not even close.”

I’m going to just delete it here and cut the rest of your response, because all you did was prove that time is not a description of relative motion by giving examples of relative motion.

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to RE: Nidian Evolution/Time blog.

  1. Some of the things that guy says are really out there… like… “seek help” material.

  2. FalconBridge says:

    It was all right I just wish you hadn’t started to call the other guy names.  I think you’re better off sticking to the facts.  Your arguments are good.  Besides you come off better arguing straight and letting the other people fall into their own traps.

  3. nephyo says:

    I can’t believe you bothered to answer all of that. You have way more patience than I do these days. This anti-science stuff that permeates is really starting to get on my nerves. I don’t remember any of this being controversial back when I was in high school and college. What gives?

  4. @nephyo – Hah, I know, right?  I didn’t even know people believed in creationism when I was in school.  I always thought everyone knew and accepted evolution.

  5. agnophilo says:

    @FalconBridge – I generally don’t unless someone reeeeally annoys me.  He’s bugged me for awhile but I guess I’m a little pissed at finding out this week that three people were bashing me behind my back, one of which I’d been xanga “friends” with for a long time.

  6. agnophilo says:

    @nephyo – The internet.@the_rocking_of_socks – You probably also didn’t know people who said LOL back in highschool, lol.People are much freer with their insanity on the internet.

  7. @agnophilo – I did, actually!  Imagine working on a group paper, and one person’s chapter is riddled with text-speak.  Made me want to punch a puppy.

  8. cyberbear says:

    Unless the Great and Powerful Oz has taken his study of the Bible clear back to the Sanskrit roots of what was set down in Aramaic and Greek, I’d say his curtain needs to be ripped aside.The Bible, in its essence, does not clash with scientific rigor.

  9. agnophilo says:

    @the_rocking_of_socks – Haha.@cyberbear – Anything can, through selective interpretation and translation and metaphor be made to not clash with anything.

  10. cyberbear says:

    @agnophilo – Oh, how very true, to the great chagrin of many.  Still and all, I prefer to maintain some measure of integrity.

  11. agnophilo says:

    @cyberbear – It’s hard to do unless you decipher all of the ancient languages yourself without modern reference materials.

  12. A lot of his sentences don’t even follow a coherent structure or are grammatically correct: “The issue for the dogmatic evolutionist we’ve never created a whole new member of the Canidae family.”

  13. agnophilo says:

    @Ex_Adyto_Cordis – Well yeah, but to be fair we all edit things in a screwy way now and then. 

  14. @agnophilo – I can’t help noticing things like that whenever I read a document. I have a nerdy editing eye.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s