- Anything Else -

I already have. Want me to say it again?

Posted by: Farinata ( L'inferno ) on May 04, 1999 at 14:20:18:

In Reply to: You have to answer the original point first posted by Robert on May 02, 1999 at 01:26:51:

: Farinata, my dear friend,

: Firstly, the Bible gives no date for the beginning. Many have attempted an interpretation but it is not stated. So your attempt to divert the argument is weak.

Which means that Ussher's date is as valid as yours. As such, your statement:

"I agree that the Neolithic Revolution and Adam's date on earth some 12,000 to 13,000 years ago are in synch. Science and the Bible do agree, don't they?"

...is untenable as part of the argument, since by your own admission the Bible gives no date. So, you can't really claim that Science and the Bible are in complete agreement with any justification (bar your own).

:
: : This is not a debate which goes anywhere. Until you can actually give some impression of being able to hold a reasonable debate on the subject (like, for example, providing counterarguments rather than just restating your original position), this thread hasn't got much prospects...

: Maybe the original point keeps coming up because, by your own admission (ah hem), you have shown no evidence to support your position, hence you are unable to go effectively beyond it.

May I cite that page for the nth time?;

"No one has ever seen one species arise from another." In 1964, Dr. D.J. Reish removed 5 or 6 polychaetes (Nereis acuminata) from Los Angeles/Long Beach harbor, and grew his sample to a size of thousands. In 1986, four pairs from this group were brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the population at Woods Hole thus had gone through two bottlenecks, which are supposed to help drive evolution through genetic drift. In 1977-1978, two new cultures of N. acuminata were gathered from nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, and grown under the same conditions as the Woods Hole sample. The three populations were later crossed, and it was found that the only crosses that would not produce viable offspring were the crosses involving Woods Hole and the two new cultures. This signifies nothing less than speciation, and all in the laboratory - all observed directly (Weinberg et al., 1992).

EVIDENCE

"There is no evidence for the rapid development of new species in nature." 3,500 years ago, a small lake was separated from Lake Victoria by a sandbar. There are now five species endemic to the new lake; they have evolved from the original species in a geological instant (McGowan, 1984, 29). A population of Nereis acuminata that was isolated in 1964 was no longer able to interbreed with its ancestors by 1992 (Weinberg et al., 1992). New species certainly can emerge quickly.

EVIDENCE

The last time I cited these, you merely declared that they were "rubbish". Do you have any logically valid reason for your declaration, or are you merely judging from your exalted Christian viewpoint; it does not fit with your view of the world and therefore must be wrong.

That's imperialism, Robert. Not to mention breathtaking arrogance.

:So in this regards, you've been discreditted.

Really? Can you provide evidence to "discredit" me? Or is your declaration sufficient evidence to render the work of many thousands of scientists null and void?

: Simply going off on unrelated tangents to mask your lack of evidence for the original point won't convince me.

From your observed behaviour, the only thing that would convince you is being told directly by J-hw-h that evolution exists. Anything else is not sufficient, as far as you seem to be concerned.

I cited evidence for the original point; you cited no counterevidence. One to me, as far as the rules of debating go...

: Even you have to admit that stating that different races are species is a bit extreme and an admission of your weak position.

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that racial subtyping and isolation can lead to speciation, as Floyd understood perfectly well. That's been observed in the examples I cited above; a quick glance at bird species in Polynesia will tell you exactly the same story.

At no point did I suggest any value judgements be attached to this observed scientific fact. I point also to the Carl Sagan quote I posted in the previous message;

"......the Darwinian insight can be turned upside down and grotesquely misused:..."

: Question: Do you really believe that Pygmies, Aborigines, Koreans, and Nordic peoples are different species?

No. Of course I don't. They are, after all, still capable of interbreeding. If one race went off to Mars for a few hundred thousand years, they might evolve into a genotype that was incapable of breeding with homo sapiens sapiens. At which point, they would be a different species, say homo sapiens martialis. Not inferior in any way. Just different.

: If so, where did you get your degree, from the Jozef Goebels School of Geneology?

Deliberate misrepresentation of my position, Robert?

(Oh, and Goebbels is spelt with two 'b's, ;)

: : Mind you, you always did seem more interested in proselytizing than debating.

: Then how come you continue to preach the religion of evolutionism? Sounds like adament proselytizing to me.

Au contraire; you have yet failed to provide any compelling or substantial evidence to prove any of the arguments cited on the page I quoted. If you could do that, I might be able to treat this as a genuine debate. However, you haven't dared to acknowledge that page's existence yet; could it be that you don't want to be drawn into a debate on which you are ill-informed?

And if you're ill-informed on the debate, why are you trying to sustain your position in the face of those who are obviously better-informed than yourself?

Dare you read that page and try to counter the points therein? Or will your undoubted response to this post merely have all mentions of http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/creation.htm snipped out?

Farinata.


Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup