posted
"So what should a person believe, your claim that these papers simply don't exist, or our lying eyes?"
Oh, we all know that every single one of those authors you cited is part of the conspiracy. Those don't count! Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, I'm confused: are our eyes lying about the nonexistent papers, the theory of evolution, or a hypothetical G-d?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The nonexistent papers AND the theory of evolution.
The fact that we believe we see them is of course another part of the conspiracy. It can't possibly be because the other side doesn't bother to look at them, after all. Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was coming online just now to do the same thing.
Another bump, so he doesn't.
Just to recap, he needs to do several things for me:
First, define evidence, in a clear and concise manner, as it means for him. Further, define what convincing evidence for a theory would be.
Second, give evidence, as based on his definition of convincing evidence above, or at least show some evidence at all, to back up his many claims, showing what evidence he has to the increased rate of mutation, showing when the mutation rate slowed down again, showing geological, astrological evidence and/or evidence in the laws of physics for the canopy layer, show evidence for his claimed floods, account for how and why things such as isotope decay have changed, show that the isotope decay HAS changed, period, among other... interesting claims.
That would all be wonderful.
Further, I expect to know what sort of things his theories would predict, and whether it would have predicted the things we've found in the fossil record, DNA record, etc. Further, show where the DNA hints that animals were all created as a set of pre-fabricated designs, that then evolved, period, and weren't all descendants of the same earlier entity, the branches meeting again and again farther and farther back.
In other words... back it up, man!
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I don't even need physicla evidence... just show how it could plausibly explain these things, and how it would have predicted the things we found, if we did not know them.
That's kind of necessary. Einstein's theory of relativity could predict Newton's gravity theory, and in fact predict everything within it, to more perfect accuracy.
You know... that's the kind of thing needed.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and he still hasn't defined 'information'. In fact, now that I think about it, since entropy seems so important to him, he should likewise define entropy.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Not bringing forth the evidence yourself, at this particular moment, is of course not evidence in and of itself that a person does not have any. There are a thousand other factors, considering that we are not in an official scientific environment, and that this is an unofficial, voluntary forum, with life taking precedence, and where we have no real obligation to prove any of our statements.
But even so, I'm actually very curious, and really want to know Resh's response. I want to know what he has got, and his views on evidence.
I won't take this as a victory, that he's not responding, but I am definitely wondering why he isn't. If he has what I asked and just isn't showing it, fine. If he has nothing at all, and that's why he's not responding, then that DOES mean something significant.
But I don't know which it is, and would like to know what he has, so I can try to understand it. What a pity he's not there.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's not how it works, at least as far as I believe, Matt. All data is interpreted according to Evolutionary theory. Nothing is invalidated; it is just shaped and fitted accordingly. On the flip side, there are many things that should have been invalidated, such as the geologic column, uniformitarianism, or the various age-dating techniques, that are still in use because they prop up the theory.
Prove it. Prove that you have any idea what you are talking about. Back this up.
posted
Wow, you guys must be waiting on pins and needles for my response. I'm actually honored. But this is the first time I've logged on in about a week, maybe more. Don't worry, I'll get back to it when I can, or I'll just jump onto the next thread that deals with the subject (because you know there will be one.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, you can continue the shuffle and dodge routine for only so long, on this thread or it's nth iteration.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, don't just jump onto the next thread that deals with this subject.
I'll be there, sure, you know I will, but that will be a different discussion. Here, this thread is hanging on your answering my detailed questions, as well as Samprimary's. (Though I like my questions better, due to my natural bias towards myself. Don't take it as anything other, Samp!)
As it is, I know I want my questions answered directly. I believe I gave them clearly and unambiguously enough for everyone's benefit, so we all know what's going on.
I understand the whole "real life" thing, of course. But I hope you have that time very soon, for, as you said, I am on pins and needles, and will not stop bothering you until you answer my questions, honestly.
This thread shall be kept on life support until you bring the goods. It's not going away. Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though I like my questions better, due to my natural bias towards myself. [Big Grin] Don't take it as anything other, Samp!
Oh man I'm with you on that one. I want to see his answers to you more than I want to see his answers to my own questions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
(further, to Samp, I could have sworn I'd responded to you. I wanted to say thanks, and I don't know why my words didn't appear)
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, why don't you just let it go and bump it if/when Resh shows up in a thread like this again?
That would serve the same purpose without needlessly annoying the rest of the forum and cluttering up the front page with a challenge that he isn't going to meet.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Of course, it's beginning to become clear that he isn't going to meet it, which is a pity. Still, I don't see what the big deal is, it's not like this thread is offensive or anything.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not offensive, just tedious. And as far as it "becoming clear" that he's not going to answer, that was clear before this thread even started to anyone who has any memory of his participation in past threads.
You know he doesn't have a good answer to your questions, so why waste time and space on the front page poking him? One or two bumps I can see, but how long do you seriously intend to keep it up? When the thread has two full pages of "hey are you going to answer this" bumps will you let it go?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
some dolts such as myself are immensely entertained by this, or we try actively to make these vindications as pronounced as possible because they are, tactically, valuable. Or both. Right now I am glad that the thread won't die because in all honesty I want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. I take note of these interactions because it is a fundamentally important thing to know how to deal with the fundamentally incurious, the ferrous cranius.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You know he doesn't have a good answer to your questions, so why waste time and space on the front page poking him?"
Because I don't actually know that. He said he's going to respond. I'm holding him to it.
Besides, I probably won't bump this thing too often, but I will not let it die. This is important, you see. I won't assume that his silence means he has no answer. If this was something official, I would. But not here, in this informal environment.
Maybe I've not dealt with Resh enough to know that the words of the others about the guy are true. But I truly wish to see. I guess I'll just bring it up agian on the next thread about the subject, but I want to see him back up his claims.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, I guess I'm too used to reading from and speaking to scientists and whatnot, who are perfectrly willing to back up claims with physical evidence, even with their human failings. Oh, well.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
People intending to contradict or dismiss him when he inevetably stinks up a future thread.
Holding him to task creates a textual "Exhibit A" for future dismissal of Resh's commentary. Even if someone is reasonably certain that no discussion is not going to change Resh's mind, there is still the matter of testing his credibility, which some people still want to do.
Also, for some it is entertaining.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We already have, like, exhibits A-E with Resh.
I think that's the point that dkw was getting at. He has no credibility to anyone who's been paying attention to these threads.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could create a new thread since Resh says he'll talk in the next thread. Post the same questions and Resh's name in the subject. Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What some of you view as my tucking-tail-and-runing from the other threads is actually my inability to devote as much time here as I would like. I always get involved in a thread like this and after a while one or two of the other optional things that I put off start calling my name again, and so I have to take a hiatus. This is true for many things, like reading, music, video games, TV series on DVD, and what not. Recently I've been doing a lot of reading in my free time. And watching Curb Your Enthusiasm. Anyway, when I return, the thread is usually pretty much dead, and so I jump onto the next one that grabs my interest. But if this one is still viable, I'll stick to it. But logging on during my lunch break like I'm doing now is not sufficient time for me to respond. I'm sorry, but I have to prioritize.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What some of you view as my tucking-tail-and-runing from the other threads is actually my inability to devote as much time here as I would like.
Yeah but you don't really answer many challenges in the time you do devote to these threads.
Mainly you make pronouncements, talk about being right, and then fade away from counterarguments to talk some more about how you have to be right because of some presupposition or another. Then, like clockwork, you stumble into another thread to make the same borkum arguments and throw out the same defunct criticisms.
The problem is not at all in how much time you have to 'devote' to the arguments you choose to invest yourself in initially. The problem is that you never were terribly interested in or able to refute challenges to your position and/or back up your claims.
This can not be dismissed by saying 'Ah, but I just do not have the time -- look, I read a book this week, see.' Scores of people invested in all of the same arguments as yours have managed to fundamentally address all of the burdens that you shakily refuse to concern yourself with, not because they type larger or denser blocks of text than you or because they spent less time having a life outside of the internet. No amount of energy invested in writing text is going to somehow clarify an argument made if you can't make the argument credible.
This is why I'm thinking it's a good thing to hold you in one thread and get you to put up or shut up -- as long as you remain similarly detached from the logical process and 'drift' between threads to contribute your noisome lot, you become a smellier sort of Midas touch, able to freeze and wreck otherwise decent debate. This challenge isn't just about finding out trying to convince you that your 'scientific' opinions are patently wrong, it's about trying to keep you from dragging other threads back into the stone age every time you want to 'contribute' in your precarious fashion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What some of you view as my tucking-tail-and-runing from the other threads is actually my inability to devote as much time here as I would like. I always get involved in a thread like this and after a while one or two of the other optional things that I put off start calling my name again, and so I have to take a hiatus.
...
Anyway, when I return, the thread is usually pretty much dead, and so I jump onto the next one that grabs my interest.
I've got an idea. Next time you come back and feel the need to jump into a new thread(regardless of the state of this one), don't. Just open up this thread and spend all the time you would've spent posting in that other thread to reply in this thread. Take responsibility for your words.
This way you're devoting the same amount of time you were planning on, without putting any unnecessary strain on yourself to post in too many threads, solving your conundrum of not being able "to devote as much time here as I would like".
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Heh, just kidding. I just came across a really interesting article by Dawkins on the subject of information and evolution. It covers accepted definitions of information and how, by those definitions, evolution can increase information content.
Resh, rather than producing a definition for information which you apparently estimate to be enormously time consuming, perhaps you could just state how you disagree with Dawkins' use of the term.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit... I love reading Dawkins. He's one of the most interesting and accessible scientists I've ever read. (and I've read a number.) He's one of the clearest, too.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
