Recent content by talus

Originally posted by Zero Quoting Behe? *yawn* never mind, this isn't going to go anywhere, and this isn't philosophy at all. It is discredited pseudoscience. Nereid, I wouldn't waste my time if I were you...breaking through creationist dogma is nearly impossible. Sorry to bore you but I...

Convergent Evolution Now that I have nature's phyla branches down, I ask a fundamental question. Why, when in excess of 90 percent of marine life died some 250 million years ago, did no new phyla emerge? There certainly was a place for a new phyla when so many marine species disappeared. It...

Originally posted by Nereid ... calibrated.With the possible exception of the role of the hox gene in the formation of phyla, this *is* an area of 'hard science', in the sense that there are hypotheses, predictions, tests and observations, falsification, theory formation etc - just the same...

Originally posted by Nereid Here's the link I promised Not relevant, in a way similar to saying that the astrophysical theories of 'stellar evolution' have no relevance to theories of evolution of life on Earth, or chemistry is irrelevant to discussing magnetars, or economics irrelevant to...

Originally posted by Zero I'm reposting this, just in case you missed it. No I didn't miss your original post or its message at all. However, my general position stands. You don't show much knowledge about the workings of science, which is a separate issue from any specific claim you...

Originally posted by Zero Yep...you are a creationist, and intellectually dishonest to boot. Too bad, really...you seemed to almost be interested in reality, and yet you keep stating the same tired creationist idiocy. It seems that you too are not interested in any conclusions which do...

Originally posted by Nereid Such theories are not within the domain of evolution; they are in the field of abiogenesis. Again, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis - as Zero said in another post, there's no doubt about the fact of evolution, and we now have some pretty good theories...

Originally posted by Zero *yawn* You aren't interested in debating anything. You have a rather confused understanding of science and have shown no interest in correcting your mistaken views on science in general. This is a waste of time, and I'm starting to think you are a troll. You...

Originally posted by Zero I make that statement BECAUSE I am not only bright, but also better informed than you seem to be...that's ok though, we're all here to learn something, this is your turn! At least you don't think too highly of your own superior intellect and penultimate...

Originally posted by Zero What? Huh? What are you talking about? Sorry for confusing you... Creationism is a religious belief with no evidentiary support. Evolution is a firmly supported theory with the same level of acceptance as geology, physics, chemistry, etc. Actually you are...

Originally posted by Zero See what I mean? How can evolution NOT be a real theory? It is hugely supported by all of the evidence. A new theory to replace evolution would have to encompass all the evidence, and in addition to it answer other questions better than evolution does. Currently...

Originally posted by Zero So, are you willing to accept Christian Schwabe as being absolutely right? Your posting of late seems to show an anti-science bias , you know. NOTHING in science is absolute, not physics, or biology, or chemistry, or medicine, or any other branch of sciences...

Originally posted by Zero So you put it in Philosophy since you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You should realize, though, that science should be talking about scientifically, not philisophically. Otherwise, you have facts against "well, I'd feel better if it were some...

Originally posted by Nereid Something much like what you described may have happened - it's not possible to test that idea using what we have in the geological record (and our today's technology) at present. The "disappeared" part need not apply, monstrous alternatives would clearly not...

Originally posted by Zero I was wondering the same thing...while Christian Schwabe is likely to be wrong in his assumptions, and the talk seems to approach pseudoscience, this is generally a scientific-based debate. This thread is 'general philosophy and not generally a scientific-based...