no new species?

[Dale]

just talking about this in real life

have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab

besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life

and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

[Dale]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

[Dale]

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from
existing life to have better traits in the environment used, how
do you know that this life doesn't already exist? has any of this
be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life",
life from living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

Can you propose a test so that we can discern the difference?

not easily, time is too difficult to hold as a control variable, maybe
all a method of faith, the scientific process is a very good method of
faith, scientists don't seem to have a lot to say about
psychological/sociological/psychiatric benefits of spiritualism, even
though they date back to oldest written history (Sumeria) and even if
the spiritualism is metaphors, parables, etc., as long as there is a
benefit, has science proved that spirituality has no benefit?

can you propose a test that spirituality has no benefit? what about a
leader who abstracts his decisions based on a metaphor of what a Supreme
Being would do in his place?

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

Tons of them. 126 just recently:

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>

or

<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>


And we've seen species change in the wild:

<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>

or

<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

[Dale]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

[raven1]

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

You didn't read the second article, did you?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:37:43 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

You didn't read the second article, did you?

Dale? Read a reference? You're kidding, right?

[Dale]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:37:43 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

You didn't read the second article, did you?

Dale? Read a reference? You're kidding, right?

if its not on wikipedia ...

[raven1]

Post by Dale

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:37:43 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

You didn't read the second article, did you?

Dale? Read a reference? You're kidding, right?

if its not on wikipedia ...

So what are you saying, Dale, that you can't be bothered to read
something that actually answers your questions? That makes it rather
pointless of you to ask them, doesn't it?

[Dale]

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:37:43 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

You didn't read the second article, did you?

Dale? Read a reference? You're kidding, right?

if its not on wikipedia ...

So what are you saying, Dale, that you can't be bothered to read
something that actually answers your questions? That makes it rather
pointless of you to ask them, doesn't it?

okay, I'll try and read it

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:44:29 -0400, the following appeared

Post by Dale

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:37:43 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

You didn't read the second article, did you?

Dale? Read a reference? You're kidding, right?

if its not on wikipedia ...

...or even if it is.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

And there you go moving the goalposts.

[Dale]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

And there you go moving the goalposts.

didn't say the previous information wasn't valuable, just thought of a
new point

[raven1]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

Practically every day.

Post by Dale
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

There are these magical things called "scientific journals" and
"books" in which people discovering new species write about them. They
even put those writings up on the Interwebs. Did you think about that
question for even a second before you asked it?

[Dale]

Post by raven1

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

Practically every day.

Post by Dale
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

There are these magical things called "scientific journals" and
"books" in which people discovering new species write about them. They
even put those writings up on the Interwebs. Did you think about that
question for even a second before you asked it?

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

[raven1]

Post by Dale

Post by raven1

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

Practically every day.

Post by Dale
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

There are these magical things called "scientific journals" and
"books" in which people discovering new species write about them. They
even put those writings up on the Interwebs. Did you think about that
question for even a second before you asked it?

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

OK, you're rephrasing the question, I see. Newly found species are
ubiquitous; for specific examples of speciation, which are also
commonplace, please Google "observed speciation events".

[Dale]

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by raven1

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

Practically every day.

Post by Dale
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

There are these magical things called "scientific journals" and
"books" in which people discovering new species write about them. They
even put those writings up on the Interwebs. Did you think about that
question for even a second before you asked it?

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

OK, you're rephrasing the question, I see. Newly found species are
ubiquitous; for specific examples of speciation, which are also
commonplace, please Google "observed speciation events".

no thanks, ubiquitous proves my point since you can't say for sure

[raven1]

Post by Dale

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by raven1

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

Practically every day.

Post by Dale
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

There are these magical things called "scientific journals" and
"books" in which people discovering new species write about them. They
even put those writings up on the Interwebs. Did you think about that
question for even a second before you asked it?

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

OK, you're rephrasing the question, I see. Newly found species are
ubiquitous; for specific examples of speciation, which are also
commonplace, please Google "observed speciation events".

no thanks, ubiquitous proves my point since you can't say for sure

It's not my job to do your homework for you, and I'm puzzled at what
you think "ubiquitous" means, or what point you think it proves.

[Dale]

Post by Dale
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

Sounds like the hail mary play of the creationists, don't it?
His position is that if man creates life in a laboratory it is created
life and therefore abiogenesis has not taken place. Ignoring the fact
that it may well prove that abiogenesis is possible.
Well that is a point in favor of creationists I suppose. But if
favorable conditions for life are created and life does start that would
not be an argument in favor of creationism, since it would prove that
life does start when favorable conditions exist.
That would be a much harder proof, since scientists just don't live the
millions of years the experiment may take.
But in the last analysis that is still no proof of gods - since Dale
still can't prove there was a creator, all he may prove is that science
hasn't proven abiogenesis yet.
The simple mind confronting a complex question.... invent a god and say
he is responsible.

devoting less time, Occam's Razor would say the complex hypotheses are
less likely, and your spending more time even if religion uses its time
with metaphors and parables

[Dale]

The ONLY thing that decides whether hypotheses are correct or not is DATA.

I have little complaint with less

1) you can't hold time as a control variable easily
2) statistical relevance seems to be lacking

[Dale]

The ONLY thing that decides whether hypotheses are correct or not is DATA.

I have little complaint with less

1) you can't hold time as a control variable easily
2) statistical relevance seems to be lacking

[Dale]

Dale and the other morons have their own dishonest redefinition of
abiogenesis.
All the word means, is "life from non-life".
Which clearly happened, because at one point in time there wasn't
life, and later there was.

how do you know that

1) time is not finite, but a continuum and life has not existed forever
2) time is not finite but cyclical and life pops up first

[raven1]

Post by Dale

Dale and the other morons have their own dishonest redefinition of
abiogenesis.
All the word means, is "life from non-life".
Which clearly happened, because at one point in time there wasn't
life, and later there was.

how do you know that
1) time is not finite, but a continuum and life has not existed forever
2) time is not finite but cyclical and life pops up first

It's more than a bit unclear as to what you're trying to say here. Can
you rephrase it?

[Dale]

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Dale and the other morons have their own dishonest redefinition of
abiogenesis.
All the word means, is "life from non-life".
Which clearly happened, because at one point in time there wasn't
life, and later there was.

how do you know that
1) time is not finite, but a continuum and life has not existed forever
2) time is not finite but cyclical and life pops up first

It's more than a bit unclear as to what you're trying to say here. Can
you rephrase it?

don't think I can

[Dale]

Post by Dale
how do you know that
1) time is not finite, but a continuum and life has not existed forever
2) time is not finite but cyclical and life pops up first

Time IS FINITE. Both in science and religion time is finite. "in the beginning" sets a finite limit on time. The Big Bang does so in science.
Also in both religion and science there was a time on earth where there was no life. In Genesis 1 there are 2 days with no living things; God doesn't create life until the 3rd day.
In science we can go back and look in sedimentary rocks. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earliest evidence of life is 3.8 billion years old.
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

[Dale]

Post by Dale
how do you know that
1) time is not finite, but a continuum and life has not existed forever
2) time is not finite but cyclical and life pops up first

Time IS FINITE. Both in science and religion time is finite. "in the beginning" sets a finite limit on time. The Big Bang does so in science.
Also in both religion and science there was a time on earth where there was no life. In Genesis 1 there are 2 days with no living things; God doesn't create life until the 3rd day.
In science we can go back and look in sedimentary rocks. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earliest evidence of life is 3.8 billion years old.
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

and something like the big crunch or big freeze would be the end? then
there is nothing? was there nothing before the big bang? even vacuum
fluctuations require space

[Dale]

Post by Dale
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

2000 years? You're an idiot.

okay, since written records of Sumeria/Hammurabi/etc.

[Dale]

However, without knowing in
advance every species that currently exists, there's no way to tell if a
previously unknown species has recently come into existence, or was just
undiscovered.

thank you

[Dale]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
In brief, Lenski directly observed the evolution of a new species of E.
coli, under laboratory conditions.

He's not interested in an answer - his question about something that
is nothing to do with atheism, is meant to be a silver bullet.
But...
http://scottcgruber.hubpages.com/hub/The-London-Underground-Mosquito
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito
Evidence for this mosquito being a different species from C.
pipiens comes from research by Kate Byrne and Richard Nichols. The
species have very different behaviours,[1] are extremely difficult
to mate,[2] and with different allele frequencies consistent with
genetic drift during a founder event.[4] More specifically, this
mosquito, C. p. f. molestus, breeds all-year round, is cold
intolerant, and bites rats, mice, and humans, in contrast to the
above-ground species, which is cold tolerant, hibernates in the
winter, and bites only birds. When the two varieties were
cross-bred, the eggs were infertile, suggesting reproductive
isolation.
He could have Googled "observed instances of speciation" and he would
have got plenty.
Given his (and many of the other creationists and IDiots we get here)
regular presence on talk.origins, I wouldn't be surprised if he has
had this asked and answered over there, and is now repeating it here
as if it hadn't been.
So I checked - he posted it there yesterday.
He imagines we're ignorant of such things, but while we're not the
experts over there, we usually give the same answers although in less
detail.
Having been answered (or refuted) there, the creationists and IDiots
come here as if they hadn't, expecting to pull the wool over our eyes.
This is a practice I find just plain dishonest as well as very
revealing about them.

can you describe the experiment?

was time held as a control variable? if not, then when time changes your
conclusion can change

if time was held as a control variable what correlation between the
independent and dependent variables was there? 6-sigma? anything less
than 100% means something else is a factor

have you considered that the illogical exists and illogical things can
happen? I don't know this myself, but, what I do know, science is often
boastful about not studying empiricism of spiritual source

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

Post by Dale

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existi=

ng

Post by Dale

Post by Dale
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know=

=

Post by Dale

Post by Dale
that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outsid=

e =

Post by Dale

Post by Dale
the
lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life =

=

Post by Dale

Post by Dale
from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
In brief, Lenski directly observed the evolution of a new species of=

E.

Post by Dale

coli, under laboratory conditions.

He's not interested in an answer - his question about something that
is nothing to do with atheism, is meant to be a silver bullet.
But...
http://scottcgruber.hubpages.com/hub/The-London-Underground-Mosquito
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito
Evidence for this mosquito being a different species from C.
pipiens comes from research by Kate Byrne and Richard Nichols. Th=

e

Post by Dale

species have very different behaviours,[1] are extremely difficul=

t

Post by Dale

to mate,[2] and with different allele frequencies consistent with=
genetic drift during a founder event.[4] More specifically, this
mosquito, C. p. f. molestus, breeds all-year round, is cold
intolerant, and bites rats, mice, and humans, in contrast to the
above-ground species, which is cold tolerant, hibernates in the
winter, and bites only birds. When the two varieties were
cross-bred, the eggs were infertile, suggesting reproductive
isolation.
He could have Googled "observed instances of speciation" and he would=
have got plenty.
Given his (and many of the other creationists and IDiots we get here)=
regular presence on talk.origins, I wouldn't be surprised if he has
had this asked and answered over there, and is now repeating it here
as if it hadn't been.
So I checked - he posted it there yesterday.
He imagines we're ignorant of such things, but while we're not the
experts over there, we usually give the same answers although in less=
detail.
Having been answered (or refuted) there, the creationists and IDiots
come here as if they hadn't, expecting to pull the wool over our eyes=

.

Post by Dale

This is a practice I find just plain dishonest as well as very
revealing about them.

can you describe the experiment?
was time held as a control variable? if not, then when time changes yo=

ur =

Post by Dale
conclusion can change
if time was held as a control variable what correlation between the =
independent and dependent variables was there? 6-sigma? anything less =

=

Post by Dale
than 100% means something else is a factor
have you considered that the illogical exists and illogical things can=

=

Post by Dale
happen? I don't know this myself, but, what I do know, science is ofte=

n =

Post by Dale
boastful about not studying empiricism of spiritual source

what do YOU consider illogical, that we should believe the people thumpi=
ng =

2000 year old books about an invisible all-knowing sky daddy creating li=
fe =

or that we should believe that DNA arose from a highly complex physical =
=

process over millions of years as the collected evidence seems to point =
=

toward?

-- =

Loading Image...

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

Loading Image...

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: header=
s =

containing "***@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to =

yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints=
=

to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful =

information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you =

downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try=
: =

Loading Image...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority =E2=
=80=94 as =

it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjec=
ts =

or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it =

presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, =

Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homewor=
k =

before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason =

many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating =

opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you=
, =

look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassi=
ng =

bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-to=
ed =

boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks, =

Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)
=

[Dale]

On 10/21/2015 07:14 PM, "Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907
Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907

Post by "Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117
what do YOU consider illogical, that we should believe the people
thumping 2000 year old books about an invisible all-knowing sky daddy
creating life or that we should believe that DNA arose from a highly
complex physical process over millions of years as the collected
evidence seems to point toward?

so you are using the preponderance of evidence assertion

what about the reasonable doubt assertion?

when you can come back with a statistically designed experiment with
time held as a control variable, then you can debate the sun will rise
tomorrow as it did today, empirically

reasonable doubt to me would say that spirituality and its
psychological/sociological/psychiatric, being around since the dawn of
writing in Sumeria/Hammurabi, has benefits beyond a reasonable doubt,
even if they are metaphors/parables, science as an institution may be
new, but the process is the basis of spirituality too

Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

On 10/21/2015 07:14 PM, "Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 =
Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 =

=

Post by "Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117
what do YOU consider illogical, that we should believe the people
thumping 2000 year old books about an invisible all-knowing sky daddy=
creating life or that we should believe that DNA arose from a highly
complex physical process over millions of years as the collected
evidence seems to point toward?

so you are using the preponderance of evidence assertion
what about the reasonable doubt assertion?

even in a "reasonable doubt" legal sense, it is still the onus of the =

person(s) claiming reasonable doubt to prove it.

so prove it.

when you can come back with a statistically designed experiment with =
time held as a control variable, then you can debate the sun will rise=

=

tomorrow as it did today, empirically
reasonable doubt to me would say that spirituality and its =
psychological/sociological/psychiatric, being around since the dawn of=

=

writing in Sumeria/Hammurabi, has benefits beyond a reasonable doubt, =

=

even if they are metaphors/parables, science as an institution may be =

=

new, but the process is the basis of spirituality too
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

-- =

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: header=
s =

containing "***@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to =

yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints=
=

to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful =

information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you =

downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try=
: =

http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority =E2=
=80=94 as =

it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjec=
ts =

or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it =

presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, =

Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homewor=
k =

before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason =

many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating =

opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you=
, =

look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassi=
ng =

bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-to=
ed =

boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks, =

Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)
=

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

You're really asking for evidence of absence.

Conclusive proof of absence is never going to be forthcoming.

However, species appear and disappear in the fossil record.

If that doesn't correspond to the species coming into existence, and
then ceasing to exist, one would have to wonder why.

One might posit that the fossil record reflects abundance of a species
rather than its existence, but it would then one would expect some
species to appear in the fossil record multiple times, but with
significant gaps.

One could explain away the absence of such gaps by the difficulty of
recognising them in a fossil record that is sometimes sparse.

And so on.

Essentially, if you want a formal proof, you're not going to get it.

If you take the absence of a formal proof as evidence (or worse, proof)
of some other proposition that you prefer, then you're either deluding
yourself, or being intellectually dishonest.

Sylvia.

[Dale]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

You're really asking for evidence of absence.
Conclusive proof of absence is never going to be forthcoming.
However, species appear and disappear in the fossil record.
If that doesn't correspond to the species coming into existence, and
then ceasing to exist, one would have to wonder why.
One might posit that the fossil record reflects abundance of a species
rather than its existence, but it would then one would expect some
species to appear in the fossil record multiple times, but with
significant gaps.
One could explain away the absence of such gaps by the difficulty of
recognising them in a fossil record that is sometimes sparse.
And so on.
Essentially, if you want a formal proof, you're not going to get it.
If you take the absence of a formal proof as evidence (or worse, proof)
of some other proposition that you prefer, then you're either deluding
yourself, or being intellectually dishonest.
Sylvia.

USENET is better than television ...

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existin=

g

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know =

=

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside=

=

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
the
lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life f=

rom

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

You're really asking for evidence of absence.
Conclusive proof of absence is never going to be forthcoming.
However, species appear and disappear in the fossil record.
If that doesn't correspond to the species coming into existence, and
then ceasing to exist, one would have to wonder why.
One might posit that the fossil record reflects abundance of a specie=

s

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else
rather than its existence, but it would then one would expect some
species to appear in the fossil record multiple times, but with
significant gaps.
One could explain away the absence of such gaps by the difficulty of
recognising them in a fossil record that is sometimes sparse.
And so on.
Essentially, if you want a formal proof, you're not going to get it.
If you take the absence of a formal proof as evidence (or worse, proo=

f)

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else
of some other proposition that you prefer, then you're either deludin=

g

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else
yourself, or being intellectually dishonest.
Sylvia.

USENET is better than television ...

seems it's also better than a few college-level courses in discrete math=
=

and logic, according to you.

when you make a claim such as you have, it's up to you to gather evidenc=
e =

to prove your hypothesis, not anybody else. does that part make you =

angry, or were you just not aware of how scientific method works?

-- =

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: header=
s =

containing "***@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to =

yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints=
=

to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful =

information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you =

downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try=
: =

http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority =E2=
=80=94 as =

it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjec=
ts =

or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it =

presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, =

Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homewor=
k =

before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason =

many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating =

opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you=
, =

look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassi=
ng =

bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-to=
ed =

boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks, =

Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)
=

[Smiler]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know
that this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed
outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

You're really asking for evidence of absence.
Conclusive proof of absence is never going to be forthcoming.
However, species appear and disappear in the fossil record.
If that doesn't correspond to the species coming into existence, and
then ceasing to exist, one would have to wonder why.
One might posit that the fossil record reflects abundance of a species
rather than its existence, but it would then one would expect some
species to appear in the fossil record multiple times, but with
significant gaps.
One could explain away the absence of such gaps by the difficulty of
recognising them in a fossil record that is sometimes sparse.
And so on.
Essentially, if you want a formal proof, you're not going to get it.
If you take the absence of a formal proof as evidence (or worse, proof)
of some other proposition that you prefer, then you're either deluding
yourself, or being intellectually dishonest.

Or both.

[The BORG]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

[The BORG]

Depends on God doesn't it.

Only atheists ponder this kind of thing.

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

[Mr. B1ack]

Post by The BORG
Depends on God doesn't it.
Only atheists ponder this kind of thing.

Well SOMEONE has to ... since the rest
are incompetent.