Author Topic: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...  (Read 7826 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1338
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #551 on: August 07, 2014, 12:09:23 PM »
All I am saying is that what you are interpreting as a basis for what you believe is not scientific.

That sounds like an embarrassingly stupid comment from someone who wants to use the bible as the basis for understanding biology.

You have avoided mentioning that the biblical version of creation is impossible, and not an alternative to evolution. You are only attacking evolution because you support an impossible idea. Why are you afraid to face the fact that the biblical version is impossible?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2191
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #552 on: August 07, 2014, 12:53:21 PM »
All I am saying is that what you are interpreting as a basis for what you believe is not scientific.

If you're going to say that, then you'll also say that the interpretation that mass has a direct correlation with gravity isn't scientific as well, because we don't know the exact mechanism that causes gravity.

BFD. Who cares about your definition of "scientific"? Nobody, except you.

We know gravity exists. We also know evolution occurs. And we probably know more about evolution than we know about gravity. That you're unwilling to accept it says a whole lot more about you than us.

BTW, the "mechanism" for evolution is genetic mutation x hundreds of thousands of generations. It's really that simple. Take off your god-colored glasses and have a look around.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #553 on: August 07, 2014, 12:54:29 PM »
I jumped into this thread at post #416. We are now on post #553 (almost five pages)….and still NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been able to demonstrate how the scientific method was employed to verify that a biological process exists (or existed) that is capable of producing soup-to-humans evolution. The pro-evolutionist claims that micro+micro=macro happens because….well….because they say it happened….not because they have the necessary science to back it up.

That, folks, is where my comment about dishonesty and deceit comes from and why I decided to jump in when One Above All made the comment that “evolution has been proven time and time again.”

It is dishonest to claim that macroevolutionary aspects of the ToE are scientific.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4845
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #554 on: August 07, 2014, 12:56:21 PM »
Occam's razor cannot be substituted for the scientific method.
Nobody is suggesting that it can be.  What Occam's razor does is allow us to identify the most likely explanation (the one that makes the fewest total assumptions), which can then be investigated using the scientific method.  And that is exactly what happens with evolutionary theory.  Scientists constantly examine elements of it to check whether they work or not, both individually and within the framework of the theory.

It is worth noting that this doesn't happen with intelligent design/creationism.  The work of scientists who support this alternate hypothesis (to be generous) generally focuses on elements of evolutionary theory, often with the intent of showing problems with those elements.  And that's fine, but their results still have to be repeatedly checked, the way everything else in science is, to eliminate human error and bias as much as possible.  That's why you can't point to a single study, such as the one by Axe you linked earlier, and treat it as a smoking gun that supposedly disproves or discredits evolutionary theory.  If future studies that follow up on Axe's work show the same general results, that is something that evolutionary theory will have to take into account.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6366
  • Darwins +749/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #555 on: August 07, 2014, 01:05:10 PM »
I jumped into this thread at post #416. We are now on post #553 (almost five pages)….and still NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been able to demonstrate how the scientific method was employed to verify that a biological process exists (or existed) that is capable of producing soup-to-humans evolution. The pro-evolutionist claims that micro+micro=macro happens because….well….because they say it happened….not because they have the necessary science to back it up.

That, folks, is where my comment about dishonesty and deceit comes from and why I decided to jump in when One Above All made the comment that “evolution has been proven time and time again.”

It is dishonest to claim that macroevolutionary aspects of the ToE are scientific.

You are not saying why it is dishonest. What hasn't been proven? The scientific community considers the evidence overwhelming. You're merely disagreeing with that assessment is an inadequate response. I'll ask again. Give us specifics. Just complaining about the micro/macro stuff won't do it.

I can ask for specifics from you until the cows come home. Apparently you can generically complain equally as long. We may be at a standstill.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4845
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #556 on: August 07, 2014, 01:12:02 PM »
I jumped into this thread at post #416. We are now on post #553 (almost five pages)….and still NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been able to demonstrate how the scientific method was employed to verify that a biological process exists (or existed) that is capable of producing soup-to-humans evolution. The pro-evolutionist claims that micro+micro=macro happens because….well….because they say it happened….not because they have the necessary science to back it up.

That, folks, is where my comment about dishonesty and deceit comes from and why I decided to jump in when One Above All made the comment that “evolution has been proven time and time again.”

It is dishonest to claim that macroevolutionary aspects of the ToE are scientific.
This approach you're taking is itself supremely dishonest, BibleStudent.  The fact that you are demanding that someone prove "soup-to-humans" demonstrates that you do not understand evolutionary biology or the evidence that supports the theory of evolution - the entire theory, not the arbitrary "macro-evolution" distinction that you and other creationists are trying to draw.  Yours is essentially a strawman argument - you are demanding that people must fulfill your own arbitrary criteria to 'prove' evolutionary theory, and if they cannot (or do not), you condemn the entire theory as dishonest and deceitful.

If you wanted someone to explain the process by which a space rocket fires, would you ask someone who actually works in rocket science, or would you ask a layman who may or may not have studied the subject, and certainly hasn't studied it in anywhere near the same depth as an actual rocket scientist would have?  That is why your approach is supremely dishonest.  You are not taking your question to actual experts on evolutionary biology, who would presumably be able to demonstrate the specific pathway (or as much of it as they have been able to reconstruct), you're instead challenging atheists and skeptics on it, and then crowing about how 'dishonest' they are.

I have probably studied evolutionary biology quite a bit more than most people here, and even I could not produce an evolutionary pathway from prebiotic organisms to humans, because I am a layman, not an evolutionary biologist.  However, I have studied the subject enough to trust that evolutionary biologists know what they are talking about.  It is no more dishonest to state that the "macro-evolutionary" aspects of the theory of evolution are scientific than it is to state that aspects of other scientific theories which have not been fully proven are scientific.  What is dishonest is to take your demand for evidence to laymen and then, when they cannot fulfill it due to lack of expertise on the subject, to call them dishonest.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #557 on: August 07, 2014, 02:02:08 PM »
This approach you're taking is itself supremely dishonest, BibleStudent.  The fact that you are demanding that someone prove "soup-to-humans" demonstrates that you do not understand evolutionary biology or the evidence that supports the theory of evolution - the entire theory, not the arbitrary "macro-evolution" distinction that you and other creationists are trying to draw.  Yours is essentially a strawman argument - you are demanding that people must fulfill your own arbitrary criteria to 'prove' evolutionary theory, and if they cannot (or do not), you condemn the entire theory as dishonest and deceitful.

If you wanted someone to explain the process by which a space rocket fires, would you ask someone who actually works in rocket science, or would you ask a layman who may or may not have studied the subject, and certainly hasn't studied it in anywhere near the same depth as an actual rocket scientist would have?  That is why your approach is supremely dishonest.  You are not taking your question to actual experts on evolutionary biology, who would presumably be able to demonstrate the specific pathway (or as much of it as they have been able to reconstruct), you're instead challenging atheists and skeptics on it, and then crowing about how 'dishonest' they are.

I have probably studied evolutionary biology quite a bit more than most people here, and even I could not produce an evolutionary pathway from prebiotic organisms to humans, because I am a layman, not an evolutionary biologist.  However, I have studied the subject enough to trust that evolutionary biologists know what they are talking about.  It is no more dishonest to state that the "macro-evolutionary" aspects of the theory of evolution are scientific than it is to state that aspects of other scientific theories which have not been fully proven are scientific.  What is dishonest is to take your demand for evidence to laymen and then, when they cannot fulfill it due to lack of expertise on the subject, to call them dishonest.

I have not accused anyone in this forum of being dishonest….although if you claim that soup-to-humans evolution is “proven” then you are most certainly being dishonest.

Frankly, I resent your accusations…… not just because of what I indicated above but because you accuse me of being dishonest along with your suggestion that I “do not understand evolutionary biology or the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.” Those are unfounded and unnecessary accusations you make. You have no basis whatsoever for making those comments. Plus, I’ve heard the nonsensical babble about my alleged ignorance on the subject so many times that if I had a quarter for each time someone spewed it out, I could buy a brand new Ferrari.

The criteria I am submitting to is the ‘scientific method’….not some arbitrary criteria I created. Where you came up with that unwarranted accusation is beyond me. In fact, I’d appreciate it if you explained where I have it wrong.

Your posts are usually quite practical and sensible and your position is typically well supported…but this one reeks of bitterness and/or frustration.

And, since you claim that you have studied biology quite a bit more than most people here (and that you cannot produce an evolutionary pathway for soup-to-humans), surely you must know of other sources you could reference for the information I have repeatedly requested. 


Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6366
  • Darwins +749/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #558 on: August 07, 2014, 02:15:55 PM »
Then, BS, the question becomes: How would you like a 3.5 billion year long saga presented to you so that you can understand it.

Or you could do this: Read the following article (it is fairly short), which is a layman-level description of why evolution is so obvious. Read it, point out not only why you think it is wrong, but specifically why you think it is wrong. Give us something to work with. So far your requests have either been way too generic or not designed to be answered.

Here is the article:
http://theweek.com/article/index/265653/why-you-should-stop-believing-in-evolution
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #559 on: August 07, 2014, 02:16:26 PM »
You are not saying why it is dishonest. What hasn't been proven?

I am not asking for you to "prove" anything.

Quote
The scientific community considers the evidence overwhelming.

Terrific. Now show me how the scientific method was employed to validate the hypothesis that a biological mechanism produced the large scale evolutionary changes you allege.


Quote
You're merely disagreeing with that assessment is an inadequate response. I'll ask again. Give us specifics. Just complaining about the micro/macro stuff won't do it.

I am not "merely disagreeing." If you would provide the science behind macroevolution then I will tuck my tail between my legs and go away.

Quote
I can ask for specifics from you until the cows come home. Apparently you can generically complain equally as long. We may be at a standstill.

After repeating virtually the same argument accompanied by the same request over and over again, if you don't know what the "specifics" are then you probably never will.

AGAIN - You can't just say that micro+micro=macro and call that a scientific claim if you don't use the scientific method to support it. Read that sentence a few times and perhaps the light will come on.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1968
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #560 on: August 07, 2014, 02:32:09 PM »
Terrific. Now show me how the scientific method was employed to validate the hypothesis that a biological mechanism produced the large scale evolutionary changes you allege.
Can you describe any kind of a macroscopic change of a system (doesn't need to be biological) that is not the result of the accumulation of microscopic changes?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #561 on: August 07, 2014, 02:49:05 PM »
Terrific. Now show me how the scientific method was employed to validate the hypothesis that a biological mechanism produced the large scale evolutionary changes you allege.
Can you describe any kind of a macroscopic change of a system (doesn't need to be biological) that is not the result of the accumulation of microscopic changes?

No.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #562 on: August 07, 2014, 02:57:17 PM »
BTW, the "mechanism" for evolution is genetic mutation x hundreds of thousands of generations. It's really that simple. Take off your god-colored glasses and have a look around.

Is this a 'scientific' claim you are making or just an assumption? If it is a 'scientific' claim, then please provide the evidence that demonstrates that this mechanism is capable of producing a bird from a dinosaur.....or a snake from a lizard.....or how it went about creating a brain, or an ear, or backbone, etc. And, please make sure the scientific method was the vehicle used for producing this evidence.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2191
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #563 on: August 07, 2014, 03:14:16 PM »
BTW, the "mechanism" for evolution is genetic mutation x hundreds of thousands of generations. It's really that simple. Take off your god-colored glasses and have a look around.

Is this a 'scientific' claim you are making or just an assumption? If it is a 'scientific' claim, then please provide the evidence that demonstrates that this mechanism is capable of producing a bird from a dinosaur.....or a snake from a lizard.....or how it went about creating a brain, or an ear, or backbone, etc. And, please make sure the scientific method was the vehicle used for producing this evidence.

Easy peasy. You agree that there are such a thing as genetic mutations, right?

Now just observe for hundreds of thousands of years. You'll see.

All facetiousness aside, the evidence that ToE is true is overwhelming. But curious; why did you not comment on the rest of my post? You know, the part where we don't know the mechanism that makes mass cause gravity? Is it be because you accept gravity? Accepting ToE is no different, save for your distorted view through the lens of your beliefs.

But, we've had this conversation before. As I said, I know you have no choice in the matter, and us arguing about it will do nothing to rectify that situation. And I, never having had god-belief, have no idea whatsoever how you could possibly overcome your preconceived POV. And you telling us that because we can't witness something, or explain something in the smallest detail, will not make us believe that our acceptance of the science is invalid. Because it's not, no more than your acceptance of the Theory of Gravity is invalid.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 03:20:57 PM by Dante »
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1338
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #564 on: August 07, 2014, 03:19:41 PM »
Is this a 'scientific' claim you are making or just an assumption? If it is a 'scientific' claim, then please provide the evidence that demonstrates that this mechanism is capable of producing a bird from a dinosaur.....or a snake from a lizard.....or how it went about creating a brain, or an ear, or backbone, etc. And, please make sure the scientific method was the vehicle used for producing this evidence.

Are your ideas more scientific? Is using the story of creation in the bible scientific? Think about your confirmation bias.

What about what you call microevolution? You accept the microevolution of birds, but what about the microevolution of apes? Humans are one type of ape. Are you going to show your confirmation bias again by denying this one piece of microevolution?

« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 03:37:46 PM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #565 on: August 07, 2014, 03:20:34 PM »
the assertion that microevolution + more micorevolution = macroevolution is not scientifically verifiable.

If there is no mechanism stopping it, why is it not the logical conclusion?
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4845
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #566 on: August 07, 2014, 03:50:06 PM »
I have not accused anyone in this forum of being dishonest….although if you claim that soup-to-humans evolution is “proven” then you are most certainly being dishonest.
If you say that people who believe that "macro-evolution" is proven are being dishonest, then you are accusing them of dishonesty whether or not you actually come out and accuse a specific person or not.  No amount of weasel-worded attempts to edge around a direct accusation can keep people from recognizing just what you're really saying.  That's one of the biggest problems I have with your approach here, though not the largest one by far.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Frankly, I resent your accusations……
And I resent your attempts to imply that people are dishonest without coming right out and saying so, so you can pretend to be the injured party.  You are not fooling anyone, but you are pissing several people off.

Quote from: BibleStudent
not just because of what I indicated above but because you accuse me of being dishonest along with your suggestion that I “do not understand evolutionary biology or the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.”
The mere fact that you claim that "soup-to-humans" is necessary to prove "macro-evolution" is more than enough to show that you don't understand it as well as you think you do.  My statement was a bit hyperbolic, as I don't know for sure how much you actually know.  However, it is pretty clear that you don't understand it as well as I do, or other people, otherwise you would understand why your demand is unreasonable.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Those are unfounded and unnecessary accusations you make. You have no basis whatsoever for making those comments. Plus, I’ve heard the nonsensical babble about my alleged ignorance on the subject so many times that if I had a quarter for each time someone spewed it out, I could buy a brand new Ferrari.
I do indeed have a basis for stating that your understanding is lacking.  If nothing else, the mere fact that you're demanding a complete pathway in a field where far more than 99% of all organisms are consumed for food and thus don't leave remains to be fossilized and later studied would be sufficient.  That lack of a complete pathway does not make "macro-evolution" false; the lack of evidence cuts both ways.

Quote from: BibleStudent
The criteria I am submitting to is the ‘scientific method’….not some arbitrary criteria I created. Where you came up with that unwarranted accusation is beyond me. In fact, I’d appreciate it if you explained where I have it wrong.
Nope, you're using a common misunderstanding of the scientific method; I will grant that you didn't invent it, but the criteria is nonetheless arbitrary because it's not based on the methods that scientists actually use.  The scientific method does not prove things; it seeks to disprove them.  That means that everything which is accepted as valid scientific theory has avoided being disproved repeatedly, to the point where scientists accept it as the most probable explanation.

It would be impossible to prove a specific "soup-to-humans" pathway, and it would be effectively impossible to point to a general one due to the lack of fossil remains of the earliest organisms.  Or hadn't you noticed that virtually all fossils are of things like bones, or else organisms trapped and thus preserved in amber?  The earliest organisms - for at least a couple of billion years - were single-celled and protoplasmic, which meant that there were no hard tissues that could be preserved, and nothing like amber to trap them either.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Your posts are usually quite practical and sensible and your position is typically well supported…but this one reeks of bitterness and/or frustration.
I do not appreciate it when someone starts making accusations of dishonesty or deceit which are not warranted in my opinion.  I doubly do not appreciate it when that person acts like he was not actually accusing anyone of dishonesty or deceit, even while they say that such-and-such a person is dishonest if they believe such a thing.  You may not realize it, but that's exactly how you're coming across.

Quote from: BibleStudent
And, since you claim that you have studied biology quite a bit more than most people here (and that you cannot produce an evolutionary pathway for soup-to-humans), surely you must know of other sources you could reference for the information I have repeatedly requested.
I don't think it's possible to provide a "soup to humans" pathway, for the reasons cited above.  That lack does not make evolutionary theory wrong, or even certain aspects of evolutionary theory wrong, since it also means we lack definite data which would show that it was incorrect.  It simply means that we need more information.  And in the meantime, since it fits the facts as we understand them better and with less assumptions than anything else anyone has come up with so far, we treat it as provisionally true/valid.  Because science is never settled; it's always our best, most educated guess based on the data we have.

I would suggest you read the two articles linked in my signature - they help explain some of the basis for my position pretty well.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6366
  • Darwins +749/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #567 on: August 07, 2014, 03:57:28 PM »
You are not saying why it is dishonest. What hasn't been proven?

I am not asking for you to "prove" anything.

Quote
The scientific community considers the evidence overwhelming.

Terrific. Now show me how the scientific method was employed to validate the hypothesis that a biological mechanism produced the large scale evolutionary changes you allege.


Quote
You're merely disagreeing with that assessment is an inadequate response. I'll ask again. Give us specifics. Just complaining about the micro/macro stuff won't do it.

I am not "merely disagreeing." If you would provide the science behind macroevolution then I will tuck my tail between my legs and go away.

Quote
I can ask for specifics from you until the cows come home. Apparently you can generically complain equally as long. We may be at a standstill.

After repeating virtually the same argument accompanied by the same request over and over again, if you don't know what the "specifics" are then you probably never will.

AGAIN - You can't just say that micro+micro=macro and call that a scientific claim if you don't use the scientific method to support it. Read that sentence a few times and perhaps the light will come on.

May I ask you a question. If the fossil record very clearly shows a slow transition from simple life forms to more complex ones, over millions and millions of years, do you have another explanation as to why said fossil record looks like that? If we can track specific genes back through currently living, but simpler and simpler organisms, and find those genes performing the same function in simpler life forms that they perform in more complex life forms, and those life forms appear, via fossils and other methods, to be directly related via evolution, what else are we supposed to think? It appears to blatantly obvious that simple life forms became more complex over time that nobody can think of another mechanism.

Now its fine if you want to say that god did it. But you can't also say that the earth is 6,000 years old, because none of the evidence supports that. So if you think that the earth is billions of years old, and that god putted around for a few billion years just gradually making more and more complex life forms as he saw fit, and that the 99% failure rate for species is consisted with his personal standards and stuff, and that he finally got around to Eden or some other start to humans and poof, here we are, I can't really argue against that because gods are harder to argue with when their story is more consistent with the observed world.

If that is the only difference, and you don't mind not being able to prove that your god did it, while we can't prove to your standards that evolution did it, then we can call it a draw. At least you and I can. I shouldn't speak for the others.

But if you are going to continue to claim that it is impossible because we can't prove conclusively, because we are relying on evidence rather than extensive duplication of said evolution in labs, and then have no alternative to offer, then your style sucks, and I have no way to concede your points. Because you aren't bothering to make any.

You decide.

Edit: rewrote last paragraph for clarity.
Edit: Well I thought I did. Had to try again.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 05:08:48 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #568 on: August 07, 2014, 06:29:01 PM »
BS, none of what you wrote has anything to do with what I pointed out about your response to PP.  Your dialogue had the following pattern:

BS - A can't do X!
PP - Why can't A do X?
BS - I don't know why A can't do X, and you don't either!

See the problem?

No, I don't see the problem because I never said that "A can't do X."

Perhaps I misunderstood your position then.  It was my understanding that you believe that accumulated "micro" changes (A) cannot produce a macro-change (do X).
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6615
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #569 on: August 07, 2014, 06:48:12 PM »
I jumped into this thread at post #416. We are now on post #553 (almost five pages)….and still NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been able to demonstrate how the scientific method was employed to verify that a biological process exists (or existed) that is capable of producing soup-to-humans evolution. The pro-evolutionist claims that micro+micro=macro happens because….well….because they say it happened….not because they have the necessary science to back it up.

That, folks, is where my comment about dishonesty and deceit comes from and why I decided to jump in when One Above All made the comment that “evolution has been proven time and time again.”

It is dishonest to claim that macroevolutionary aspects of the ToE are scientific.
I am surprised that you are surprised. I do not think that you are willing to accept any proof at all that macro -evolution took place.

To be frank, you are asking members to teach you sufficient paleo-biology that you might reach a standard of knowledge that enables you to grasp some of the evidence that leads to the basic conclusions, whilst at the same time dispelling your idea of a creationist god. You must see that this is unreasonable.

However, I think it is time that you explained how God magicked animals into existence. I say this as the Theory of Evolution is pretty well researched, argued and evidenced.

Any theory that contradicts it, has to be better researched, argued and evidenced, doesn't it.

So... tell us... how did God do it?

GB Mod
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #570 on: August 07, 2014, 07:37:09 PM »
^ not by evilution/s, that's for sure.

:D
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #571 on: August 07, 2014, 08:57:14 PM »
If you say that people who believe that "macro-evolution" is proven are being dishonest, then you are accusing them of dishonesty whether or not you actually come out and accuse a specific person or not.  No amount of weasel-worded attempts to edge around a direct accusation can keep people from recognizing just what you're really saying.  That's one of the biggest problems I have with your approach here, though not the largest one by far.

There is no weasel wording going on. I came right out and said that if someone claims that evolution has been proven, they are being dishonest. How is that using weasel wording? Besides, if I am incorrect in making that accusation, then please explain why instead of just babbling on that I am incorrect.


Quote
And I resent your attempts to imply that people are dishonest without coming right out and saying so, so you can pretend to be the injured party.  You are not fooling anyone, but you are pissing several people off.

Yes. Perhaps some people are getting pissed off. What I am exposing in this thread is a tough pill to swallow for those that have to admit that certain aspects of the ToE are unscientific.

Quote
The mere fact that you claim that "soup-to-humans" is necessary to prove "macro-evolution" is more than enough to show that you don't understand it as well as you think you do.  My statement was a bit hyperbolic, as I don't know for sure how much you actually know.  However, it is pretty clear that you don't understand it as well as I do, or other people, otherwise you would understand why your demand is unreasonable.

That is a completely cop out. Instead of explaining why I am incorrect or ignorant, an honest and genuine effort to respond to the specific claims and questions I have posed in this thread? You seem far more interested in discrediting me than you do in actually arguing the points I am making.And, these accusations some of you make about the level of knowledge and intellect a theist allegedly lacks are some of the most lame and stupid accusations made. They are an obvious tactic to smear the poster with the intent  a being to dodge the topic(s).

Quote
I do indeed have a basis for stating that your understanding is lacking.  If nothing else, the mere fact that you're demanding a complete pathway in a field where far more than 99% of all organisms are consumed for food and thus don't leave remains to be fossilized and later studied would be sufficient.  That lack of a complete pathway does not make "macro-evolution" false; the lack of evidence cuts both ways.

Where in this thread have I said that macroevolution is false? I am simply challenging any assertion that evolution is proven or that the entirety of the ToE is 'scientific' in nature. By what means or criteria does macroevolution become 'scientific? Is it by consensus? Is it because Joe "the ToE" Evolution says so? By what authority can someone claim the entirety of the ToE is scientific?

Quote
Nope, you're using a common misunderstanding of the scientific method; I will grant that you didn't invent it, but the criteria is nonetheless arbitrary because it's not based on the methods that scientists actually use.

WHAT??!!!! You mean there is a different scientific method? Is it a secret method...one that only scientists researching the ToE use? I have never heard this before so please do enlighten me....or provide a link to a credible source for this 'other' method.

Quote
The scientific method does not prove things; it seeks to disprove them.  That means that everything which is accepted as valid scientific theory has avoided being disproved repeatedly, to the point where scientists accept it as the most probable explanation.

So, this whole business about testing and experimenting to verify the accuracy of a hypothesis is a bunch a nonsense? According to you, basically all you have to do is demonstrate that other hypotheses don't trump the one being studied. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were making this stuff up in a desperate attempt to somehow demonstrate a scientific basis for some of the claims being made because now there is a variation or different scientific method that can be used when the other one(s) don't provide the outcome that is needed. Interesting and,frankly, unbelievable. I have heard or read somewhere that people who are completely sold on the ToE will make things up as they go along in order to protect it and now I think I am seeing first-hand that that may be true.

Quote
It would be impossible to prove a specific "soup-to-humans" pathway, and it would be effectively impossible to point to a general one due to the lack of fossil remains of the earliest organisms.  Or hadn't you noticed that virtually all fossils are of things like bones, or else organisms trapped and thus preserved in amber?  The earliest organisms - for at least a couple of billion years - were single-celled and protoplasmic, which meant that there were no hard tissues that could be preserved, and nothing like amber to trap them either.

You just admitted that all claims of soup-to-humans is unscientific. There is no known pathway and no known mechanism so you are left with a form of deduction based on observation which cannot be supported by the scientific method. In effect, you are ASSUMING it to be true. That is not a scientific basis for anything !!!!

Quote
I don't think it's possible to provide a "soup to humans" pathway, for the reasons cited above.  That lack does not make evolutionary theory wrong, or even certain aspects of evolutionary theory wrong,

I never said it was wrong !!! I said it was unscientific. In fact, I've said it repeatedly in this thread and am yet to receive a response either demonstrating that it is or explaining why my position is false.


Quote
It simply means that we need more information.  And in the meantime, since it fits the facts as we understand them better and with less assumptions than anything else anyone has come up with so far, we treat it as provisionally true/valid.  Because science is never settled; it's always our best, most educated guess based on the data we have.

So, it is a GUESS then?? If this is a valid scientific method you just described then you just opened a can of whoop-ass for some of the creationist and IDT crowd to use. Can you even imagine the ridicule and criticism they would be subjected to if they used your nonsensical version of how science works. Yikes !!!




Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #572 on: August 07, 2014, 09:04:34 PM »
I jumped into this thread at post #416. We are now on post #553 (almost five pages)….and still NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been able to demonstrate how the scientific method was employed to verify that a biological process exists (or existed) that is capable of producing soup-to-humans evolution. The pro-evolutionist claims that micro+micro=macro happens because….well….because they say it happened….not because they have the necessary science to back it up.

That, folks, is where my comment about dishonesty and deceit comes from and why I decided to jump in when One Above All made the comment that “evolution has been proven time and time again.”

It is dishonest to claim that macroevolutionary aspects of the ToE are scientific.
I am surprised that you are surprised. I do not think that you are willing to accept any proof at all that macro -evolution took place.

To be frank, you are asking members to teach you sufficient paleo-biology that you might reach a standard of knowledge that enables you to grasp some of the evidence that leads to the basic conclusions, whilst at the same time dispelling your idea of a creationist god. You must see that this is unreasonable.

However, I think it is time that you explained how God magicked animals into existence. I say this as the Theory of Evolution is pretty well researched, argued and evidenced.

Any theory that contradicts it, has to be better researched, argued and evidenced, doesn't it.

So... tell us... how did God do it?

GB Mod


With all due respect, wouldn't the topics you seek to discuss be better addressed in a separate thread. IIRC, I have not mentioned anywhere in this thread that there is a more plausible explanation for how the universe and life at the point we experience and see today. If I had then I could see the legitimacy of your request. It seems you would be sending this thread off into a completely different direction.

Just for clarification, I have not mentioned in this thread that the ToE is false. I am simply claiming that certain areas of it are not scientific in nature. There is a bit of a difference there.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #573 on: August 07, 2014, 09:42:59 PM »
May I ask you a question. If the fossil record very clearly shows a slow transition from simple life forms to more complex ones, over millions and millions of years, do you have another explanation as to why said fossil record looks like that? If we can track specific genes back through currently living, but simpler and simpler organisms, and find those genes performing the same function in simpler life forms that they perform in more complex life forms, and those life forms appear, via fossils and other methods, to be directly related via evolution, what else are we supposed to think? It appears to blatantly obvious that simple life forms became more complex over time that nobody can think of another mechanism.

Now its fine if you want to say that god did it. But you can't also say that the earth is 6,000 years old, because none of the evidence supports that. So if you think that the earth is billions of years old, and that god putted around for a few billion years just gradually making more and more complex life forms as he saw fit, and that the 99% failure rate for species is consisted with his personal standards and stuff, and that he finally got around to Eden or some other start to humans and poof, here we are, I can't really argue against that because gods are harder to argue with when their story is more consistent with the observed world.

If that is the only difference, and you don't mind not being able to prove that your god did it, while we can't prove to your standards that evolution did it, then we can call it a draw. At least you and I can. I shouldn't speak for the others.

But if you are going to continue to claim that it is impossible because we can't prove conclusively, because we are relying on evidence rather than extensive duplication of said evolution in labs, and then have no alternative to offer, then your style sucks, and I have no way to concede your points. Because you aren't bothering to make any.

You decide.

Edit: rewrote last paragraph for clarity.
Edit: Well I thought I did. Had to try again.

If nothing else, at least you seem to be genuinely interested in trying to understand my position and offer explanations for why you disagree. So, for whatever it’s worth, kudos to you.

The problem lies in the fact that you are making an argument based on what you ‘feel’ is the most plausible explanation rather than on the science that affords a tested and verifiable explanation. Regardless of whether your conclusions are correct or not, the fact remains that you are using assumptions to fill in holes that exist within the ToE and, unfortunately that precludes those conclusions from having a scientific basis. Let me just repeat that --> even if your conclusions are correct, you are ASSUMING that a biological pathway exists (or existed) that is/was capable of the producing the grand scale of evolution that you believe took place….and assumptions do not equal science. That is why your analogy using fossil evidence is, for the most part, irrelevant to the point I am making. Without being able to adequately and scientifically identify how those fossils came to be in the first place, you are absent a significant piece of the necessary science.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #574 on: August 07, 2014, 09:49:33 PM »
All facetiousness aside, the evidence that ToE is true is overwhelming. But curious; why did you not comment on the rest of my post? You know, the part where we don't know the mechanism that makes mass cause gravity? Is it be because you accept gravity? Accepting ToE is no different, save for your distorted view through the lens of your beliefs.

Whether I "accept" gravity or not is virtually meaningless to this discussion. The issue is whether the basis for "accepting" something can be supported by sufficient science.

Besides, we can observe gravity in action. Can we observe a dinosaur sprouting a wing?



Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #575 on: August 07, 2014, 09:54:44 PM »
the assertion that microevolution + more micorevolution = macroevolution is not scientifically verifiable.

If there is no mechanism stopping it, why is it not the logical conclusion?

It may seem logical to you and some others but not to everyone. In fact, there is a rather large group of earth's inhabitants that do not feel it is a logical conclusion at all...some might even be people more familiar with the ToE than you and I.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #576 on: August 07, 2014, 09:58:02 PM »
What about what you call microevolution? You accept the microevolution of birds, but what about the microevolution of apes? Humans are one type of ape. Are you going to show your confirmation bias again by denying this one piece of microevolution?

Explain to me how humans evolved from apes. How exactly did that happen? What biological mechanism made that possible and how do you know that whatever you offer is actually true and accurate or not?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6366
  • Darwins +749/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #577 on: August 07, 2014, 09:58:40 PM »
Note: This was written while you posted a response to another recent post from me, BS. I'll respond to it shortly.

BibleStudent

Science cannot always rely on experimentation to prove things. Evolution would require millions of years to prove, and I hate to break it to you, but we don't have that long left (and our limited timeframe has nothing to do with Jesus). But science can find evidence via inference. We didn't have absolute proof that our own planet was round (i.e. photographs) until 1961. Would you, in 1960, have been claiming that the earth can't be round because we don't have any pictures of it? Or would you have settled for a large set of findings that helped science conclude that the earth was round, starting 2,000 years ago? If your standard for proof is universal, then you barely missed being a flat-earther.

We had all sorts of things figured out without having direct observation available. Some of the science we have now didn't' exist even 30 or 40 years ago, let alone 100 years ago. Germs and bacteria, viruses, UV rays, X-rays, enzymes, all were inferred by discovery long before we had the instruments to detect them. They existed, science thought they existed, nobody could prove directly for many many years.  Are you saying that prior to the proof of those things, none of them were real?

And science is a lot more than experimentation. The scientific method is not limited to that process. Science makes observations, forms hypothesis, predicts based on the hypothesis and searches for confirmation or contradictions to confirm or deny the accuracy of the hypothesis. This is normal science. It is used where direct laboratory experimentation is not possible.

So if science predicts something about evolution, and then that prediction is found to be true, that is a good sign they are on the right track. And many, many, many predictions have been made and found to be accurate. Example? There was reason to believe that whales and hippos were related. But there was no fossil evidence proving them to be related. Then, over the years, transitional fossils were found that had bone structures that tied whales and the early relatives of hippos together. And some whales have vestigial legs, small leg bones within their rear flippers. And every once in a while, as science would have predicted if such things hadn't been found before Darwin, whales are caught that actually have small rear legs. The same happens with snakes. Some species have vestigial legs. This helps to prove the hypothesis that the ancestors of snakes had legs. Why would either have legs if neither evolved from animals with legs? You need to be able to answer that if your mission to discredit evolution is to succeed.

In science, the  best hypothesis are the ones that make the fewest assumptions and also make the most confirmed assumptions (predictions). Evolutionary science is full of hypothesis that have done exactly that. And that is why I ask you how fossils got buried in a particular order, with simple single celled animals in the oldest rocks, simple multi-celled critters in slightly younger rocks, more complex critters in yet younger rocks, with life forms becoming both more numerous and more complex as rock layers get younger and younger. You discount that as irrelevant, but it is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that simple life forms begat more complex ones over time via evolution. And as much as you want to run away and hide when confronted with those findings, you MUST provide an alternative explanation for such phenomena if you are to hope to make any headway in this discussion. It is not your job to say "what a crock of shit" without providing an alternative crock of shit for our perusal.

If you cannot tell us why things like fossils and genes don't in fact point to evolution, then you have nothing. You can't say something is wrong with such authority without having something more than just excuses on your side.

So when you say that evolution is wrong because it can't prove in a lab that single celled animals evolved into multi-celled critters, you are flying against evidence that is considered overwhelming by the scientific community. You are saying in three or four sentences that you are so right you don't even have to provide any alternatives to evolution, all you have to do is declare it invalid. That you yourself are ethe final authority and there rest of us silly rabbits are absolute fools for saying that the complex can come from the simple just because we can't do it to your satisfaction in a test tube.

You're gonna have to get used to us shaking our heads when you talk like that, or maybe you should just go back to living on a flat earth.

I can type 110 words a minute, so you're not going to wear me out. This shit is child's play to me. And I won't wear you out, because typing four terse, oft repeated and uninformative sentences is easy for you.

Carry on.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6366
  • Darwins +749/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #578 on: August 07, 2014, 10:07:20 PM »

If nothing else, at least you seem to be genuinely interested in trying to understand my position and offer explanations for why you disagree. So, for whatever it’s worth, kudos to you.

The problem lies in the fact that you are making an argument based on what you ‘feel’ is the most plausible explanation rather than on the science that affords a tested and verifiable explanation. Regardless of whether your conclusions are correct or not, the fact remains that you are using assumptions to fill in holes that exist within the ToE and, unfortunately that precludes those conclusions from having a scientific basis. Let me just repeat that --> even if your conclusions are correct, you are ASSUMING that a biological pathway exists (or existed) that is/was capable of the producing the grand scale of evolution that you believe took place….and assumptions do not equal science. That is why your analogy using fossil evidence is, for the most part, irrelevant to the point I am making. Without being able to adequately and scientifically identify how those fossils came to be in the first place, you are absent a significant piece of the necessary science.

I am doing my best to be civil. So far, so good.

It is not likely to be an erroneous assumption when the science that reaches those conclusions finds itself accurately predicting what it will find. I have no way of getting this across to you, apparently, but nonetheless it appears to be true.

Paleontologists knew that amphibians without any fish-like characteristics (fins and stuff) were being found in rocks 365 million years old or younger. They knew that fish without any amphibian characteristics were being found in rock that was 385 million years old. So they found some fossil beds that were 375 million years old and predicted that they would find a creature that was half fish/half amphibian. And what did they find. Exactly that.

Hypothesis built up from known factors, that successfully predict what will be found in the future, are far less likely to be erroneous assumptions that you would like. But you are making assumptions that our assumptions are wrong, and assuming, without the slightest bit of science behind you, that you are right.

And though you seem to seldom, if ever, read links aimed at enlightening you, I'll go ahead and post one on the above fish story for others who are actually interested.

http://apbiologynahs.wordpress.com/chapter-discussion-questions/chapter-1-finding-your-inner-fish/
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2024
  • Darwins +203/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #579 on: August 08, 2014, 12:03:55 AM »
I jumped into this thread at post #416. We are now on post #553 (almost five pages)….and still NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been able to demonstrate how the scientific method was employed to verify that a biological process exists (or existed) that is capable of producing soup-to-humans evolution. The pro-evolutionist claims that micro+micro=macro happens because….well….because they say it happened….not because they have the necessary science to back it up.
As has been stated before, evolution is both a fact and a theory. 

Here is the definition of evolution and the way we use it when we refer to evolution as a fact. 

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

Short story... species change over time.  This is absolutely beyond any reasonable doubt, true.  Species DO change over time.  It is fact. For thousands of years, people have been cultivating plants and selectively breeding animals for specific traits.  You, yourself, could use the scientific method to verify it by breeding dogs, cats, tomato plants, etc with specific traits that you want to see.  You could start with 1000 dogs with floppy ears, and selectively breed a group of dogs that has pointy ears within just a few generations.  Its beyond stupid to say this doesn't happen.  It is as factual as saying the sky is blue.

The theory of evolution, which you seem to have such a hard time with, describes HOW this happens.  In order to have a biological process that accounts for everything we see, you would need a few things.  1.  Some method of heredity.  2. Some sort of process that gives us variations.  3. A method by which those variations would stay with a species or be deleted. 

We have those 3 things.  1. We inherit genetic material from our parents.  2. There are random mutations that occur sometimes during the DNA copying process and 3. Death. Literally, death.

Now, if we can show that those 3 pieces were discovered using the scientific method, we can say that the ToE is scientific.  Regarding point 1, Gregor Mendel was probably one of the first people to put the scientific method to work on proving that we inherit traits from our parents.  He used peas first and found, using the scientific method, that there was a relationship between the characteristics of offspring and the parent plants that was relatively predictable.  He discovered, using the scientific method, that there was a BIOLOGICAL PROCESS at work that allowed for the passing on of specific information between parent and offspring.  Later on, DNA was discovered as the vehicle by which this information was transferred from parent to offspring.  The scientific method was brought to bear heavily on that to determine how it worked.  Through the scientific method, we were able to determine that additions, deletions and changes within the ACGT codes caused variations in the offspring. 

Regarding point 2, There are literally dozens of conditions that have been discovered (using the scientific method) that are the result of single changes within specific gene sequences which is absolute proof that changes occur in the process.  Sometimes, as little as one allele change such as is the case with the most famous example, sickle cell anemia, can have huge impacts on the organism.  This genetic change, found using the scientific method occurs in the HBB gene.  We have also discovered, using the scientific method, that DNA similarities exist between multiple different species of animal, plant, bacteria, fungus, etc. where long, long stretches of DNA are identical, while other stretches are quite different. 

Regarding point 3, This is nothing more than simple logic.  Some traits are better than others in a given environment.  A pure white rabbit in the jungle is not going to live long, whereas a pure white rabbit will live a long time in the arctic.  You do not need to employ the scientific method to understand this.  It's an observable feature of nature.  If you wanted to do a study on it, just put 1000 white rabbits in the jungle and 1000 in the arctic, come back in a year and see what you've got. 

It seems to me that your biggest hangup is that you just can't understand how it got from single celled life forms all the way to the complexity of life that we have today. You have to stop thinking of it in those terms, because it just makes it difficult.  Take a look at the individual steps, add them up, and you can understand it.  Like imagine the first organism that had a random mutation that gave it a single cell with the capability to detect light.  Is this beneficial to the organism?  Sure it is for many reasons.  So that organism has an advantage over others of it's kind.  Can you see how it would then be able to live longer to pass on that genetic piece to it's kin?  Ok, great.  Now, would 2 cells be better?  Sure it would.  Next random mutation provides 2 cells that can detect light.  Organism lives longer than others of its kind.  Then 3, then 5, then 100, then 1000 light sensitive cells, just keep going with it and you get a million different variations of light sensitive organs in all sorts of animal species.  That is how MICRO becomes MACRO.  It was the same with livers, arms, legs, brains, hearts.  Don't look at the big picture and be so confused.  Look at the little picture and add up the little pictures over millions of years.

Its easier to understand if you think in the following terms...  You started out as 2 cells in your mothers body and look at you now.  How did that happen?  Lots and lots of micro changes leading to macro changes.  What you are doing to us is tantamount to me saying, "you need to demonstrate how the scientific method was employed to verify that a biological process exists (or existed) that is capable of taking you from 2 cells in your mothers body to where you are today."  You'd likely tell me that it was a lot of little changes over a long period of time, right?  Well, what if I said it just doesn't seem possible given how different you are now from when you were just 2 cells in your mothers womb?  This is where we are with you.       

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT