James R has recently locked my topic about abiogenesis and macroevolution (occuring through natural selection) being pseudoscience. Due to their immense bias they do not allow a fair and open debate of such subjects. Other topics like God not being real are left unlocked but things like this are locked simply because they do not fit the bias propaganda of James R and other such Neo-Darwinists....these moderators do not allow the theory of evolution to be critically scrutinized and debated like all other theories are (like for instance if I had pointed out the flaws in the theory of relativity, the topic wouldn't be banned) but because it has to do with evolution it is locked....when will this extreme prejudice end and when will people be allowed to fairly criticize and scrutinize theories...there's no acadamic freedom..

The thread in question can be found here - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65217

If you woud post in the appropriate forum, then I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem.

If you woud post in the appropriate forum, then I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem.
This isn't the correct forum? I thought this section was designed for criticism of the Site...

And the pseudo science forum was designed for fringe theories. If you ask me, there isn't enough moderation of the discussions here.

And the pseudo science forum was designed for fringe theories. If you ask me, there isn't enough moderation of the discussions here.

The discussion of whether or not evolution is a pseudoscience does not belong in the pseudoscience section obviously, also you seem to support Sciforums censoring fair and open debate

And you have completely missed the point of my comment. Please reread and place in the appropriate context.

I'll wait.

And you have completely missed the point of my comment. Please reread and place in the appropriate context.

I'll wait.
Uhm...I really don't understand your point...first you say if you would post in the right forum there would be no problem implying that I should've posted the post in the pseudoscience section instead...then you say you want more moderation in discussions indicating you want more topics locked, closed, moderated, etc..

Is this just a rant?

VitalOne:

James R has recently locked my topic about abiogenesis and macroevolution (occuring through natural selection) being pseudoscience. Due to their immense bias they do not allow a fair and open debate of such subjects.

There are probably about 10 threads discussing the non-issue of evolution vs. creation open right now.

these moderators do not allow the theory of evolution to be critically scrutinized and debated like all other theories are...

Threads on this topic by creationists don't critically examine evolution. Creations seldom give any sign that they've read anything at all about the theory of evolution. In the case of your closed thread, there was nothing of substance - only trolling from religious nutters.

when will this extreme prejudice end and when will people be allowed to fairly criticize and scrutinize theories...there's no acadamic freedom..

Go away and read up on evolution. When you've worked out what the theory actually says, get back to me.

James R has recently locked my topic about abiogenesis and macroevolution (occuring through natural selection) being pseudoscience. Due to their immense bias they do not allow a fair and open debate of such subjects. Other topics like God not being real are left unlocked but things like this are locked simply because they do not fit the bias propaganda of James R and other such Neo-Darwinists....these moderators do not allow the theory of evolution to be critically scrutinized and debated like all other theories are (like for instance if I had pointed out the flaws in the theory of relativity, the topic wouldn't be banned) but because it has to do with evolution it is locked....when will this extreme prejudice end and when will people be allowed to fairly criticize and scrutinize theories...there's no acadamic freedom..

How many evolution threads do we have? Shut the fuck up.

VitalOne:



There are probably about 10 threads discussing the non-issue of evolution vs. creation open right now.
No there's only about one...all others are considered pseudoscientific or cesspooled


Threads on this topic by creationists don't critically examine evolution. Creations seldom give any sign that they've read anything at all about the theory of evolution. In the case of your closed thread, there was nothing of substance - only trolling from religious nutters.
The thread had nothing to do with religion at all, religion isn't mentioned at all no where, no Genesis accounts, no mention of God, absolutely NOTHING related to religion, not even one source from religious institutions, it was simply examining if evolution occuring through natural selection and abiogenesis could really be considered a science based upon the criteria given by official sources on what science is....


Go away and read up on evolution. When you've worked out what the theory actually says, get back to me.
Evolution meaning a "change in species over time" is an indisputable fact, but this was not questioned in the post, what was being questioned was if it occuring through natural selection was, and if abiogenesis which really has no empirical basis is a real science....

How many evolution threads do we have? Shut the fuck up.
Lots related to evolution, however go look for yourself at almost all the posts questioning evolution, they are either unfairly moved, or locked, take for instance intelligent design, moved to pseudoscience, the thread entitled "The Lie of Darwinism" moved to cesspool

NOW you SHUT THE FUCK UP

I interpret it from a different perspective. Justifying the real science of evolution is the proper task of science and those interested in preserving it's legitimacy. This discussion belongs in the science section, and shouldn't be closed due to the subject matter alone.

Lots related to evolution, however go look for yourself at almost all the posts questioning evolution, they are either unfairly moved, or locked, take for instance intelligent design, moved to pseudoscience, the thread entitled "The Lie of Darwinism" moved to cesspool

NOW you SHUT THE FUCK UP

Threads in Forum : Biology & Genetics Forum Tools Search this Forum

Rating Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views

Sticky: SciForums Encyclopedia Biology
spuriousmonkey 03-27-07 09:06 PM
by valich 1 133
Sticky: Biology & Genetics Moderation and Posting (read before posting)
samcdkey 03-27-07 08:46 AM
by samcdkey 0 115
Sticky: Folding@Home sciforum Team! ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... last)
ElectricFetus 09-23-06 10:58 PM
by francois 154 14,795
1.Poll: Evolution - True Or False ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... last)
darksidZz Today 08:27 PM
by (Q) 730 8,044
and now here's something you'll really like....
Michael Today 08:00 PM
by Michael 6 72
The Differences Between Dogs and Cats
NDS Today 05:39 PM
by NDS 2 23
Range (time & space) of prehistoric man
mathman Today 05:04 PM
by draqon 1 13
Moved: Is Evolution and abiogenesis a pseudoscience?
VitalOne - - -
2.Validity of Micro/macro-evolution idea
RoyLennigan Yesterday 04:59 AM
by spuriousmonkey 7 146
Jellyfish With Human-like Eyes
valich Yesterday 04:41 AM
by spuriousmonkey 12 174
Why Do We Cry?
nicholas1M7 Yesterday 03:24 AM
by valich 4 60
Bulk Food Production in a Space Environment
URI 04-09-07 05:57 AM
by URI 0 18
Difference between living and dead cells
madiyaan 04-08-07 12:18 PM
by invert_nexus 12 127
3. Observational Evidence of Evolution on the Genus and Family Scale? ( 1 2)
Prince_James 04-08-07 02:37 AM
by iceaura 24 204
Oldest man in China
samcdkey 04-07-07 02:51 AM
by valich 10 184
4. Syngameons and Chromosomes
NDS 04-06-07 06:52 PM
by GeoffP 7 76
Moved: Irreducible complexity occurs naturally
RoyLennigan - - -
When mutton becomes "haraam"
samcdkey 04-05-07 07:53 AM
by orcot 9 155
What is Chupi?
WraithGod 04-04-07 04:43 AM
by valich 13 1,065
Moved: Money spent on cancer reasearch
JoojooSpaceape - - -
What would this be ( 1 2)
ELOGE1174 04-03-07 07:47 AM
by Hercules Rockefeller 20 298
Stripping antigenes from blood .........
Sputnik 04-03-07 07:34 AM
by Sputnik 0 40
The Real Yeti -Gigantopithecus
spidergoat 04-02-07 10:40 AM
by nietzschefan 3 131
Wings ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... last)
Tristan 04-01-07 01:40 AM
by iceaura 112 6,932
For Dawkins Fans
samcdkey 03-31-07 10:29 AM
by kenworth 3 76
Eye Color
samcdkey 03-31-07 09:36 AM
by samcdkey 0 52
The Universal Genetic Code Is Not Universal
valich 03-30-07 10:39 PM
by valich 19 302
Clever Crows
draqon 03-30-07 07:05 PM
by draqon 0 57
5. Common Ancestors? ( 1 2 3)
IceAgeCivilizations 03-30-07 05:44 PM
by NDS 49 509
That's 5 on tthe first page that weren't moved, which I can tell just from the title were related to evolution. Did you present any new evidence or even ideas in your thread? No?

How many evolution threads do we have? Shut the fuck up.Well Said.

That's 5 on tthe first page that weren't moved, which I can tell just from the title were related to evolution. Did you present any new evidence or even ideas in your thread? No?
Woah, you've proven nothing. Almost all the 5 of the first page do not critically question and scrutinize evolution at all....almost all the ones that do the moderators have problems with....they simply ask certain questions

I certainly did provide new ideas in my thread about how you cannot really disprove natural selection...so its not falsifiable....failing to meet the requirement of a science....

Also there are innumerable threads where no new ideas are presented and they're not locked at all, so don't give me that BS excuse. Lets look at how James R decided to lock the topic:

This thread is a waste of time.

Evolution is an indisputable fact. To question the fact of evolution shows unbounded ignorance.

I'm sure that that VitalOne, Saquist and IAC all know this by now, and have nothing better to do than troll sciforums with their crap.

Enough.
But some how you all see no bias...

Just admit that you all do not want to allow a fair and open debate of the subject, you simply do not want people to critically scrutinize the evolution theory...

No there's only about one...all others are considered pseudoscientific or cesspooled

Yes. This is exactly where they belong.

If you would post your threads about "abiogensis" in the pseudoscience forum, they wouldn't be locked, Im sure.

Woah, you've proven nothing. Almost all the 5 of the first page do not critically question and scrutinize evolution at all....

question for you:
are there naturally occuring elements, compounds, and/or processes that can mutate genes?

question for you:
are there naturally occuring elements, compounds, and/or processes that can mutate genes?

Yes, mutations can occur by radiation, viruses, mutagens, and some other things...

Yes, mutations can occur by radiation, viruses, mutagens, and some other things...
can some of those mutations survive to reproduce?

can some of those mutations survive to reproduce?
Yeah....they definitely can

Yeah....they definitely can
you have just confirmed the foundation of the evolution theory.

now on to bigger things.
are there any known elements, compounds, and or processes that will prevent macroevolution? this is the question that needs serious scrutiny.

if evolution can occur on a small scale then why not a large scale?

you have just confirmed the foundation of the evolution theory.

now on to bigger things.
are there any known elements, compounds, and or processes that will prevent macroevolution? this is the question that needs serious scrutiny.

if evolution can occur on a small scale then why not a large scale?

Ok...but this is still unrelated to my post....microevolution has only been observed within or below the species level....macroevolution is really a suggestion that some how through time DNA changed, this DNA changed must have happened through mutations over time

My post simply questioned whether it was really a science or not....how can natural selection be disproven? If it cannot be disproven, then it is not falsifiable, and it is not science...

My post simply questioned whether it was really a science or not....how can natural selection be disproven? If it cannot be disproven, then it is not falsifiable, and it is not science...
okay. it seems to me that the only alternative to natural selection would be artificial selection. this implies intelligence therefor a god.
am i correct?

okay. it seems to me that the only alternative to natural selection would be artificial selection. this implies intelligence therefor a god.
am i correct?

No it could be anything...natural selection is the medium by which evolution occurs.....if it cannot be disproven then it is just a pseudoscience

No it could be anything...natural selection is the medium by which evolution occurs.....if it cannot be disproven then it is just a pseudoscience
didn't we "prove" natural selection with:
are there naturally occuring elements, compounds, and/or processes that can mutate genes?
Yes, mutations can occur by radiation, viruses, mutagens, and some other things...
can some of those mutations survive to reproduce?
Yeah....they definitely can

doesn't the above dialog "prove" evolution by natural selection?

I interpret it from a different perspective. Justifying the real science of evolution is the proper task of science and those interested in preserving it's legitimacy.

How much more justified do you want?

Nothing in modern biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

This discussion belongs in the science section, and shouldn't be closed due to the subject matter alone.

It wasn't closed due to subject matter alone. I closed it because there was no useful discussion happening.

Moderator note: Please do not carry on the closed discussion in this thread. This is not the appropriate place for it.

there's no acadamic freedom..


Wow...You have an academic position? And sciforums is an academic institute?

Edit:

I suggest the administrator creates a special category for vital one. All his posts will first have to be peer-reviewed by other 2 or 3 academics before they appear in a thread. I volunteer to be a reviewer.

i also volunteer.

i also volunteer.

You are too nice to be an academic.

You are too nice to be an academic.

hmmm..
i doubt it.

Well ok, you all win, just let it be known that in sciforums you cannot have a fair and open debate of evolution, and you cannot critically scrutinize the evolution theory, although you're allowed to be critical of everything else besides evolution.

As for the topic discussion not generating useful ideas, thats just not true, and if that were the case then lots of other threads would've also been locked. The reason given for locking the topic is:

Evolution is an indisputable fact. To question the fact of evolution shows unbounded ignorance.


You guys should just admit that you don't want to allow anyone to be critical of evolution...

Sure you can scrutinize evolution. parroting mindless creationist propaganda is what is not allowed.

Sure you can scrutinize evolution. parroting mindless creationist propaganda is what is not allowed.
The post had absolutely nothing to do with creationism, the points I made are no where to be found on any creationist site...this is typical...anything critical of evolution is automatically creationism......

Parroting mindless atheistic propaganda for some reason is allowed...

The post had absolutely nothing to do with creationism, the points I made are no where to be found on any creationist site...this is typical...anything critical of evolution is automatically creationism......

Parroting mindless atheistic propaganda for some reason is allowed...

guy, you were born in 1988. this is hardly enough time to have studied biology enough to be critical of it in a true academic sense. you are being intellectually dishonest.
come on, you JUST graduated high school. high school biology doesnt teach shit.

Moderator note: Please do not carry on the closed discussion in this thread. This is not the appropriate place for it.

Try...ingg......too...hard...to..resist replying....... grrrrrr!

Evolution is a theory of which facts are based. I declare I am smarter than a monkey :shrug:

The post had absolutely nothing to do with creationism, the points I made are no where to be found on any creationist site...this is typical...anything critical of evolution is automatically creationism......

Parroting mindless atheistic propaganda for some reason is allowed...

Atheism isn't organized and hence does not have a centralized propaganda that can be parroted. We have to make it up ourselves along the way.

Try...ingg......too...hard...to..resist replying....... grrrrrr!

Evolution is a theory of which facts are based. I declare I am smarter than a monkey :shrug:

I've seen parrots that fell out of their nests when they were chicks and landed on their head that were smarter than you.

Atheism isn't organized and hence does not have a centralized propaganda that can be parroted. We have to make it up ourselves along the way.
You ignore the fact that none of what I said was creationists propaganda (not found on any creationists sites) and there is atheistic propaganda, like The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) or the Invisible Pink Unicorn....and other arguments based off that...

Well ok, you all win, just let it be known that in sciforums you cannot have a fair and open debate of evolution, and you cannot critically scrutinize the evolution theory, although you're allowed to be critical of everything else besides evolution.

what is there to scrutinize? in order to scrutinize evolution you need to know a little about enzymes, catalysts, and organic chemistry.

for example did you know organic chemistry is a whole different animal than inorganic chemistry?

My post simply questioned whether it was really a science or not....how can natural selection be disproven? If it cannot be disproven, then it is not falsifiable, and it is not science...
Point 1: I am wholly convinced of the reality of evolution, both micro and macro.
Point 2: I am equally convinced that natural selection is one of the principal mechanisms by which evolution occurs and is likely the most important mechanism by which micro evolution occurs, through action upon small, yet cumulative mutations.
Point 3: Vital One's questions, nevertheless, are valid ones. They should be adressed. I suspect they can be addressed in the positive. That does not mean they are not valid questions.
Point 4: Vital One may have asked these questions as a means of discrediting evolution. That appears to be the consensus of the other evolutionists on this thread.
Point 5: The motive behind the questions is irrelevant (except in helping to form an opinion of Vital One). It has nothing to do with the nature of the questions.
Point 6: In closing Vital One's thread where he asked these questions, and in supporting its closure on this thread, individuals are guilty of behaving in a knee jerk, emotional, biased and unscientific fashion. Frankly you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

No thank you.

"How can you disprove natural selection" is not really a valid scientific question. You can only do this by formulating an alternative theory. Which theory fits the data better, natural selection or X. You should be ashamed of yourself for not realizing this.

I'm sure there is more than enough shame to go round.

I'm too old for that shame crap.

"How can you disprove natural selection" is not really a valid scientific question.
why isn't it a valid question?

in order to answer it you must look at what natural selection is.

why isn't it a valid question?

in order to answer it you must look at what natural selection is.

read the rest of my post.

why isn't it a valid question?

Proving a negative in nature is like trying to disprove a pink unicorn does exist.

Discussing pseudoscience in the pseudoscience section? Is that allowed?

Discussing pseudoscience in the pseudoscience section? Is that allowed?

Tough one.

No?

Sam just gave me an infraction for commenting on the claims of a graphic which was posted by somebody, saying it was off topic, the Darwinite Police are robust here.

Thank the Lord for that.

You're not allowed to insult here, so fix that picture of me with the Genji pie on my head.

Sam just gave me an infraction for commenting on the claims of a graphic which was posted by somebody, saying it was off topic, the Darwinite Police are robust here.
IAC is on sams shit list! :roflmao:

But insults are not permitted here, so why is a Genji pie allowed to remain on my head?

You're not allowed to insult here, so fix that picture of me with the Genji pie on my head.

yeah, that is the lamest avatar i've ever seen. not even funny at all, just dumb.

I wonder what Skin would do if I put a Genji pie on a picture of him?

Genji Pie and a Porn 'Stache---the chicks must dig you.

But insults are not permitted here, so why is a Genji pie allowed to remain on my head?

It helps them to feel superior.

But insults are not permitted here, so why is a Genji pie allowed to remain on my head?
complain to james r. or plazma inferno, or both.

It helps them to feel superior.

oh god...they are all joining forces.
:p

You're not allowed to insult here, so fix that picture of me with the Genji pie on my head.

that's a picture of James N. One of the greatest scholars alive today. Don't pretend it is you Mr Oneliner. James N writes books when he wants to express himself.

You are a case in point of the double standard here, the Darwinite Police are certainly robust, it's the only way you guys can try to compete, 'cause you get your asses kicked in debate, so you ban the people who are kicking your ass, how childish of you!

what debate?

The "survival of the fittest" for the sciforums Darwinites is to insult and ban those who are kicking their ass, so is it really survival of the fittest when the competition is insulted and banned?

The "survival of the fittest" for the sciforums Darwinites is to insult and ban those who are kicking their ass, so is it really survival of the fittest when the competition is insulted and banned?

what debate? Oh you mean your standard responses with stale oneliners?

haha.

Just stay away from the insults and you'll be fine.

It's amazing, isn't it? The moderators do a lot of insulting and starting of fights here. They not only steal your hat, they taunt you when they do it.

Which moderator are you referring to exactly?

You, Sam, Skin, James R, among a few others.

I'm sorry.
Is your name Metakron by any chance?

Anyway.
So, I stole your hat at some point in time then?
Is it a top hat?

Only moogicians and Abe Lincoln wear hats like that.

So.
You're saying I didn't steal your hat?
Or are you a moogician or Abe Lincoln?
You do realize that you said that I (among others) have stolen your hat.

I didn't say that, it was MetaKron, you're confused.

I thought you were Metakron? After all, you answered for him, didn't you? If you answer for someone, don't you then take on the onus of their initial claim?
If not, then what did your answer pertain to? Were you just babbling randomly with absolutely no point other than to troll?
That couldn't be it, could it?

You asked which moderators are Darwinite Police, and I'll told you, could it be?

You asked which moderators are Darwinite Police, and I'll told you, could it be?

No. I asked Metakron which moderator he was referring to when he was talking about stealing hats.
You see, IceAge, he was referring to SpuriousMonkey who is no longer a moderator. (He also sorta called you a poohead by saying that Spurious stole your poo hat... Ha!)

I didn't even read any of your posts. You are a nonentity to me. Until you addressed me directly, that is. I've long since realized that you have nothing to say.

It's sad that you say you feel that way.

Yeah. It is sort of sad when you give up completely on a human being the way I have with you.
But, you make your own bed, yes?

I didn't even read any of your posts. You are a nonentity to me. Until you addressed me directly, that is. I've long since realized that you have nothing to say.

ouch! :D

Organisms reproduce, mutations don't.

Case in point.

Well I haven't given up on you Inverto, so that makes me better.

Organisms reproduce, mutations don't.

How can Organisms reproduce without DNA?

How can Organisms reproduce without DNA?

i can cut stuff in half.
does that count?

i can cut stuff in half.
does that count?

depends...are you an american?

depends...are you an american?

soon ill be belgian also.

Then it doesn't count.

It's very interesting that this doesn't receive an infraction:


Originally Posted by fakeman123
"Evolution is a very nice idea, which is nevertheless completely un-provable and unsupported by science. ”

It has been proven. It is wholly supported by science. Your statements to the contrary merely reveal the depth and appalling blindness of your ignorance.



But then a few posts later this one does:

“ Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker
There is a finite probability that the theory of evolution will be falsified ”

Children resemble their parents because the genetic information being expressed in the children was already present in the previous generation, therefore there is nothing really 'new' coming into existence, and therefore no evolution. The finite probability has happened, evolution is falsified.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69594&page=2

That is a pretty dumb infraction.