Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    really?
    you don't consider this "retraction" nonsense fraudulent?
    why not?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    So you can't state your position. Once you can, by all means, give it a try.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Why should I?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    leopold:

    Your latest reply to me simply repeats points that I have already addressed in detail previously in the thread.

    I have nothing to add.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    You're assuming that leopold understands Gould's argument about "spandrels". I see no evidence of that, based on anything that leopold has written. And I'm fairly confident that leopold knows next to nothing about "biomolecular" processes.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    unbelievable.
    so, science gets to make any ol' statement about anyone without any repercussions.
    this might work for a science fiction or playboy rag, but we are talking about a respected source here geoff.
    the scientific community didn't just pile on this respect for shits and giggles you know.
    no geoff, you are wrong buddy.
    i have to ask, are you associated with NAIG by any chance?
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    he's probably assuming i'm not an idiot.
    thanks james, i consider you well versed too.
    i might know more about it than you are assuming.
    for the record though, i haven't had any chemistry classes.
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Considering how long you have been returning to this topic, the huge number of posts dedicated to it, over many threads, over many years, it really deserves to be kept in its own thread. That way the other threads on evolution can continue discussing evolution while your thread continues to remain restricted to the points that you are arguing.
     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Good point! It is always risky to make assumptions...
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Science didn't "make any ol' statement". They published an article written by someone who misquoted one sentence from Ayala.

    It's not fraud. The only person who cares about it is you. And that is because you have gotten the article from a creationist site and they are declaring that that one sentence by one scientist which was misquoted says that evolution is false.

    And yet, when you are provided with numerous other articles, studies and journals from this "respected source" you refuse to acknowledge it and instead focus on this one misquote from one article from years ago.

    One sentence, which was taken out of context and quoted by another person.. How's that bottom of the barrel you're scraping there?

    While the individual in question is not one I ever really agree with, he is not incorrect about this subject. Have you noticed you are the only person claiming there is a fraud while being incapable of showing or proving said fraud?

    Yes Leo. It's all a conspiracy and everyone was in on it from years ago, because we wanted to set you up on this site.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2015
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    wrong.
    science published an article written by one of their editors.
    where do you come up with this stuff bells.
    if you don't have honest questions about this, then you are no lawyer.
    if you are indeed a lawyer, then i want to know why this doesn't bother you.
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    this will NEVER happen.
    why?
    because it would make it too easy for me to provide the information james has requested in a few of his posts.
    like the post of yours that had the word "sub" mysteriously inserted into my post.
    now, either YOU did that, or someone edited my post.
    which is it aqueous?
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    And?

    Once again, it was a misquote. The person who was quoted has corrected the wording himself.

    Because there is no way you read any science journal. The reason I say this is because if you did, then at no time could you conceivably have complained that evolution cannot be real because there is no evidence that a plant morphed into a human being. You have exceptionally poor understanding of the very basics of evolution.

    Then of course comes the fact that you admitted you sourced the quote and the article it came from from a creationist site.

    Not to mention that your argument style, the very wording you use is often what is used on creationist sites.

    Why should I have any questions about it? The person who was misquoted offered an explanation. What more would I want?

    Do you think I should be scrounging around creationist sites looking for the fraud and conspiracy of evolution?

    You have yet to provide any proof of your claims, you have yet to substantiate that a fraud occurred or what the fraud was about or for.

    If you must know the truth, it does not bother me because:

    a) I am not an idiot.
    b) I am not a creationist hell bent on trying to disprove evolution and will thus grasp at anything that creationist sites have on offer.
    c) It does not bother me because Ayala corrected the statement and the matter was settled. No one cares. Everyone understood and knows it was a misquote.
     
  17. Dany Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    Leopold what is your scientific alternative to evolution? What testable predictions has your alternative made? What scientific data do you have? Please summarize in 600 words or less.
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i hate to break it to you, but i did exactly that bells
    yes, i found the jstor link on a creationist (i assume) site.
    i don't know if it was a creationist site because i didn't hang around that long.
    didn't you know?
    anyone that questions evolution is a creationist.
    besides that, what does "creationist" have to do with this discussion?
    just more bullshit, from a bullshitter.
    i don't think an australian lawyer would have ANY problems with this charade.
    how's that?
    you are either:
    1. acting stupid.
    2. blind
    3. or can't read.
    yes, i would like to know the truth, but i doubt very much if it will come from your lips.
    PM me the name your law firm, so i can avoid it at all costs.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i don't need any "alternatives" to point out the facts.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    No, but you do need facts (and a reasonable summary indicating you understand them) to point out facts. Pointing out errors that other people have made isn't all that useful, since a lot of people make errors. (The fact that someone once made an error designing parts of a 787, for example, does not mean that it's impossible for a 787 to fly.)
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You found a link on a creationist site that took you to it. I find it astounding that you read it since you are now incapable of accessing it.

    But here is the thing, the fact that you searched for it and found it on a creationist site should have been enough warning for you. Because creationist sites are known to quote mine and misrepresent articles. So of course it and others like them rely on that misquote from Ayala as being proof that evolution is wrong and false. One scientist apparently said it could not be and thus, there is the proof for sites like the ones you frequent. That Ayala is respected in his field and a firm evolutionist is beside the point. That one misquote, written by another person based on what they believe Ayala said is enough for the likes of you.

    Your claims that you read Science Magazine cannot be believed because your arguments against evolution are puerile and downright idiotic. From your "pond of goo" argument that you keep repeating, to your rat turning into a rabbit or whatever the hell that one was, to your commentary about how you don't believe that evolution is correct because there is no evidence that a plant morphed into a man. These are staples of creationist sites and we know you visit such sites because you fell for a quote mining standard they keep and here you are, years later and still ignorant of even the most basic fundamental principles of evolutionary science and even biology. So there is no way that someone who purports to read science journals and magazines could have so little knowledge of something that even 5th graders understand and know. In that time, you have refused to acknowledge all the other articles, studies and journals they published which blows your creationist obsession with Ayala out of the water. Hence why creationists like you grip onto that one misquote of Ayala. You have nothing else to fall back on and thus, you rely on something that is patently wrong and has been corrected. But of course you will not accept that correction from Ayala himself and so you fall back on your 'Science didn't print a retraction'. Science doesn't have to print a retraction, Leopold. Ayala corrected the mistake himself.

    Here is what I think happened. Whatever creationist site you visit quote mined and because it supports your personal beliefs, you grabbed it with your little hands and ran with it. Then you claim to have read it, but you read it on a creationist website. You are incapable of even linking to the article in Science Magazine if your whining that others can read it is anything to go by. You clearly do not read such science publications because if you did, then you would have the membership to be able to access that article. But you do not.


    And here is where your dishonest creeps in. It's like when you tried to claim that there were many letters received by Science to correct it and you cannot even provide a source for such a claim.. Refer to above for creationist tactics when it comes to science.

    But you don't question evolution.

    You deny it.

    Not only that, you get your sources and your arguments from creationist websites. This makes you a creationist.

    Creationists deny evolution. Like you have been doing on this site for years. You do understand that this thread is about evolution denial, yes?

    Aww, what's the matter? Don't like to have your dishonesty challenged?

    There is no charade Leopold. You are the only person arguing against evolution in this thread. You are the only person who sourced their argument from a creationist site and claims to have read "science" when you clearly have not and you still cannot furnish quotes from the article except for that one quote that is so often quote mined by creationist sites that it's not even funny anymore. Why should I have problems with a misquote that was corrected by Ayala himself?

    Shouldn't be hard for you to furnish proof for your claims. Go on, show them. Provide proof of the fraud, conspiracy and that Ayala was not misquoted and that he actually believes what you keep attributing to him. He has written quite prolifically on the subject of evolution, so I'd like you to provide proof that he does not believe in evolution as you keep demanding he does not by that quote. Better yet, provide proof of your claims that there is fraud involved with Science Magazine and the author and Ayala..

    After years of your dishonesty on this subject, I doubt you even know the meaning of the word "truth".
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    are you exchemist?
    haven't you been following the thread?
    yes, they make errors.
    one of the most respected names in science allegedly made an error.
    and they have never corrected it.
    why do you suppose that is bill?
    don't come off with it wasn't important, not a "hot" topic, or no one read it.*
    a number of people wrote to science concerning said article and thoroughly lambasted the issue AND lewin.
    still, no correction was ever printed by science.
    are you really that stupid bill?

    * one of the first things james said about the article when i posted the quotes, that no one read it.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    don't speak to me about truth bells, you witch

    oh, i didn't say that, i swear, sciforums is lying.

    edit:
    sorry bells, but you get under my skin sometimes.
     

Share This Page