hercules rockefellar

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by leopold, Apr 2, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you sir are a coward.
    i gave yoju the chance to prove your allegations against me and all you did was move the request to a locked thread and run for the dark recesses like the cockroach you are.

    if i were james i would force you to provide the requested material.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2012
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    1) Who is Yoju?

    2) I doubt James would do that.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    31,639
    Shouldn't this be a PM?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    why?
    hercules rockefellar had no qualms about posting the following on the open board:
    hercules knows that if he posts the requested material it will prove he is FULL OF SHIT.
    it will prove the ban was indeed unjust.
     
  8. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,729
    Ahhh, abuse, and with capital letters, no less. That’s a clever strategy that is sure to work for you. :bravo:

    1) Sorbonne said:


    2) You said:

    3) spidergoat asked you to provide the quotation:

    4) You ignored the request.


    5) billvon then provided ample examples of how Gould’s quotations are routinely taken out-of-context by creationists.


    6) Your response was to obfuscate and put the onus back on billvon to supply information relating to Gould’s interpretations.


    7) You then said:

    8) James R asked you to provide a reference for the supposed quotation you were referring to.


    9) For the second time in a dozen posts you ignored a request for substantiation of a quotation.


    10) You then confirmed that you did not know what Gould was thinking even though you were willing to use his quotations (which you wouldn’t substantiate) in your arguments.

    leopold:

    11) At that point I banned you for trolling.
    -------------------------

    I don’t need to provide any evidence for your disingenuous and intellectually dishonest debating tactics, and your outright trolling. They are demonstrable in every thread in which you troll your evolution denialism. You’ve been doing it for years and, as I said, you’re no longer going to get away with it in my jurisdictions.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    prove it was taken out of context hercules by posting the article in its entirety.
    we'll see just how "intellectually dishonest" i am.
     
  10. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    You admitted that you were being intellectually dishonest yourself when you admitted that you have no idea what Gould was thinking.
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    correct, i do not know what gould was thinking, no one does.
    they can assume they know, that's it.
    i know what was said in the article in question.
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    That's funny because Jay Gould was a very PROLIFIC writer.

    And he is well known for being a STRONG supporter of Natural Selection as the basis for evolution.

    And he is well known for not agreeing with Darwin's view that Evolution was a primarily a series of very gradual changes over long periods of time.

    Instead he supported a theory of change in Evolution that he called "Punctuated Equilibrium", and when he discussed the fossil record his comments above were likely based on the fact that while the Fossil record doesn't support Darwin's idea of Evolution primarily based on small gradual changes, they do in fact support Evolution via Natural Selection.

    In this regard, Gould stated, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    carefull, i was banned for stating the fossil record doesn't support evolution as it was taught to me.
    and THAT was the reason i made the reference to gould, he AGREES it doesn't.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    leopold:

    You still have not provided a link to the article in question that is supposedly the source of the quotation from Gould that you rely upon.

    You introduced the idea of this "article". How about you post the link the article?

    Why are you incapable of producing the quotation you rely upon, in its original context?

    Seeing as you have chosen to continue to make an issue of this, now I, as a moderator, will continue to make an issue of it.

    Provide a link to the article in question. Your next post will be just fine for that.

    Thankyou.
     
  15. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    That's not what Gould said.

    He said it doesn't support the concept of gradual changes, but of an Evolutionary concept he called "Punctuated Equilibrium" (see previous link).

    So the issue he brought up is not the mechanism of evolutionary change as both Darwin and Gould say it is by Natural Selection.

    So you are 100% wrong when you claim that Gould said that the fossil record doesn't support evolution.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    You again fail to grasp what he actually said. From what Arthur quoted:

    Your other reference to Gould was a quote mine that was was taken completely out of context by creationists who quote mine and think that science supports their claim. As Gould also comments in the quote above, he finds it infuriating when creationings quote him either on purpose or out of their own stupidity to support what you seem to believe. He actually does not believe as you believe. Quite the contrary.

    His statement is clear. Fossil records are "abundant between larger groups". That is the part you missed when you responded to Arthur.

    My advice to you, Leo, is to not quote mine and then expect to be taken seriously, especially when what you quote mined was so out of context and at times, complete misrepresentations of what the author actually said. It is completely dishonest and you should know better.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    From the talkorgins quote mine project:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html



    Please check the talkorigins page before posting any more mined quotes from creationist sources, leopold.

    In fact, stop relying on creationist sources and try some legitimate science sites instead.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i do not have access to it anymore.
    the free web version has went south, apparently permanently.

    hercules can provide the requested info for both of us, or is he too intellectually dishonest to do so.

    i CAN provide the source, it's from "science", the article title "evolution under fire".
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    not according to what was published in "science".
     
  21. Buckaroo Banzai Mentat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    333
    From the article:

    Evolutionary Theory Under Fire - by Roger Lewin


    I personally believe that when the average creationist makes such quotes of scientists "admitting there's no evidence for evolution", they haven't really read the original articles, but have just been fooled by dishonest editing/quote-mining from creationist authors.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2012
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    Which you cannot provide the actual source to. You are able to provide a quote, completely taken out of context and misinterpreted and you are claiming this as fact.

    I repeat:

    "it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."​


    Are you now claiming he is wrong because something you quote-mined tells you so?

    Can you provide the link to the source where you quote-mined it?
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the article goes on to say that goulds statement about "punctuated equilibrium" is mostly his opinion, not supported by any evidence.

    also keep in mind that the fossil record is/ was so poor that it REQUIRED a revision such as gould proposed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page