Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by leopold, May 26, 2014.
i CAN post the PMs that PROVE you did.
do i have your permission to post them?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Leopold you said you do not agree with evolution as taught. That implies you do not disagree totally with evolution. What aspects of the teaching do you disagree with?
nice try, but i'm not getting into it on the open board.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Post what you like leopold....I'm not real sure what you are on about with all the accusations and ranting.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! nuff said.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
the accusation is you refused to look at valid evidence and labeled it as creationist without even seeing it.
Accusations are rather cheap. Stop the chatter and present whatever it is you are on about.
I don't ever remember you submitting anything that even smells like evidence.
for about the 30 billionth time, because YOU REFUSED to even look at it and chose to label it as creationist.
trippy has the PMs you know.
i wonder how you look in his eyes.
Now to prove your point, just re post whatever it is you are on about.
It is not common sense it is just that water has nothing to do with evolution in particular. Yes, cells have water and if there is no water in the cell then the cell will be dead. But water does not drive or influence evolution except for the trivial fact that life as we know it needs water to survive.
Not sure what the big secret is but if you want you can PM me if you like.:shrug:
i already have, you are biased.
there are none so ignorant than those that REFUSES to see.
Okay, I've had enough.
Leopold: You're the one that keeps referring back to these PM's and keeps yammering on about evolution so here's the deal.
I've created this thread specifically for you to discuss evolution and your views there-of.
I have yet to decide whether I will leave it here or move it to another subforum.
I am explicitly giving you permission to discuss your views, however, be aware that dishonesty and abuse will be met with the same response here as they would anywhere else.
I am giving you 48 hours to post the PMs - paddoboy has given you his permission.
Paddoboy: I'm going to suggest to you that given Leopolds continuing references back to the PMs and repeated threats to post them, you arguably have implied consent to post the PMs and should therefore do so. Should any umbrage be directed at you for publicly posting the PMs I will deal with it with the other moderators (IE you have my permission as a moderator to post the PMs without Leopolds explicit permission).
actually i'm "yamming on" about the FACT paddoboy REFUSED to even look at what i had and labeled it as creationist without even seeing it.
i referenced the PMs because it is proof of the above statement.
judging by his posting style, i have no desire to discuss ANYTHING with him.
he is biased and prejudiced.
this will be my only post in it.
to remove all anxiety, paddoboy can post the PMs regarding this matter.
I have been pointing out, the water within life, cannot be replaced by any other solvent molecule. This is based on experiments. If you don't believe this, run your own experiments. If it was only an ideal or inert solvent, it would have been easily replaceable. That is not the case. Life evolved with water and within water, right from the very beginning, when there were only gases; abiogenesis. Water caused even the organics of life to become attuned to water. This is why nothing in the cell works using other solvents. This is not rocket science. Water represents 9 out of 10 molecules in the cell and represents the scaffolding for life right from time zero.
Modern evolution, is based on projected human motivation (selection) and/or DNA, being used as the zero point, even though DNA itself evolved in water. It ignores the most fundament variable, which was there from the very beginning and which still cannot be replaced. Water was/is constant and does not change with time, like the organics that are always attuned to the water. Modern evolution uses erroneous starting points.
Nobody has yet justified why the one constant from the beginning, water, is left out as a main variable considering its global importance. Evolution is an alternate reality theory that has somehow embedded itself, like a tick.
As I have shown with red blood cells, you can remove the DNA and the cell will remain alive for months. Take the water out, it dies immediately. Yet evolution does not think the water is important. Modern evolution is a 19th century empirical theory. It is not a rational theory. Empirical gets to leave out variables since all you are doing is drawing a curve through black box output data, with poor curve drawing justified with randomness. A rational theory does not get to leave out variables, but has to do the job right.
Evolution is an old theory that may have been sufficient before science had the equipment to see important variables. But now leaving out variables makes it obsolete. This is how science is supposed to work. What keeps it alive is liberal arts science and gang intimidation. The discussions of how to deal with alternate theory appears to mean how to suppress the truth to maintain half baked atheist religion dogma.
Give us the reason we don't center life on water, even though it was there from the beginning?
Trippy gave Leopold the "get out jail free card" not you! Go peddle you pseudo-science ramblings in the fringe section.
So... is anyone going to post these supposed magical evidence-damning PM's?
Leopold sent me some PMs on what he was talking about (thanks Leopold).
It is all around the discussion on the paper by presentation by Francisco Ayala, Ph.d Assoc Professor of Genetics, U of California, where according to him he was misquoted as saying "small changes do not accumulate".
Here is a part of the discussion that Leopold sent to me via PM (again thanks Leopold).
Here is the link to the original thread.
Here is a link to an article where Dr. Ayala stated he was misquoted and does not believe that "small changes do not accumulate".
OMG. This was covered again and again. The conference did not say "say small changes do not accumulate" -- a reporter thought someone at the conference said "small changes do not accumulate" in a certain context, a context that was not well-represented in the article, and completely lost in Leopold's attempt to mine this quote as a statement from authority summarizing biological history. The purported source says
So Roger Lewin got it wrong, and Leopold got it more wrong.
Yup, hard to believe, well sorta hard to believe...
So, then, what is the complaint at this point? Maybe its because I'm distracted atm, but I don't see how that misquote ties into Leopold claiming paddoboy is lying about his concept of God...?
Separate names with a comma.