Leopolds Evolution Diversion

I noticed you did not address the water question. Evolution stands because of threats, not science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Isn't snipping out a bunch of heated posts where people are merely expressing their anger and hurling insults back and forth, then trying to turn it into a new flame thread, almost the dictionary definition of 'trolling'?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. It's an attempt to make Leopold communicate clearly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ayala might have been misquoted. Or perhaps he misspoke or something. Evolutionary biologists have an annoying habit of speaking in hyperbole among themselves at their conferences, then having to 'walk it back' so to speak, when opponents gleefully start quoting them. That's happened repeatedly.

But the thing is, even if Ayala was wrong, even if he was misquoted and never said what he supposedly said, it's still possible to question parts of whatever current evolutionary orthodoxy is without necessarily being a 'creationist', or even having any religious motivation at all.

Over the last several years, I've criticized various assertions that atheists have made down on the religion forum. And occasionally other people (including moderators) have ranted at me about what's in "your bible" and similar drivel. Despite the fact that I'm not a Christian and was just pointing out a bad atheist argument.

It's stupid, but this is Sciforums. If you let those things make you mad, you'll always be angry here. It's better to just smile and recognize it as evidence that your opponents are easy.

 

Sorry, I will address the water question:

Water has nothing to do with evolution, other than the trivial fact that water is necessary for life.

That is laughable. Evolution is a fact, the exact mechanism is the theory.

 

yes, this alleged "retraction" appears on personal websites all across the web and it is sourced from "no answers in genesis", NOT FROM "science".
"science has made no retractions nor printed any errata regarding this matter.
how much clearer do you want it?
even disregarding ayalas remark, the rest of the quotes throws the fossil record into question.

wrong.
"science" is apparently standing behind what it published.

wrong again.
ayala based his quote on the evidence presented by paleontologists.

wrong for the third time.
ayalas quote came from "science". hardly a creationist rag.

 

Thank you....

The first message was received on 3rd April 0849hrs......

your thread
re: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....21#post3178121

about 10:
one of the primary reasons that i'm a "god supporter" is because evolution IS NOT the cut and dried fact that most would like to believe.

i'm not saying evolution is outright false but i AM saying very little is actually known to be true about it.
the only REAL evidence is the ability of species to become different species.
you know, birds with bigger beaks and such.

comments?


The second message :
"""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
ME:
Evolution is far more evidenced then you give it credit for.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
where?
the fossil record does not support "small accumulating changes"
abiogenesis has NOT been proven.
nothing in nature explains the human conscience.

like i said, where is this evidence?

The third message:

do you think my PM to you was a joke?
what do you have to say about them?
if you think about it, you'll reach the same conclusion i have:
science knows next to nothing about evolution and how life got to be here.

The fourth message:
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
ME:
Originally Posted by paddoboy
leopold...
I'm not really interested in discussing religion off line.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
this has NOTHING to do with religion dude, it's cold hard facts published in a respected journal.
i've been banned for presenting this evidence twice, it's the reason i haven't mentioned it in the thread.
i can direct you to the source if you wish.
be warned, posting this source can get you moderated.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
ME:
I've given you my point of view.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"points of views" is another term for opinion.
appeal to authority is a logical fallacy you know.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
ME:
There is plenty of evidence for evolution."

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
yes, you are led to believe that.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
ME:
Why do you think the Catholic church does not find a problem with it now.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

i don't give a rats ass what the pope thinks.

______________________________________________________________________

And that's about it. I ceased answering anymore of his messages and from that point they stopped.

The small extracts from my replies [as reproduced in leopolds messages] generally reflect my desire not to continue this off line.

 

Please note carefully in leopold's first message to me....
" one of the primary reasons that i'm a "god supporter" is because evolution IS NOT the cut and dried fact that most would like to believe."

 

the PM i sent origin is not the same one i sent paddoboy.
i told paddoboy via PM i had the evidence i sent origin and that if he (paddoboy) was interested i would send it to him.
paddoboy refused to be sent the PM and told me he didn't want to discuss religion with me.
in short, he labeled my evidence as creationist without even seeing it.
how narrow minded is that?

 

I suggest you go back to the start of this thread rightly and properly diverted from the "Alternative Theory" thread, approach it from a position of impartiality, and then come back and tell me who is abusing, threatening and flaming.
I have also posted the messages he sent me, which shows the forum just where he is coming from.
If anything, I deserve an apology, but I don't really care one way or the other...It's not that important to me.
This is a science forum, and although primarily for the discussion of mainstream science, it naturally attracts the God Botherers, pseudo quacks, and their closet supporters as a means to push their crap.
In the greater scheme of things, it affects nothing. The scientific methodology and peer review continues on regardless. They affect no one. :shrug:

 

first of all, i find it really strange that this "major proponent" allegedly gets misquoted and decides to bitch and moan to an author of a personal website instead of the journal that was supposedly responsible for it.
second, even without the ayala quote, the rest of the PM throws serious doubt on what people are led to believe.
we DO NOT have all these pretty and nice transitional fossils everyone raves about.
if the truth was known, we probably have LESS than a laughable amount.

i don't care about religion, god, the pope, jesus, or whatever else of that nature.

i seriously doubt an intelligence without substance, the concept is as ludicrous as "things becoming alive".

not to mention narrow minded.

 

No complaint on my part, except being called a liar by leopold and his unsolicited messages to me to sway me to his way of thinking.

I am amazed though as to the extent some people will go to to try and tear down established scientific fact, with pedant, twisting of words, misinterpretations, taking quotes out of context, and oh yeah, down right lying.

 

It's hard to believe there's much traction for the falsification or diversion of evolutionary theory to be found in an SF PM.

 

Oh the irony of it all!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I suppose one thing I can be 100% sure of..leopold wont be messaging me anymore!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

this?
this is what you have to say about the PM i sent origin?
remember, this is a respected journal we are talking about and it didn't get that way by dealing in "pedantry".
a link to the entire issue ( but NOT sourced from jstor) is posted somewhere, probably in the referenced thread.
read it before you accuse me of taking things out of context.

 

yup, i said it.
bad choice of words on my part and i have no intentions of providing any kind of alternative for evolution.

• 
  like i said, it was a bad choice of words, and it appears now that your entire post will be based on that.
  so . . .