Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Apr 21, 2011.
Ok Ill assume you're having a bad day :shrug:
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
i am in no position to stipulate, especially in regards to morality, what is stupid for the future generations of humanity on this planet.
That wasn't the question you were asked. How about giving a straight answer instead of pussy-footing around to avoid expressing the opinions we all know you hold anyway?
By whom? What you know about what?
If you have an earth-shattering disproof of evolution or proof of Creation by God, then please post it so we can all take a look.
Don't go telling lies, though. That has got you into trouble before.
Why are you posting in this thread at all?
Are you trolling? Because that's not what I said.
What I said was that the assertion that morality intrinsicly requires some kind of spiritual belief is stupid, but here you seem to be implying that I think morality is stupid.
Perhaps you should pay more attention to what people actually say.
play the idiot james, you seem to be good at it.
if administrators are indeed capable of racking up infraction points then i demand james get one for misrepresentation because he knows full well i have been forbidden to post what i know.
On the one hand, you hit the "report" button about my supposedly terrible crime of daring to ask you what the hell you're talking about, and on the other hand you deliver a personal insult for which I could rightly call for you to be warned or banned.
Don't you think it's "idiotic" to attract attention to yourself by reporting somebody for a nothing while you simultaneously break the site rules yourself? Are you familiar with the word "hypocrite"?
I haven't misrepresented anything, to my knowledge, so your silly accusation is baseless. Your insult, of course, is rude and unwelcome.
You have no special knowledge about creationism that disproves evolution, so lying about it as if you have some great insight that we're censoring you for is deceitful.
Back in your box, leopold.
I'm a latecomer to this forum, but I notice the denialists here are reluctant to take on Darwin's theory as it is actually stated. Just out of curiosity I posted the eight-point summary (abstracted a century later by another scientist):
Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).
Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
Much of this variation is inheritable (fact).
Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).
This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).
I don't have a question for you, merely an observation, that if they weren't just trolling it seems they would at least step up to the plate and address the actual language of these 8 elements.
After all, that's what it all boils down to (excluding the neo-Darwinian updates to the list).
In my experience, Creationists come in two types. Type A actually don't know what the theory of evolution is, or how evolution works, or pretty much any other science. All they know is that evolution is bad, mmmkay, and must be fought against for the sake of Jesus.
Type B mostly started out as type A, but then they were taught something about science and/or evolution. Faced with making a choice between (as they see it) Jesus and the evil theory they are supposed to despise, they choose Jesus. In doing so, they are willing to ignore all inconvenient evidence, to lie as necessary to prop up their claims, to pretend not to remember being taught about the science, etc. etc. In other words, all bets are off with these people and an honest conversation is impossible with them. In the contest between Jesus and the Truth, Jesus must win at any cost. (Never mind that most non-nutty Christian churches have no problem coexisting with and reconciling their faith with the theory of evolution.)
Occasionally we get a type A creationist here - one who honestly doesn't know about science or evolution. When that happens, a lot of people are willing to teach.
If you get into a discussion with a creationist who has been on sciforums for a while, then 9 times out of 10 they will be a type B creationist, because they will have already been introduced to the ideas of science and some specifics of evolution. To remain a creationist after that requires quite a bloody-minded denial of reality.
I do not think you are in any position to judge at present Leo.
Just to clarify...
You are saying that the administrators and/or moderators of this site have forbidden you to post 'what you know' about evolution? Can you please cite proof of this and failing that, could you please cite this truth that you know about evolution?
So appropriate, that word. Rarely heard in the US.
I read your links about the common fallacies they use, those were good in summarizing every kind of error I've noticed.
I also read somewhere, I forgot where, that technical studies, because of the demands of the rule-oriented curriculum, has an appeal to the type A crowd, and they end up in jobs that would surprise an outsider, insofar as high objectivity is required. It's truly a social phenomenon. I like to engage those folks here, because I see them speaking well in a technical thread, then falling apart in a thread like this. It's curious.
That being said, I appreciate your remarks which are more direct and nail the issue just as I see it.
And that alone should tell Leopold something, afterall, if such a ban existed, it would be a prerequisite for all of the moderators to be informed of it in order for it to be enforcable, right?
For example, I just asked leopold to admit or deny the first tenet of Darwin's theory, which is pretty neutral, not requiring any value judgment into the realm of theology:
Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow.
The answer I got was that there was a restriction against it.
I think it's a cop-out. Why not go for it, just give a reasoned answer?
That is a big if in that tenet.
there's no excuse for you james.
your attention span cannot possibly be that short.
then again, it probably is.
accusing someone of lying when you KNOW full well they aren't is a misrepresentation james.
first you tell me i can't post the information i have under threat of ban, then you tell me i'm lying when i say i can't post what i know, then you say my accusations are baseless.
you're a genius james!
you rub my nose in it and you don't expect me to reciprocate?
i never said i did.
stop accusing me of lying.
YOU YOURSELF has forbidden me.
good show for the masses james.
I would strongly suggest you calm down and edit that post. Having reviewed what you provided me, it would be to your benefit to not behave this way.
So tone it down.
You seem to regularly want to get yourself banned in these creationist discussions. Is this going to be another one of those times that you get more and more unreasonable until finally you get some enforced time out?
Are you talking about ancient history here, or something recent? I haven't accused you of lying. I warned you not to tell lies, but that's hardly the same thing. If you're confused, go back and read what I actually wrote again.
I hereby give you permission to post this astounding information you have. Please post it immediately.
That's better than the insults. I'd like more of that, please.
Rub your nose in what?
Yes you did - in the very post I'm replying to. You insinuate that you have some ground-breaking information that you're forbidden to impart.
Tell us all these amazing facts of yours. Now is your chance. No more censorship. Speak as freely as you wish on the topic.
I await your insights with baited breath.
Do it leopold. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I to await your information that to this point you have not been able to post. New data is always welcomed by science, the more data the better our understanding.
Let er rip!
1. Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow.
Those of course aren't Darwin's actual words, just a summary. Here's just one of the many related statements in the Origin of Species
A plant which annually produces a thousand seeds, of which on an average only one comes to maturity, may be more truly said to struggle with the plants of the same and other kinds which already clothe the ground.
Remarkable for a man who had little more than a brass sextant and plumb bob to guide him in his search for understanding.
That is more like it, 1 out of 1,000 survive, the odds are sometimes millions to one.
Separate names with a comma.