Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8167 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-27-2014 4:20 AM
69 online now:
Mr Jack, PaulK, petrophysics1, Straggler, Tangle (5 members, 64 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MarkG
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 742,128 Year: 27,969/28,606 Month: 3,026/2,244 Week: 430/710 Day: 6/134 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
91011
12
1314Next
Author Topic:   Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12973
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 166 of 196 (663793)
05-26-2012 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 6:32 PM


Re: I will
Well, the objective is that an evolutionist should make the case for evolution, and a creationist should try to knock it down. Obviously this endeavor cannot be structured around random creationist errors. If this is too "complicated" for you, I shall wait for someone who wants to do it. In the meantime, I shall continue to cross swords with you on any subject you care to post on, in any thread on which it is on-topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 6:32 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 167 of 196 (663861)
05-27-2012 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by subbie
12-07-2011 12:33 AM


Subbie’s Sullen Sensitivities – The Ban Man
Hello Subbie, and welcome back.
Your comments are useful.
Almost everyone’s contributions, including yours Subbie, have served to illustrate where folks stand (or don’t stand) in this thread.
Science is best applied in education, not condemnation such as happened to some unfortunate Lysenko evolution skeptics a few decades ago.

The nature of real science is bold, confrontational, and self-correcting… evidence driven and tested… with varying levels of confidence.
Real science is not bound by your personal philosophy or mine.
Real science cannot ‘prove’ anything and therefore should be free from ‘absolute’ philosophical fetters. Those who disagree should review the light green text with black background in Message 123.

Well-meaning people throughout history have been confidently wrong.
Levels of confidence should be carefully considered when folks pronounce judgments (click link) upon people with differing beliefs.

It’s that cocksure judgment upon others that motivated this thread for invitation to a professional written publishable debate.
No qualified neo-Darwin believer (with a Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences) has accepted this invitation for widely publicized exposure regarding the science.

This is a reasonable invitation for reasonable people. There is much to be gained.
Therefore, you and others may wish to pause for rational reflection before re-loading and firing up your philosophical flame throwers.

Eye-Squared-R in the note to Adminnemooseus contained in Message 140 to Crashfrog writes:

Format hyper-sensitivity can be an indication that one is unwilling or unable to address the topic… especially when the topic is not addressed.

Subbie in Message 143 to Eye-Squared-R writes:

It can also be an indication that we're tired of you trying to turn this thread into a timecube wanna be. (bold emphasis mine)

I started this thread topic in hopes of a more positive response from folks like you Subbie. I’m patient and methodical.
You’d be less tired if you and your peers were willing and able to respond to the science, the questions, and the invitations rather than being hog-tied hyper-sensitive.

Notably, you have not addressed the topic… you haven’t touched a single question Subbie.
We’re looking for a measure of credibility demonstrated by you and others.

Perhaps you could address the two exercises in Message 79 to determine who is actually ignorant concerning basic science: Ohms Law and the relationship in the real world between power and heat.

Or you could assist with the five ‘level of confidence’ questions in Message 140 to Crashfrog including the physics of entropy, temperature, power, and work. Unless you have a very high level of confidence in your judgment of those who believe differently than you, you’re judgments are likely motivated by something other than real science.

Or maybe you could aid Bluegenes with his ‘indoctrination claims’ addressed in Message 123 which includes other interesting items:

  1. The recent history of people doing real science being judged, persecuted, and executed by wrong-headed scientists endorsed and financed by their government;

  2. The video of the most incredible search and destroy mechanism ever assembled (broken link due to copyright issue with YouTube is now fixed);

  3. The Guardian report that a majority of British adults (higher percentage than US adults) agreed with the view: "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism."
    This despite significantly lower percentage of Brits are reportedly religious compared to US citizens;

  4. The description of how science really works and its limitations for absolute judgment.

  5. The muddled multivariate paradox of paleoanthropology – the fully modern human with the unfortunate skull shape and approximate brain size of an inferred transitional troglodyte (Homo Erectus that is, not a Geico commercial caveman – click link for humor).

    As with small Chihuahuas and large St. Bernards, there is apparently no reliable correlation between adult human brain size and intelligence.
    Otherwise, men with big heads would be more intelligent than smaller men or women.
    That’s a debate Dr. Adequate would likely not relish with his articulate wife.
    When it comes to human brains, it’s evidently not size that counts. It’s having the right equipment… and knowing how to use it!

Ideally, you could commit and assemble the most qualified and firmly committed team to present and defend the scientific evidence for neo-Darwinism in a written publishable debate – including a qualified Ph.D. in the natural or applied sciences (with credentials for publishers) to lead the evolution debate team and help educate potentially millions of neo-Darwin skeptics outside EvC Forum.

Eye-Squared-R in the note to Adminnemooseus contained in Message 140 to Crashfrog writes:

Format hyper-sensitivity can be an indication that one is unwilling or unable to address the topic… especially when the topic is not addressed.

Subbie in Message 143 to Eye-Squared-R writes:

It can also be an indication that we're tired of you trying to turn this thread into a timecube wanna be.

That it was a admin that made the comment makes the latter considerably more likely since admins here generally comment on how the topics are presented and pursued rather than the content of the topics themselves. (bold emphasis mine)

Adminnemooseus should answer for himself and clarify Message 134.
Clarification was requested of Adminnemooseus at the bottom of Message 140 (click link) but Adminnemooseus has declined to respond.
A reasonable response may not be possible short of recanting misguided EvC Forum administration.

Speciously chafed moderation in this thread poorly masks the disdainful difficulty and onerous error experienced by several of the EvC Forum evolution home team.

Format obsession is a running reprieve in critique when judgmental juggernauts have failed to correctly represent basic science in this thread.
Without the requested clarification, Adminnemooseus’ behavior (in violation of forum rules he’s supposed to administer) resembles a Chihuahua gratuitously yipping at ankles.


Click Photo to Enlarge: Hyper-Sensitive Format Attack Dog

We wish the best for Adminnemooseus and hope he is capable of responding in time.
If Adminnemooseus further declines to clarify his actions, perhaps you could assist in his absence, Subbie.
You would well qualify since you have carefully limited your response to the role of an administrator here to “comment on how the topics are presented and pursued rather than the content of the topics themselves.”

Cavediver kindly offered an advisory warning in Message 30:

Cavediver in Message 30 to Eye-Squared-R writes:

EvC Forum is home to far more than its fair share of professionals, and please remember the important difference between experts and "experts".

My expectations were that we could gain firm commitments from an exceptional and qualified EvC Forum team to represent neo-Darwin theory in a publishable debate against the creationist perspective.

Not one qualified scientist from EvC Forum with credentials for publishers.
It’s been two years.
I’m patient.

And your own words in Message 58 and Message 59 of another thread to another member seemingly encourage false expectations for qualified commitments to a publishable debate concerning the science of neo-Darwin theory:

Subbie in Message 58 & 59 of another thread writes:


Many of us here have been studying science generally and creationism in particular for longer than you have been alive. I say this not to denigrate you in any way, but to give you insight into our perspective.

We have seen dozens of creationists, cdesign proponentists, and IDists come and go. Occasionally, one or two will stay, learn something, and see that everything they thought they knew about science was wrong. Occasionally, one or two will stay, never learn anything, and continue to post the same errors.

To those of us who've been doing this ten years or more, this process can get a little tiresome. We can lose patience. We often speak in shorthand that we have developed to make our points quickly, but forget that someone new to the discussion does not have the same reference framework that we do. I think this is human nature. If it comes off and terse, insulting and indicative of disdain for those in the conversation, that is to our mutual detriment. But if you consider for a moment our history, and the many, many times we've had to present the same evidence to answer the same questions, only to have that evidence usually dismissed, perhaps you can understand why it happens.

…we've all been here long enough to know that we know things most people don't. And we're always happy to share with those who want to learn, if you do truly want to learn. (bold emphasis mine)

That’s most excellent Subbie.
You and all your peers with so much knowledge to share and to teach common folks - including the ignorant, the stupid, the insane, and even the wicked (click link).

You describe those qualified to make commitments to a written publishable debate in response to the invitations in this thread.
You and your proposed professional team would be tasked to effectively nullify any scientific counter-evidence or alternative explanations of evidence presented by any creationist(s).

And you’re ‘always happy to share with those who want to learn’!
Y’all do seem to get tired and jump to judging folks often, though.

A comprehensive written publishable debate could potentially reach and educate millions of neo-Darwin skeptics on the evidence for your beliefs and judgment of others.

A comprehensive written debate leaves no place to run for folks with weak evidence or nullified mechanisms.

A published debate could be much more efficient than presenting ‘the same evidence to answer the same questions’ many, many times to an occasional visitor at EvC Forum - for ten tiresome years or more!

A published debate by a qualified and credentialed neo-Darwin team could be widely acclaimed and potentially lucrative for you and your peers who……… “know things most people don’t”. MSNBC could be calling you for guest appearances – assuming you performed well debating science against the creationist perspective!

Thorough examination of evidence is a remedy for ignorance.
Science that violates known physical principles can be exposed and nailed to the wall in published print.
Inferred conclusions emboweled in philosophical groupthink could be gutted.

I’m presenting a great opportunity for you and others who are sincere, Subbie.
Why are there no qualified folks with a Ph. D. in natural or applied science committed to this invitation?
Why would you not welcome the invitation and make a firm commitment to help assemble the most qualified neo-Darwin debate team possible, Subbie?
Rather than responding to the issues positively with confidence and conviction, all you’ve contributed here is a stench of offense concerning format.

So far, unfortunately, all evolutionists bringing up science issues in this thread have demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding, often with unwavering confidence in their own ‘elementary error’ (click link).

Those errors have not been acknowledged or corrected by any of your peers here at EvC Forum.
Hopefully, you or someone can assist in correction of your neo-Darwin peers and promote learning in these matters of truth in science.
Error should be corrected among friends who “do truly want to learn”… as you say.

Correction of errors in understanding basic science by your neo-Darwin peers is also important because these same topics could be leveraged in a publishable debate from a creationist perspective concerning origins within the various scientific disciplines listed repeatedly in this thread.

We need a little less talk about format and a lot more action on content Subbie. Can you help?

Subbie to Eye-Squared-R in Message 143 subtitled “Fuckwad Formatting” writes:

Please, take a hint. Posting crap in a format that makes it look like something mommy should stick to the fridge just makes it look like juvenile crap. It adds nothing to the content and actually makes it more difficult to read.

Your tawdry subtitle (“Fuckwad Formatting”) along with emotional comments in Message 143 suggest that your public demeanor degrades when stressed with questions (Message 123) that you and others decline to answer responsibly or honestly Subbie.
Otherwise, answer the questions and make a firm commitment to a publishable debate.

Presumably, you’re able to understand and respond to the notes your “mommy should stick to the fridge,” Subbie.
Otherwise, your condescending words from Message 183 of another thread may apply directly to yourself: …it's still conceivable that he could be understanding what he reads but cannot accurately reason from there… insufficient processing skills strongly suggest an inability to understand the initial input.

Your words from Message 11 (click link) of another thread where you lecture another person are appropriate also:

Subbie in Message 11 of another thread – lecturing another member writes:


Not rambling screeds. Not opinions based on last week’s sermon. Evidence.
If you can't understand the difference, you can't even begin to intelligently discuss anything to do with science. Here's your chance to pony up.

You’ve declined to “intelligently discuss anything to do with science” in this thread Subbie.
You’ve made no effort to ‘pony up’ as you request others to do.

Now, back to your fitful format fomentation:

Subbie in Message 143 to Eye-Squared-R writes:

Of course, there remains the distinct possibility that you know you are posting crap and think you can hide your crap in batshit insane formatting. In that case, no amount of pleading with you to simplify the format will make any difference… (bold emphasis mine).


Let’s examine that “distinct possibility” together, if you don’t mind Subbie.
Since I haven’t posted a lot here, you could be my format tutor. Otherwise, you could just remain a garish format tooter, as it were.

Clarification of the format in Message 140 that triggered your emotional excess to that post would be helpful.
Question #2 is repeated below in the original formatting from Message 140

If you would be so kind Subbie, clarify for us in Question #2 below:

  1. specifically what words you believe are ‘crap’,
  2. specifically what words you find ‘difficult to read’,
  3. specifically what words you suspect are ‘hidden’,
  4. and precisely what formatting you believe is ‘juvenile’ or ‘batshit insane’.

If you kindly clarify your contempt, perhaps we can accommodate sensitivities so that you… or Crashfrog… or Minnemooseus… or Bluegenes… or Cavediver… or Larni… or Panda… or Taq… someone… anyone at EvC Forum… could answer the questions in Message 140along with the warehouse of other unanswered questions and requests in this thread.

If you decline to clarify the requests above concerning Question #2 below… if you decline to specify what you describe as ‘batshit insane formatting’… while you simultaneously refuse to assist Crashfrog with the five questions Subbie…
Then you risk appearing inordinately petty, petulant, and impotent regarding the science.
Few responses are more emotional than desperation concerning content.
It’s an unfortunate pattern among neo-Darwin believers in this discussion.

Question #2

You (Crashfrog) introduced the concepts of ‘entropy’ and ‘work’ in this thread. But that’s fine because the fundamental relationship in the real world between heat, power, and work is consistent among thermodynamic systems, mechanical systems, and electrical systems.

Crashfrog in Message 130 to Eye-Squared-R writes:

Power isn't heat, though. Heat is the change in entropy times temperature; power is work over time.
There's no equality where those things are the same.
(emphasis mine)

Now Crashfrog, please indicate for us your confidence level in your expressed belief that “there’s no equality”; i.e. where the energy expended in power to do work is not the exact same amount of energy expended as heat by a thermodynamic system.

Are you

  • 50% confident that your belief is true based on your knowledge and understanding of this science?
  • 75% confident?
  • 90% confident?
  • Or are you 100% confident that “there’s no equality” between the energy expended in power to do work and the energy dissipated in heat by a thermodynamic system?

Before responding, to Question #2, Crashfrog, you may wish to review the diagram below relative to your stated belief above. The diagram illustrates a thermodynamic cycle between a hot reservoir and a colder reservoir in a reversible process. The vertical axis is absolute temperature (T) and the horizontal axis is entropy (S). The section of interest is the white section where the ‘W’ on the left of the equality represents the amount of ‘Work’ done in a system. The ‘Q’ terms summation on the right side of the equality represent the quantity of ‘Heat’ released (or dissipated into the environment) when work is done within a system.

Photobucket

Since power is work over time, it necessarily follows that at any given instant in time, power is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as “Heat”. This relationship between power and heat is true in any type of process involving entropy.

Please take the time to review your understanding of this fundamental truth in thermodynamics. There’s no rush but we can discuss how it really works in much more detail if you wish to persist in your belief that “There's no equality where those things are the same.”

For you Subbie, Crashfrog, and others, these questions invite honest answers concerning levels of confidence in your beliefs, not emotional outbursts or boastful judgments.

No response from you concerning Question #2 above will validate that what you call ‘crap’ is actually difficult content for you and others to address forthrightly. Introspection is appropriate here for all the questions in Message 140 Subbie.

It’s much better to engage vigorous publishable debate (or explain why you cannot) than to ban those who propose it…

Subbie in Message 143 to Eye-Squared-R writes:

…and the only real way to stop the formatting vomitus is to ban you.

Holy hyper-ventilation Batman!
Whoa Nellie… slow down and take a deep breath.
Was it something I said Subbie? Or are you only concerned about formatting?
Frivolous banning would not reflect well upon you or EvC Forum in general.
Wait. May I wipe my feet on that ‘EvC Forum welcome mat’ before you snatch it under your arm with furled eyebrows and start yelling ‘Ban Him’?

At least banning would be a preferred alternative to an EvC Forum members’s suggestion of eugenics (click link for Message 116 of another thread) as a means of eliminating people with differing beliefs (hopefully in jest).

Perhaps you could persuade Administrators to delete this entire thread’s invitation to a publishable debate for violating some undocumented forum formatting rules. Although it’s not likely to happen, you could shake the dust off and be done with it, Subbie.

With prompt banning and deletion of this thread, you and your peers could proceed with intolerance and smug judgments upon neo-Darwin skeptics – those who believe differently than you.

You could forget this thread ever happened and continue in condescending confidence with a clear conscience… or at least continue.
You would no longer be prompted to defend your judgments in a written publishable venue - for millions to see and learn.

Intentionally vague criticism without specific recommendations or solutions - is not worth your time or mine, Subbie.
A famous angry Seinfeld character is well known for banning folks.

Further expressions of desire to ban someone or further unspecified ‘format contempt’ by you (and others) will risk turning this thread into a Seinfeld-like comedic episode starring ‘The Ban Man’.

If the embedded link above doesn’t work: (click this link) The Ban Man.

Subbie in Message 143 to Eye-Squared-R writes:

I'll leave that conclusion (to ban you) to wiser minds than mine.


That’s the most reasonable statement you’ve made in this thread to date, Subbie. Both considerate and humble!

If you’re unable to persuade administrators to ban me, you could petition Obama to appoint you as his Evolution Format Czar.
Then you could have unfettered authority to nail those who use formatting that doesn’t please you.
Or maybe Sasha Baron Cohen could squeeze a role for you in his new movie called The Dictator’ (click link for insight)’.

Short of banning me, the invitations in this thread serve to indicate:
1) “Strength of Belief” in evidence for your belief in neo-Darwinism, and
2) “Importance You Attribute” to influencing and educating society (outside EVC Forum) with your evidence.

Suit yourself Subbie but it may be helpful to evaluate yourself considering the two categories above on a 0-10 scale before making a decision.
If you do not hold a Ph.D. in a technical field (clarified to mean a field of science - natural or applied science), you would need to team up with (at least) one person who does to lend credentials for publication.

If there isn’t a single science Ph.D. willing and able to engage creationists in a publishable format, then that’s a show-stopper for publishers and we cannot advance to step 2 – since publishers would be marketing a debate strictly regarding science.

The eventual results (assuming it happens) should be a reasonable measure of success or failure to validate your neo-Darwin beliefs along with Richard Dawkins’ assertion in Message 1. Of course the audience will apply the same measures of performance to your opponent(s).

It would be a novel opportunity if we could get the required firm commitments, sign contracts, plan the process, and then execute the plan for a published debate. I’m not aware of any recent work in this venue and new information is rolling in every day. There will be no place to run – the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science Subbie.

In keeping with the narrow focus of this thread, Subbie… you neglected to respond to the request for firm commitments to a professional written publishable debate.

I wouldn't hold it against you, Subbie, if you choose to decline (for whatever reason).
However, if you elect to decline, I do request that you divulge your reason here on this thread.

If you should reach a point where you are confidently able to engage the science in a publishable manner … please make a firm commitment to an effort that could influence the knowledge and understanding of millions judged in this thread to be “ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked”.

Evidence may include the scientific disciplines (detailed in Message 72) and repeated below.

These are specific disciplines for which not one qualified scientist from EvC Forum has yet committed to engage:
Biology – Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34 but has not committed):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:

Please select any area of expertise for which you are confident and list your name to represent neo-Darwinism in a written publishable debate Subbie – or share with us your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.

Otherwise, your words in Message 58 of another thread to a new member frustrated with debate tactics at EvC Forum resonate here:

Subbie in Message 58 of another thread to a new member writes:

If there were fewer creationists who believe what they believe and aren't willing to consider new ideas and new evidence, perhaps we wouldn't be so quick to take the low road. (bold emphasis mine)


Dang! Too late here. You’ll need to take the high road to get anywhere Subbie.
The low road is impassable and has been closed.
Multiple crashes with lots of flame and smoke.
Spontaneous combustion from heat.

It’s unfortunate to see such a pile-up in a single thread topic before the fog of misappropriated science is lifted to salvage truth in Ohm’s Law, power and heat, entropy and work… and still with no qualified commitments from any scientists for written publishable debate.


Click Photo to Enlarge: Low Road Closed - Excessive Flame-Out in Basic Science and Format

There is nothing to celebrate here.

Assuming you ‘can’t be bothered’ (like others in this thread) with all the requests I’ve made, repeated foul emotional responses by you and others begin to qualify as PR-NUTGNAWs or PR-NUTJOBs (rather than PRATTs). For interested observers, these terms are defined toward the bottom of Message 71 and repeated below with some revision and minimal formatting for acronyms:

In this particular case, I’ve devised a new acronym to describe the behavior and language of “Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2” while flaming out in Message 56 – I shall refer to this type response by either an evolutionist or a creationist as a GNAW: (Gets Nasty At Will)… Surely you’d agree gnawing doesn’t lend credibility in a professional setting.

If we bantered these assertions (described in the Message 71 exercises) concerning Ohm’s Law and the nature of “Real” Power back and forth many times, they could eventually qualify as PRATTs (evolutionist term for “Points Refuted A Thousand Times”)…

In any case, I’ve penned a new acronym to describe these types of banter when a highly confident “Adherent to Sophisticated Science” apparently doesn’t understand everything he knows - PR-NUT: (Points Refuted – Not Understood Totally)! And for the Flame-Out (click link for Message 56) types, we could add the acronym JOB: (Just Obnoxious Behavior).

Not a single scientist at EvC Forum is willing and/or able to determine whether these exercises or questions in basic physical science (in Message 79, Message 140, and others) constitute potential PRATTs, PR-NUTs, PR-NUTGNAWs or PR-NUTJOBs. Perhaps it’s not pleasant to observe or acknowledge condescendingly confident evolutionist peers failing basic science.

It’s OK to be wrong (I know from plenty of personal experience).
But arrogance is a frequent forecaster of manifest failure, often an inverse function of excellence.
Arrogant persistence in error can have significant consequences.

You may share any specific concerns about a publishable debate in private if you wish.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by subbie, posted 12-07-2011 12:33 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 168 of 196 (663862)
05-27-2012 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by subbie
12-07-2011 12:33 AM


Questions in Simplified Format Requested by Subbie…
Hello again Subbie.
Real science is not tethered to your philosophical preference or mine.

The previous message seeks your specific requirements for formatting that you find acceptable; that you would not ban from your sight.

Your words in Message 557 (click link) of another thread bemoaning that so few creationists care to spend their time here indicate that you should have the ability to respond to the questions in this thread:

Subbie in Message 557 of another thread writes:

Once we insist on evidentiary-based argument, there's no room for creos (creationists) to participate. We are a victim of our own success.

Don’t break your arm patting yourselves on the back.
We’ve been waiting patiently for about two years for some of that professed success here Subbie – in basic science even.
It’s unfortunate that you found formatting so offensive that it ostensibly rendered you and others incapable of responding professionally.
This message seeks answers – with format simplified as much as possible on repeated questions in Message 140.

Further silence from you and others concerning questions will not be attributable to format.
Silence on content is dereliction of the opportunity and responsibility presented to any neo-Darwin believer who judges folks with differing beliefs.
With this approach, we’re hopeful that you’ll address the topic and answer questions, Subbie.
Otherwise, you have the real answer why so few folks with differing beliefs about origins care to spend any time here at EvC Forum.

But first, your words in Message 24 (click link) of another thread to a new member named Possessor provide useful insights…
(with my comments added in gold):

Subbie in Message 24 to a new member named Possessor in another thread writes:

Subbie: You seem to have an awful lot of beliefs that don't correspond with reality.
This forum is not a typical chat/discussion forum. You will find that many people here are highly educated and that our various fields of expertise are vast and overlapping. Most of them are probably science oriented, but not all by any stretch of the imagination. What's more, we're intensely, perhaps insanely, curious. We want to learn about the real world and we have spent substantial portions of our lifetimes studying.
Eye-Squared-R comment: These highly educated folks (who have spent substantial portions of lifetimes studying) are the ones we’re looking for in this thread to firmly commit to a written publishable debate of the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism - as well as alternative explanations of the evidence.

Subbie: It's not unusual for a new person to come here with a lot of misconceptions about science, history, religion, law, politics, whatever. Once in a while, such a person stays here long enough to learn that their misconceptions are wrong.

More often than not, they (new person) leave when they find out that their thoughts are not only not going to simply be echoed by those of a like mind, but their thoughts are going to be challenged and attacked, and their misconceptions laid bare.
Eye-Squared-R comment: Alleged misconceptions in this thread have stood as sound science. When the challenges and attacks from your peers all fail concerning science, you and others here at EvC Forum apparently restrict your participation to cuss and discuss format.

Subbie: Human nature being what it is, it's very difficult for someone to withstand repeated and fully supported assaults on their fundamental beliefs.
Eye-Squared-R comment: Repeated assaults by a committed team of neo-Darwin believers (including real scientists with a Ph. D.) are what we are seeking for publication. Names… we need names Subbie… do you have names?

Subbie: It's really up to you to decide what you want to do here. If you simply want to preach your brand of religion, there's a section here for that. But you will find that even there, people with vast amounts of knowledge will disagree with you and show you why they think you are wrong.
If you want to learn, I would suggest that the best way to do that is to read and ask questions. But be prepared for answers that you don't want to hear.
Eye-Squared-R: When there are no answers to science questions, or the answers are confidently displayed in error, be prepared for diversions, dispersions, and even some poetry.

Subbie: Personally, I'd like to see you stay, if you're willing to listen to what others say and consider their arguments and the evidence they provide. It's quite fulfilling to see someone realize they've been lied to and learn the truth.
Eye-Squared-R: Learning truth should be fulfilling for all of us, regardless of preferred personal philosophy.
But learning takes a measure of humility. Fully committed to their elevated opinion, the arrogant have no real capacity to consider another.
Prideful persistence in error is disastrous after misplaced arrogance fails.

Subbie: Your willingness to acknowledge that you made a mistake suggests you might be willing to learn from others.
Eye-Squared-R: Lack of willingness to acknowledge mistakes suggest your highly esteemed peers may be unwilling to learn from others.
Learning is the best response when reality doesn’t correspond with presumed knowledge “about science, history, religion, law, politics, whatever”.

Those neo-Darwin believers at EvC Forum who struggle with the questions and invitations in this thread have chosen to:

  • attack a straw-man with the ill-advised confidence of Marshall Stockburn and his deputies as described and countered in Message 60 (click link), or

  • impugn the character of those who believe differently such as we find in Message 138, or

  • cast diversions and dispersions with guttural Red Herrings like ‘vomitus’ or ‘batshit insane’ while conveniently avoiding the questions, as Subbie demonstrates in Message 143 (click link), or

  • Write poetry proclaiming personal prowess despite self-described struggles for employment in chosen field of education; make no effort toward assembling a qualified publishable neo-Darwin debate team with at least one qualified scientist for publishers to market, and then irrationally claim folks who don’t know him actually fear him (Dr. Adequate).

  • quietly walk away as we’ve seen with several condescendingly confident folks in this thread.
To date, there is no discernible humility in error among neo-Darwin believers here… only avoidance or condescendingly confident misrepresentations in basic science as detailed in Message 71 (click link), Message 123, Message 140, and many others. Unfortunately, there is not a single scientific claim by your peers in this thread that could withstand the scrutiny of a written publishable debate with a creationist.

Per Dictionary.com: Red Herring - Anything that diverts attention from a topic or line of inquiry. Something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.

Red Herring diversion example provided by Subbie here:

Subbie in Message 143 (to Eye-Squared-R) writes:


Please, take a hint. Posting crap in a format that makes it look like something mommy should stick to the fridge just makes it look like juvenile crap. It adds nothing to the content and actually makes it more difficult to read. Of course, there remains the distinct possibility that you know you are posting crap and think you can hide your crap in batshit insane formatting. In that case, no amount of pleading with you to simplify the format will make any difference, and the only real way to stop the formatting vomitus is to ban you.

George Bernard Shaw offers friendly advice appropriate for such a tirade above:

George Bernard Shaw writes:

This is the true joy in life, being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; being thoroughly worn out before you are thrown on the scrap heap;

Being a force of nature instead of a feverish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.

Grievances are fine but answers are preferred to complaints, even when you perceive the format is not devoted to making you happy.
Substance… Subbie. As you requested from another member in Message 107 of another thread as if you were talking to yourself here:

Subbie requesting ‘substance’ from another member in Message 107 of another thread writes:


Your substance to insult ratio overall has got to be around 1 to 10. And what little substance you do offer has little if anything to do with the main topic of this forum. Do you really get that big a kick out of tossing puerile insults about? I'm quite serious. I can't for the life of me understand why you post here.

Notably, your ‘substance to insult ratio’ is Zero is in this thread Subbie. Interested observers may have already concluded why you post here.

And your words in Message 82 of the Monkey Law thread offer excellent advise to you and several of your peers:

Subbie in Message 82 of another thread, offering excellent advice for many peers in this thread, writes:

If you can't support your claim, it's okay to say so, rather than simply dodging and ignoring questions.


As with others here who ignore reasonable requests or ‘can’t be bothered’, you will likely ignore requests for format clarification in the prior message addressed to you. You’re unable to clarify your specific format sensitivity without appearing feverishly petty.

Therefore, the remainder of this message will probe the sincerity of your (and other’s) ostentatious format sensitivity.

As a test, Message 140 (click link) to Crashfrog will be repeated below entirely with simplified formatting for yourself and all the other neo-Darwin evolutionist believers at EvC Forum who have not answered the many questions because they ostensibly struggle with format.

After this repost of Message 140 below, formatting is no longer an excusable diversion for anyone to ignore the questions. Maybe… someone… will address the content…

Crashfrog recently claimed I was wrong concerning ‘elementary’ science in Message 130.

To quote Admin Percy in Message 114 of another thread:

Admin Percy in Message 114 of another thread writes:

I believe it is incumbent upon the person claiming someone else is wrong to explain why they are wrong.

Hopefully, reposting Message 140 with simple formatting will enable you and others to read and help Crashfrog respond to the questions. However, Message 140 is still available with original formatting that reasonable folks will find easier to discern the five clearly worded and demarcated questions.

Plain text (no gold, no bold) for Subbie and others – Beginning Simple Reformatting of Message 140 (click link) below:



Hello Crashfrog and welcome.
Thank you for joining the discussion in Message 130

We’d like to gain some insights into your level of confidence in your knowledge and understanding of expressed beliefs.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood or misrepresented you in any quotes below.
We have a few questions if you don’t mind.
_________________
Question #1
_________________

In Message 93 (click link) of the “Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating” topic, you pronounce absolute and unconditional judgment upon those who differ from your beliefs concerning, for example, inferred iterative random mutation and natural selection of an asexual worm type creature’s progeny into such a creature as an amazingly wonderful and intelligent woman.

Crashfrog in Message 93 of the ‘Fantasy Debate Team’ topic writes:

There are no reasonable creationists. There are only stupid, ignorant, or mendacious ones, because the only way to advocate positions that are objectively in error is out of stupidity, ignorance, or mendacity (liars). (parenthetical clarification mine)


If you don’t mind Crashfrog, please indicate for us your confidence level in your judgment of those who differ from your beliefs concerning the origin and development of all life:

Are you

  • 50% confident that your judgment is true?
  • 75% confident?
  • 90% confident?
  • Or are you 100% confident passing your judgment upon the intelligence, knowledge, or character of others concerning beliefs different from your beliefs regarding neo-Darwin inferences?

And if you claim to be 100% confident in your judgment Crashfrog, would you say your judgment is based in science… or in preferred philosophy?
If you’re claiming 100% confidence in your judgment based upon science, then your understanding of how science works will be subject to further review.

Question #2 originates from Message 130
_________________
Question #2
_________________

You introduced the concepts of ‘entropy’ and ‘work’ in this thread. But that’s fine because the fundamental relationship in the real world between heat, power, and work is consistent among thermodynamic systems, mechanical systems, and electrical systems.

Crashfrog in Message 130 writes:

Power isn't heat, though. Heat is the change in entropy times temperature; power is work over time.
There's no equality where those things are the same.

Now Crashfrog, please indicate for us your confidence level in your expressed belief that “there’s no equality”; i.e. where the energy expended in power to do work is not the exact same amount of energy expended as heat by a thermodynamic system.

Are you

  • 50% confident that your belief is true based on your knowledge and understanding of this science?
  • 75% confident?
  • 90% confident?
  • Or are you 100% confident that “there’s no equality” between the energy expended in power to do work and the energy dissipated in heat by a thermodynamic system?

Before responding, to Question #2, Crashfrog, you may wish to review the diagram below relative to your stated belief above. The diagram illustrates a thermodynamic cycle between a hot reservoir and a colder reservoir in a reversible process. The vertical axis is absolute temperature (T) and the horizontal axis is entropy (S). The section of interest is the white section where the ‘W’ on the left of the equality represents the amount of ‘Work’ done in a system. The ‘Q’ terms summation on the right side of the equality represent the quantity of ‘Heat’ released (or dissipated into the environment) when work is done within a system.

Photobucket

Since power is work over time, it necessarily follows that at any given instant in time, power is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as “Heat”. This relationship between power and heat is true in any type of process involving entropy.

Please take the time to review your understanding of this fundamental truth in thermodynamics. There’s no rush but we can discuss how it really works in much more detail if you wish to persist in your belief that “There's no equality where those things are the same.”

Since you first mentioned entropy in this thread, Crashfrog, please share with us your highest level of formal education if you don’t mind… I understand from another thread that you teach Grad students.
Do you have a Ph.D. in any of the natural or applied sciences?

Now concerning the physics of electrical power and heat in Question #3:

_________________
Question #3
_________________

Eye-Squared-R in Message 124 to Jar writes:

Now Jar, and anyone at EVC Forum, the topic for your submission is whether “Real” power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as “Heat”.

Crashfrog responding to Eye-Squared-R in Message 130 writes:

Well, no, it's not.


Now Crashfrog, please indicate for us your confidence level in your belief that “Real” power (I2R) is not manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as “Heat”.

Are you

  • 50% confident that your belief regarding this science is true?
  • 75% confident?
  • 90% confident?
  • Or are you 100% confident that “Real” power (I2R) is not manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as “Heat”?
Please take as much time as needed to review your knowledge and understanding of the science. After careful study, please offer one example demonstrating your belief that this relationship between the energy expended in ‘real’ power (I2R) and the energy expended in heat is not true at any time anywhere in the universe…

Concerning “very elementary” science:

Crashfrog in Message 130 writes:

Not knowing the difference between work and heat is, as many have told you, a very elementary error.


Power and heat are not the same in units. However, the energy expended in power to do work is expended totally, continuously, and exclusively as heat.

The persistent lack of understanding at EvC Forum concerning fundamental physical science was not anticipated when I started this forum topic.
The exercises in Message 71 are unfortunate examples of evolution proponents demonstrating condescending confidence in their own ‘elementary error’.

I take no pride in this as I’m just a plain ole’ country boy… not any smarter than the average Joe. I’ve just had the opportunity and responsibility to apply fundamental principles of science in the real world. When science is misunderstood and misapplied, serious injury and death can occur.
Therefore, proper knowledge and understanding of working mechanisms are not a function of philosophical preference to me.

We have folks here at EvC Forum professing to know the physics of how the entire universe came into existence.
Unfortunately, these folks have not mastered the physics of power and heat in their clothes dryer or their garage door opener.

Here’s my proposal for you, Crashfrog, and the many others at EvC Forum who profess a working knowledge and understanding of this science:
We can wrestle the details concerning this “very elementary” science of physics all the way down to the mat if you wish.
If you determine to persist in your scientific beliefs quoted in Questions 2 and 3, then your ‘objective position’ will be pinned to the mat beneath the weight of truth in science concerning the relationship of power and heat in the physics of both thermodynamic and electrical systems.

Assuming you proceed defending your beliefs in Questions 2 & 3, you may wish to consult with your peers at EvC Forum (or anywhere else) before proceeding. You’ll need peers that you’re confident have attained a valid working knowledge and understanding of physical mechanisms.

Dr. Adequate is not recommended as he has failed to demonstrate any knowledge or understanding in the science exercises presented in this thread for many months now. Rather than acknowledging or addressing requests, doc is most recently preoccupied in this thread with a mental mirage composing disjointed Poetry of Personal Puffery (click links). Considering the responses to Message 129, those of us who care are concerned that Dr. Adequate continues to display the symptoms listed here (click link).

These matters are not subjective and they’re not personal. They’re empirical. It’s just how physics works in the real world.
The nature of real science is confrontational.
That’s how science advances.

The ‘Aspirants to Sophisticated Science’ (as noted in green and red demarcated exercises of Message 71) have judged another person’s ‘beliefs’ concerning fundamental science to be foolish or stupid. A review of this thread and those judgments may help to determine who is actually ignorant. The ‘Aspirants to Sophisticated Science’ have also declined to make a firm commitment to a professional written publishable debate concerning evidence for and against neo-Darwinism.

From Message 82 in another thread…your judgment continues:

_________________
Question #4
_________________

Phat posed a question in Message 76 of another thread to which Crashfrog responds in Message 82 of that thread…

Phat in Message 76 of another thread responding to Crashfrog writes:

I prefer to believe that there is a God. How about you? Why do you actively prefer to believe that there isn't one? Surely evidence is a mere formality!

Crashfrog responding in Message 82 of that thread writes:

I don't (actively prefer to believe there is no God). As you well know, because I've told you many times, I actually would prefer that God existed. But more importantly than that, I prefer to believe things that are true.

And it's true that there is no such thing as God.

Now Crashfrog, please indicate for us your confidence level in your belief that “there is no such thing as God”:
Are you

  • 50% confident that your pronouncement is true?
  • 75% confident?
  • 90% confident?
  • Or are you 100% confident in your belief that there is “no such thing as God”?

Before responding to Question #4, you may wish to review the nature and limitations of real science.
Granny Magda states it well in Message 132 of another thread concerning logical fallacies…

Granny Magda in Message 132 of another thread writes:

The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proved (in a strict logical sense) by reference to physics or cosmology.


While many here seem sincere and confident in their judgment, confident sincerity isn’t the basis for determining truth in science. And science taken out of context is often pretext. This applies to both proponents and skeptics of neo-Darwinism.

If you claim to be 100% confident in your belief there is no God, then either:

  1. You don’t understand how science works as described in the light green text with black borders toward the end of Message 123 (click link) to Bluegenes… or
  2. You aren’t basing your (100% confidence) belief in atheism upon science… or
  3. You haven’t considered your basis of belief in atheism and you’re merely expressing your unconditional philosophical commitment to an unsubstantiated opinion (or dogma) as truth.
Depending on your response to this invitation to a publishable debate, your words to Buzsaw in Message 282 of another thread may be helpful here:

Crashfrog in Message 282 of another thread to Buzsaw writes:

Every metabolic process in your body is one that exploits an increase in entropy.
Your body is a battlefield, not the result of somebody's design. The more you find out about biology the more obvious that is.
But you're determined to avoid education in the sciences because your cherished dogma is more important.
I pity you.


Consequently, you may wish to reconsider your position if you are not willing and able to firmly commit to a written publishable debate. Otherwise, since a publishable debate could be a significant educational resource for yourself and millions of folks, it appears… you’re determined to avoid education in the sciences…

If you judge flaws upon others, Crashfrog, who disagree with your belief in neo-Darwinism and you assert there is no evidence for other’s alternative beliefs… and… you refuse to engage debate of the evidence in a written publishable format – then interested observers may consider your judgments to be less than persuasive… or worse (click link).

Now, one more question (Bonus Round) if you don’t mind Crashfrog…
_________________
Question #5
_________________

Phat makes an observation in Message 107 of another thread… to which Crashfrog responds in Message 108 of the other thread…

Phat in Message 107 of another thread responding to Crashfrog writes:

The manifestation of your strong atheism is seen by me as if you dare there be a God...any god...(or any clever human intellect) that can prove your basic assertion wrong.

Crashfrog in Message 108 of another thread writes:

I'm surrounded, constantly, by people who believe that there's an intellectually valid case for belief in God, but who always tell me to go ask someone else when I politely ask them to present it. "Well, I believe on the basis of faith, of course, but I'm sure that there's an intellectual case, too! Why don't you go ask some other theist about it..."

Here’s your opportunity if you’re sincerely searching for an intellectually valid case from a theist for beliefs differing from your beliefs concerning neo-Darwinism Crashfrog.

We need firm commitments from you and others to engage a written publishable debate that could be leveraged to help educate millions of folks.
If you have a Ph.D. in the natural or applied sciences, you could possibly lead the proposed debate team for neo-Darwinism. Your opponent(s) will examine your evidence for neo-Darwinism as well as present evidence for an alternative conclusion.

Question #5 is… Will you make a firm commitment (free of extraneous excuses to withdraw) to engage scientifically qualified opponent(s) concerning an intellectual case against neo-Darwinism and for creation? This will involve the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science.

And to continue your thoughts in Message 108 of the other thread…

Crashfrog in Message 108 of another thread writes:

I'm fascinated by these mental lacuna, where people are (apparently) hypnotized into the belief that there's a substantial amount of good evidence for something they believe, but aren't actually able to present any of it.

We share your fascination in this thread concerning commitments to neo-Darwinism and a publishable debate of the science Crashfrog.
However, hypnotism is likely not a factor.

It would be your task to actually demonstrate inferred “mental lacuna” (mental gap) of those who differ with your beliefs concerning veracity of conclusions based upon scientific evidence.

In keeping with the narrow focus of this thread… you neglected to respond to the request for firm commitments to a professional written publishable debate.

If you should reach a point where you are confidently able to engage the science in a publishable manner … please make a firm commitment to an effort that could influence the knowledge and understanding of millions judged in this thread (click link) to be “ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked”.
Evidence may include the scientific disciplines (detailed in Message 72) and repeated below.

These are specific disciplines for which not one evolutionist from EvC Forum has yet committed to engage:
Biology – Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34 but has not committed):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:

Please select any area of expertise for which you are confident and list your name to represent neo-Darwinism in a written publishable debate Crashfrog – or share with us your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.

Chuck 77’s stated opinion in Message 1,408 (of another thread) that you, Crashfrog, are one of the smartest guys at EvC Forum is notable.
Please respond to the questions and let us know how you wish to proceed.


A thoughtful and professional response would be appreciated from Subbie, Crashfrog, or any others at EvC Forum who are capable.

All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by subbie, posted 12-07-2011 12:33 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 169 of 196 (663863)
05-27-2012 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Larni
12-07-2011 4:29 AM


Larni’s Psychology and Indecision
Hello Larni and welcome back.

You stated in Message 144:

Larni in Message 144 (temporarily committing to debate for three minutes) writes:


(At 4:29 AM - Larni designates a firm commitment to a professional publishable debate):
(I’m) In.
Now all you need to do is present the issue with ToE and we can debate it, here.

(At 4:31 AM – Larni relents and adds by edit):
It however seems I am out; as I have no higher trainning in the fileds you stipulate.
My higher accademic field is psychology.
Oh well.


First, the debate will be in a publishable format outside EvC Forum as you should well know – so that you and a qualified evolution team could publicly present and defend the evidence for neo-Darwinism while dealing with alternative explanations of the evidence. This would potentially help educate millions of neo-Darwin ‘unbelievers’ judged in this thread (click link) to be ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

Second, no specific training is required to be part of the neo-Darwin debate team. You can still firmly commit to the effort as part of the debate team if you were confident in presenting and defending evidence for your beliefs in a publishable format. You would be responsible, along with Dr. Adequate, to assist in gaining commitment from at least one Ph.D. in the natural or applied sciences for credentials that a publisher could market. If you cannot do those things, then explain your reason(s) for us, if you don’t mind.

Absent any firm commitment or explanation from you, your higher academic training in psychology could possibly help explain the behavior of judgmental neo-Darwin believers here at EvC Forum possessing Ph. D.s in the natural or applied sciences who are unwilling to firmly commit to a publishable debate of the scientific evidence.

Perhaps your beliefs are driven more by preferred personal philosophy rather than by science. Statements you’ve made such as in Message 63 (click link) of another thread are evidence of this (hopefully a philosophically constrained attempt at humor):

Straggler in Message 62 of another thread writes:

Presumably he (God) could have created a scale which includes far worse than evil (lets call it evil++)

Larni in Message 63 responding to Straggler in the other thread writes:

Quite so.

I'm livid that I can't assault and cause permanent damage to someone's soul or make it so they can't get into heaven.

*Shakes fist at sky* Damn you god, for making me this way!

Permanent damage… whether your words are a window into your soul or idle chat, you may wish to clarify for us Larni.
Barring a change of heart, anger management counseling may be helpful.

In Message 146, you feign further confusion in your response to Dr. Adequate…

Larni in Message 146 to Dr. Adequate writes:

I'm still uncertain what she actually wants.
So far she has done bugger all except grandstand. (emphasis mine)

Waffling, hesitance, and uncertainty. You committed to a professional debate for about three minutes before editing out your commitment.
You understood well what the commitment entails as it has been described multiple times in this thread.
Please review the thread before responding further. It’s worthy of your reflection and retention.

As with Richard Dawkins’ quote and most of your peers in this discussion, you’ve demonstrated a preference for belittling (Message 69) those with differing beliefs. That’s useful as it reveals your motivation for being here.

You’ve also described yourself as an ‘interested lurker’ in Message 137 of this thread.
Therefore, you knew well that I’m a male when you referred to me as ‘she’ above. In addition, you were responding in Message 146 to a message that clearly referred to me as ‘he’ which has been repeated many times in this thread.

Your intentional reference to me as a ‘she’ indicates you consider it belittling or demeaning to be female… as if females were somehow not as intelligent or qualified as a ‘macho’ man (with cojones, as Dr. Adequate irrationally references in ego-driven episodes of sophomoric swagger).

Intolerant arrogance can be a springboard for learning, Larni, especially when such behavior becomes embarrassing self-indictments as can be found with several in this thread.

But now it appears you’re disparaging an entire class of the most amazing human beings on the planet… the female gender.

Unless you can reasonably explain your twice incorrect gender reference Larni, you have lots to learn about women.
Enlighten us on your female gender reference in a disparaging context. Correct me if I misread your words.

Should you present a reasonable explanation, I’ll gladly apologize for what follows.
If you have no reasonable explanation, then sit up and pay attention.
If I read correctly, you recently described the place you live as a total shit hole (click link).
If that’s correct, your sorrow may exceed that of The Soggy Bottom Boys (click link).

Seriously, it’s possible that copious contempt for women (among others) could be a source of the stench you describe.
During your training in the ‘higher academic field’ of psychology Larni… did you ever consider the illegitimate arrogance of condescension toward women?

You’re actually fortunate that you’re not dealing with my wife… or my sister… or my daughter. They’re all much better looking than I - and very intelligent.
Based upon your performance in this thread, any one of them would intellectually take your lunch money, send you out to fetch dessert, then load you up on a bus and drive you to school Larni.

Don’t take for granted the beauty of women and assume they’re not as intelligent as you apparently think you are.
Observe the ‘Boot Principle’ if you haven’t learned respect for women during your temporal existence.
Take it from Nancy Sinatra… it’s worth your time to read the prose carefully before you find yourself with a woman’s boot figuratively standing on your neck and then kicking the arrogant macho smirk off your face.

I recommend you watch as many times as it takes to remember the words of the second and third stanzas.
When you have the prose of the second and third stanzas mastered, then click here for an updated version.

Inordinate intolerance and pompous prejudice are what motivated this forum topic.
If you still have teeth in your mouth, keep your mouth shut and learn respect for women Larni.

Larni in Message 146 to Dr. Adequate writes:

Over.The.Course.Of.18.Months......


That’s correct, Larni. Over eighteen months without one single qualified Ph.D. in the natural or applied sciences willing to make a firm commitment to lead a neo-Darwin debate team in a publishable format. We need as many committed Ph. D.s as possible, the better for widespread publisher marketing. Will you please help to locate just one Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences to lead the neo-Darwin team and start helping to assemble the most credentialed and marketable team possible?
If not, why not?

If your beliefs are easily presented and defended, there is much to be gained in influence and notoriety in a publishable debate… but if they are not easily presented and defended or if there are alternative explanations for the evidence we see that you could not refute… well… then you would likely not be interested in firmly committing to the neo-Darwin publishable debate team.

Larni in Message 148 to Jar writes:

To some people science is a democracy.

You could be more effective and gain credibility here by posting less irrelevant chat.
Either your retention is low or you’re intentionally misrepresenting this topic.
Review Message 89 where I stated:
“Polls vary in methodology, sample size, margin of error, confidence level, etc., and are generally useful in politics and marketing. Polls are not historically reliable in determining truth in science.”
The polls do indicate how many millions you could help educate with a professional publishable debate – if you could possibly make a firm commitment.

Your Red Herring diversions, uncertainty, and general struggle to respond meaningfully don’t evidence strength or confidence in your beliefs concerning science Larni – especially when you avoid the science. If you disagree, then please assist Crashfrog and others in answering the questions in Message 140.

Otherwise, your words in Message 123 of another thread are appropriate counsel for yourself and others here:
Larni writes: “This thread is a perfect example of you trying to pull attention away from your inability to debate scientifically…”.

You once wrote (click link): “The essence of faith and belief is the denial of new data.
Alternatively, one may say that the essence of faith and belief is the denial and refusal of a publishable debate of the data and evidence.
The proposed published debate of the science could effectively diminish institutionalized ignorance and sacred hatred.

Richard Dawkins writes:

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution (random mutation and natural selection developing all life from a common ancestor), that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). (parenthetical clarification of evolution mine for the purpose of this thread)

A professional written publishable debate would engage data relative to what you ‘believe’ in evolution.
How safe is a publishable debate of the science for your beliefs?
If ‘new data’ were properly assessed… and you could adequately demonstrate inferred mechanisms… and there were absolutely no reasonable alternative explanations… then it is absolutely safe to say there should be lots of qualified folks to represent neo-Darwin theory in a publishable debate.

Are you committed or are you not?
Can you form a qualified and committed team to ‘bring it’ Larni?

All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Larni, posted 12-07-2011 4:29 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Larni, posted 06-01-2012 7:07 PM Eye-Squared-R has not yet responded

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 170 of 196 (663864)
05-27-2012 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by jar
12-07-2011 9:00 AM


Jar’s Repeated Opinions
Hello Jar and welcome back,

A brief review…
In Message 61 of the Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) (click link) topic, you expressed a strong opinion that we’d like to see you justify and defend in a professional publishable debate, if you’re willing and able to firmly commit (obviating extraneous excuses to withdraw):

Jar in Message 61 of the ‘Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, or Wicked’ thread writes:

That Evolution happened is more than a theory, it is as close to fact as science can ever come.
The Theory of Evolution is the ONLY model that has been presented that explain what is seen. There is no model of "Creation" that has been presented that explains anything. There simply is no "Creation Science". It is an oxymoron.

Eye-Squared-R in Message 124 to Jar writes:

As close to fact as science can ever come… Jar?
That would put evolution (including neo-Darwinism) at the same confidence level as Ohm’s Law and the Law of gravity.

If you’re proposing Darwin’s ‘Law,’ you must surely have abundant, unequivocal, and repeatable demonstrations of random (unguided) mutations and natural selection developing newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, sexual reproduction, intercontinental navigation, metamorphosis from a caterpillar to a Monarch, etc.) resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms within a population over time.

If that’s true and you’re confident in your knowledge and understanding, a written publishable debate should be a Slam Dunk for you Jar! Or a Grand Slam out of the park!

Now Jar, please select a discipline (from Message 124: Biology, Cosmology, Dates and Dating, Geology, or Physics) and list your name. Make a firm commitment (free of extraneous excuses to withdraw) to debate the evidence and actually demonstrate the ignorance of those whose beliefs differ from yours (concerning neo-Darwinism). Otherwise, please explain your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.

Jar responding to Eye-Squared-R in Message 138 writes:

No, because I do not have enough trust in Creationists or ID Proponents to bother. (bold emphasis mine)


It’s unfortunate that you judge people who believe differently from you as ignorant (or worse) while you will not engage publishable debate of the evidence from the creationist perspective against your beliefs because you “do not have enough trust” in them.

You seem to argue with yourself in Message 76 of the ‘Faith and Honesty’ thread:

Jar in Message 76 of another thread writes:


There is faith, but there is also honesty. When new evidence is presented it must be considered.


And in Message 326 of another thread:

Jar in Message 326 of another thread to Taq writes:


We need to deal with the evidence presented.

Your refusal to commit to a publishable debate of the evidence doesn’t comport with your words above.
You appear unwilling to expose your opinions or consider evidence that may counter your opinions in a publishable debate.

And what about vulnerable young kids that you say you care for in Message Message 287 of another thread?

Jar in Message 287 of another thread writes:

But I do hate the idea that there are still folk that teach utter nonsense to vulnerable young kids like Creationism or that the Biblical Flood happened.

Do you ‘hate the idea’ enough to deal with it straight up and commit to publishable debate for potentially millions to see and learn Jar?
Or do you not care about ‘vulnerable young kids’ enough to actually do anything except repeat your opinion here 20,000 times where it will have little or no influence?

Your potential debate opponent(s) will not restrict themselves to debating only someone they ‘trust’ in a written publishable format.

Real science eagerly engages poorly evidenced conclusions.
Real science is based upon verification of evidence, valid mechanisms, and accurate predictions.

The written format lays the debate out in black and white.
Terms are defined and fixed within the text.
Evidence ‘must be considered’ and dealt with. Evidence that you claim doesn’t exist.
In a written debate, poorly supported inferences remain on the ‘operating table’ of print for all to see the dissection of assertions and evidence from both sides.

To clarify Jar, please indicate which best describes your position that folks who have beliefs different from your beliefs (specifically neo-Darwin “unbelievers”) aren’t based on evidence:
  1. This is merely Jar’s personal opinion and Jar will not firmly commit to substantiate his personal opinion in a publishable debate; or

  2. This is factual and Jar is prepared to firmly commit to demonstrate the factual basis by engaging in written publishable debate – thereby exposing lack of evidence for beliefs that differ from his own; or

  3. This is factual but Jar will not commit to substantiate it in a publishable debate because… ((fill in your reason here Jar)

Both you and your opponent(s) would be forced to reckon the facts in a written publishable debate.
It takes good measures of humility, honesty, and discipline to expose one’s beliefs and inferences to vigorous examination and debate in a publishable format rather than sit smugly here in the relative safety of EvC Forum and judge folks.

Please clarify for us your perceived risk in debating someone you don’t trust Jar. You may note for us whether options A, B, or C are valid or invalid. In addition, you may fill in item D to explain your fear related to an inferred untrustworthy debate opponent.
  1. Jar is concerned that a creationist or ID debate opponent may present scientific arguments that are difficult to counter and potentially weaken Jar’s personal opinions.

  2. Jar is not confident in his ability to present and defend scientific evidence for neo-Darwinism.

  3. Jar is not confident in his ability to invalidate scientific evidence for an alternative conclusion that potentially nullifies his personal opinions.

  4. Jar doesn’t trust a creationist or ID proponent in a professional written publishable debate because they may… (fill in your reason here Jar).

If you judge flaws (ignorant, untrustworthy, or worse) upon others while insisting there is no evidence for their lack of belief in neo-Darwinism… and… you refuse to engage debate of the evidence in a written publishable format – then interested observers may consider your judgments to be less than persuasive… or worse (click link).

People make errors in science, politics, and religion. Folks often judge those who disagree to be ignorant, stupid, untrustworthy, or worse.
Sometimes folks realize they were confidently wrong, and (hopefully) we’re all better for it.

The inconvenient truth is… errors in basic science by condescendingly confident self-expressed experts have been exposed (click link) in this thread.

Aside from the invitation for a publishable debate, it’s disappointing that you declined to respond to Exercises 1 & 2 in Message 124 to help us determine definitively who is actually ignorant concerning basic science.

Jar in Message 138 writes:

It does not matter what folk think…


Unless you live on a deserted island without politics or government, the reasons it matters are quite well detailed in Message 124.
Perhaps you could review that message addressed to you and acknowledge how majority opinion may affect elections and laws governing you and others… including ‘vulnerable young kids’.

Jar in Message 138 writes:

…the reality is that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only available explanation for the diversity of life that we see.


If only you had the confidence, ability, and determination for forming a team (including at least one real scientist with credentials) to present and defend your reality in a publishable debate.

It seems reasonable that folks who judge flaws upon others with different beliefs would be willing and able to help educate and enlighten other people through genuine vigorous debate of the scientific evidence. Direct confrontation with a potential audience of millions of people would surely help minimize ignorance, stupidity, insanity, and wickedness. If lack of trust is your reason for declining, you seem to doubt your ability to validate your views with creationists or ID proponents. In the absence of a more reasonable response, interested observers may draw their own conclusions.

If there are certain scientific neo-Darwin critiques or alternative interpretations with evidence that you feel an ‘untrustworthy’ opponent may present that you are unable to refute, then please note the specific topics and we could hopefully find you some teammates to handle those. I’ll work to accommodate your concerns in any way possible if you’re willing to make a firm commitment to a professional written publishable debate of the scientific evidence.
Do you know of any qualified Ph. D.s in natural or applied sciences who are willing and able to boldly defend confidently held beliefs in neo-Darwinism in this format?

Jar in Message 147 to Eye-Squared-R writes:


The majority opinion cannot change reality.


No one said it could. Please review this thread and stop with the straw-man sidesteps.
The real issue may be whether reality could change your opinion.

Jar in Message 147 to Eye-Squared-R writes:


Only a fool would think that the public's opinion would have any effect on the FACT of evolution or the Theory of Evolution.


No one has stated that here. It would be most helpful if you could correctly reflect this thread topic.
Pummeling this caricature about the head and shoulders may make you feel better but it accomplishes nothing – he’s feeling no pain.


Jar’s Convenient Straw Man – (Click to Enlarge)

Concerning the term: “FACT of evolution”, that is favored by folks here… we’d like some clarification if you don’t mind.

Does the term ‘FACT of evolution’ mean that you ‘know’ it is a “fact” that an asexual worm type creature’s progeny randomly mutated enough successful iterations to become a highly intelligent beauty queen?
Click both photos to enlarge:

If you know that to be a fact, then you can surely meet the requirements of this invitation to a publishable debate. As Lee Corso might say on ESPN’s College Game Day program – “Bring It Jar”!

Science is tentative and the scientific method can never provide absolute 100% confidence in any conclusion.
For many, incredulity requires unequivocal evidence and clear demonstration of mechanisms.

Evidence concerning biology, cosmology, age dating, geology, and physics will surely be a focus for publishable debate.

If, on the other hand, the ‘FACT of evolution’ means some finches beaks are longer than others or some people’s noses are wider than others, then a publishable debate could be educational… distinguishing further inferred fact and fiction.

If you and others are unwilling or unable to debate the inferred mechanism for evolution (random mutation and natural selection) to develop human DNA from a worm type creature, then perhaps you could at least present and defend the evidence for the inferred results in a publishable format…
A strictly scientific critique could then be provided by folks who are not philosophically constrained to denial of evidence of a creator with intent and purpose.

Your standard one or two sentence opinion will likely be your only response once again - if that’s all you have Jar. It could be hot-keyed to save time…
In that case, we could adopt a useful acronym for short: JAC-RATT (Jar’s Absolute Conviction Repeated A Thousand Times).

Getting out of your easy-chair in the safety of EvC Forum’s ‘front porch’ and substantiating your opinions on the big stage of a written publishable debate would be most welcome… and could be widely educational…

All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 12-07-2011 9:00 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 171 of 196 (663865)
05-27-2012 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Panda
12-07-2011 11:52 AM


Panda’s Diagnostic Diversion
Hello Panda and welcome back.

Unfortunately, you neglected to answer any of the requests directed to you in Message 87.

Panda in Message 150 to Eye-Squared-R writes:

There is something very wrong with you.

Yes, I have plenty of faults. However, my shortcomings are not the topic of this thread.
If you cannot answer the questions and you have nothing further to contribute here, you’re welcome to open a discussion in the peanut gallery where you and others could cuss and discuss my flaws.

The purpose of this thread is to identify who, if any, among the condescendingly confident and judgmental neo-Darwin believers (click link) here at EvC Forum are willing and able to firmly commit and help assimilate the most qualified team possible to engage neo-Darwin skeptics and unbelievers concerning the science in a written publishable debate for the potential education of millions of folks. The science, the whole science, and nothing but the science, Panda.

Apparently, no one has made any effort to assemble a qualified team - including at least one Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences to lead the effort for publication. How do you explain this when so many neo-Darwin believers here on EvC Forum’s ‘front porch’ express so much group agreement with judgment upon others to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked?

The history of mankind’s success and failures in science includes episodes of long persistent periods of error.
As noted by Coyote in Message 31 this history of science was required for a theory class in her graduate school curriculum.

Thomas S. Kuhn in his book (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Edition, Page 75) writes:


The novel theory seems a direct response to crisis. Note also, though this may not be quite so typical, that the problems with respect to which breakdown occurred were all of a type that had long been recognized. Previous practice of normal science had given every reason to consider them solved or all but solved, which helps to explain why the sense of failure, when it came, could be so acute.

It is often said that if Greek science had been less deductive and less ridden by dogma, heliocentric astronomy might have begun its development eighteen centuries earlier than it did… When Aristarchus’ suggestion was made, the vastly more reasonable geocentric system had no needs that a heliocentric system might even conceivably have fulfilled. The whole development of Ptolemaic astronomy, both its triumphs and its breakdown, falls in the centuries after Aristarchus’ proposal.

There are many examples of long term error in science but both Ptolemaic and phlogiston theories could be adjusted and adapted to explain observations for an extended period of time.
Ultimately, after extended persistence in error, they did not have valid working mechanisms in the real world.

Apparently, the strong majority of evolution (neo-Darwin) skeptics in the Gallup Poll (provided by Bluegenes in Message 84) consider random mutations and natural selection developing all life from a common single-celled ancestor in a similar category as Ptolemaic astronomy. Perhaps they’re wrong and you can help them.

Thorough examination of the evidence (and validity of inferred mechanisms) is always good science.
That’s partly what motivated this thread - along with gauging the confidence and ability of those passing judgments on others with differing beliefs as noted in Message 1.
In a publishable debate, you would be faced with evidence that inferred mechanisms are not valid as well as evidence for alternative explanations of what we observe.

We’re looking for the qualified folks who can discuss more than formatting preferences Panda.

We have several demonstrations in this thread of elitist error in basic science - often tossed with a steaming dollop of confident condescension.

No one corrects basic science error by their neo-Darwin peers in this thread, not even when I allow weeks for self-correction before responding.
Not a single recognition of error or a single correction by you or any of your peers here at EvC Forum… elementary science. This type of performance would sink neo-Darwin believers in the context of a publishable debate…

Highly esteemed (by self and others) evolutionist scientists in this thread profess to understand the physics of how the entire universe came into existence.
Yet these same folks have clearly demonstrated they don’t understand the basic physics of power, heat, entropy, and work (click link) in their clothes dryer or garage door opener.

Therefore, either there is little knowledge of working physical mechanisms among neo-Darwin believers here at EvC Forum or preferred philosophical prominence trumps truth in science… Ohms Law, power and heat, entropy and work.

This thread demonstrates that confidence is irrelevant and often misplaced in proper assessment of ‘elementary error’ evidenced by (Crashfrog’s misunderstanding (click link)).
A publishable debate of the science of neo-Darwin theory and alternative origins would offer you and others a broad opportunity that apparently no evolution scientist has leveraged to date, for some inexplicable reason.

Which is more important to you Panda – form or fact?
Your response above indicates font colors are more critical to you than truth in science.
The size and color of text glowing ominously on your screen is apparently too much to overcome.
Ideally, you could provide some evidence here that truth in science trumps your preferred personal philosophy.

History reveals how misguided philosophical judgments have misrepresented and leveraged ‘science’ to justify intolerant judgment and elimination of others.

Many Lysenko evolution scientists were evidently not fond of direct debate concerning evidence for some decades.
It was apparently preferrable to attack the dissenters of Lysenkoism rather than boldly engage skeptics of the science and evidence… skeptics who were judged worthy of execution or imprisonment… skeptics who were dead right.

Any naturalistic (unguided) theoretical mechanism must explain newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, sexual reproduction, intercontinental navigation, metamorphosis from a caterpillar to a Monarch, etc.) resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms within a population over time.

If you’d rather not represent or defend neo-Darwinism in a publishable debate Panda, then please explain why you decline, if you don’t mind.

In keeping with the focus of this thread in Message 87… you neglected to respond to the request for firm commitment to a professional written publishable debate and other requests directed to you.

If you should reach a point where you are confidently able to engage the science in a publishable manner … please make a firm commitment to an effort that could influence the knowledge and understanding of millions judged in this thread (click link) to be “ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked”.
Evidence may include the scientific disciplines (detailed in Message 72) and repeated below.

These are specific disciplines for which not one qualified scientist from EvC Forum has yet committed to engage:
Biology – Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34 but has not committed):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:

Please select any area of expertise for which you are confident and list your name to represent neo-Darwinism in a written publishable debate Panda.

You mentioned honesty in Message 82 Panda… so if you are unable to FIRMLY commit to a publishable debate for neo-Darwin, please share with us your reason for declining - if you don’t mind.

All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Panda, posted 12-07-2011 11:52 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 172 of 196 (663866)
05-27-2012 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Adequate
03-13-2012 1:54 PM


Burning Arrogance and Irrational Taunts
Hello Dr. Adequate,
I hope all is well with you - I see you've been busy here.

From Message 18

Dr. Adequate in Message 18 of this thread writes:

…I'm willing to bet that the general public has never heard of me.


Facts are great odds for good bets.
In the context of a publishable debate concerning science, a moniker of ‘Doctor Who’ may be more appropriate for you.

Dr. Adequate in Message 151 writes:

It's been nearly two years, and the coward, liar, and fool has still not found a creationist with the guts to take me on.
Every now and then I like to taunt him with this fact.
Coward. Liar. Fool.

Non-Sequitur charades pretended as fact – not so much a good bet.

Dictionary.com: Charade - a blatant pretense or deception, especially something so full of pretense as to be a travesty.

Folks who have never heard of you… somehow fear you? This is not a good bet.
Validation that publishers are not interested in you alone as a qualified scientist is a lie? This is not a good bet.
Inviting judgmental neo-Darwin believers to make firm commitments for a publishable debate of the science is foolish?
Not from my perspective.

Publishers require folks with science credentials to debate… science… Dr. Adequate.
You’re an unemployed (click link) mathematician.
Mathematicians of any employ are not scientists.
You have no science credentials to market for publishers.
The study of quasi-groups and loops never required the scientific method.
That’s because the study of math is deductive and science is inductive.

To loosely quote a famous politician in a vice-presidential debate, Lloyd Bentsen in 1988:
I know scientists. Scientists are friends of mine. Dr Adequate – you’re no scientist.

In Message 129, I offered you the email address of a publisher’s managing editor (whom I’d already contacted) to send your resume and validate your lonely lack of qualifications for a publishable debate of neo-Darwin science. You haven’t sought the email address because you already know publishers will not promote you as a scientist for a publishable debate of the science. Because you’re not a scientist.

If I had the inclination, I could also try to qualify you for the 2012 Olympic High Hurdles (click link) event in London.
That would also be a waste of time. Because you’re not a hurdler.
Those Olympic hurdlers have never heard of you either. Regardless, you may choose to pretend they also don’t have ‘the guts’ to take you on.
But you’d be wrong again Dr. Adequate.

You need at least one real scientist (to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers) as described and required in Message 1.
You’re unwilling and/or unable to find anyone to help meet that minimal requirement for publishers.

No real scientist (with a Ph.D.) has made a firm commitment to a publishable debate for neo-Darwinism.
It’s sadly reflective that you impugn the sincerity or intestinal fortitude of others.
The creationist side is, to be sure, qualified for publishers, committed, and ready.

I’m trying to gain firm commitments for the most qualified and credentialed team possible to represent neo-Darwin theory in a publishable debate of evidence and validity of mechanisms. Since you’ve refused to help, then please have the honesty and integrity to get out of the way and stop with all the pretense.

False claims concerning science and ill-advised taunts highlight misplaced arrogance here.
Your taunt adds another unfortunate Golden Nugget to go along with the erroneous beliefs by your peers concerning the science Ohm’s Law, power, heat, entropy, and work.

You’ve sat on your butt idly writing Poetry while your peers flail about, drowning in error with basic science in this thread.
Either you agreed with your peers’ errors – or you didn’t care about their reputations for credibility concerning basic physics.

Condescending confidence concerning basic science has failed repeatedly among your peers here Dr. Adequate.
However, you’ve contributed nothing on these matters of science to be confident about.

It’s unclear how you exude confidence that folks fear your overwhelmingly demonstrated ability to contribute nothing of substance in this thread.
As MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said on his show last November: “Today’s peacock, tomorrow’s feather duster.”

If you feel that you absolutely must taunt someone Dr. Adequate, perhaps you should consider your judgmental neo-Darwin peers who are qualified but not committed to a written publishable debate against the creationist perspective on neo-Darwinism.

You’ve attended ‘The Amazing Meeting’ of skeptics in Las Vegas. If we can’t get firm commitments from scientists here at EvC Forum, surely you have other qualified contacts you could leverage to provide credentials for publishers… the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science.

This thread will remain focused on gaining firm commitments from the most qualified and committed neo-Darwin debate team possible for a written publishable debate.

Tilting head downward and peering out from dark shades - with raised right eyebrow.
Gather the best Team possible doc… Test me… Try me…
Let’s work together to provide an excellent published educational resource for millions of neo-Darwin skeptics.

But you will not do that.
You’ve known and ignored the requirements for a long time Dr. Adequate.
In fact, you’ve explained similar but more specific requirements to someone else in Message 230 of another thread:

Dr. Adequate in Message 230 in another thread writes:

If they've not done post-doctoral work, it's not clear that they even count as scientists; and since Trixie was explicitly asking for scientists with "experience in biological sciences", then scientists not fulfilling that criterion would not count as an answer to her question.

And your charade that folks fear you “would not count” as the qualification of a lead scientist for any publisher.
Concerning a publishable debate of the sciences, we need contenders. Not puffed up pretenders Dr. Adequate.

Why have we not been able to gain a firm commitment from any real scientists to represent the science of neo-Darwinism?
You’re unable or unwilling to answer that question just as you’ve failed to correctly address any basic science in every issue thrown up by your peers in this thread. Some of that science could be salient in a publishable debate. A neo-Darwin debate team must fare better for publication than you and EvC Forum scientists have in this thread to date.

A shameless charade of pretense doesn’t mask reality to rational observers.
Aside from your solitary lack of science credentials for a publisher to have any interest, all we have from you to date is unqualified masquerade of entitlement, pompous poetry of personal puffery (click links), and thoughtless titular taunts.
Clearly, this is nothing more than EvC Forum bathroom stall graffiti of sorts…

Your posts and others in this thread answer your own question in Message 1 (click link) of your topic complaining about a shortage of creationists for discussion at EvC Forum.
Go to the top of this page. To the right, find ‘Thread Details’ and fetch all your posts.
Take the time to review the haughty squalor you’ve posted here.
The answer to your shortage question should be as obvious as an emotionally disturbed lynch mob clamoring at the village square.

Intelligent folks who desire to exchange knowledge and understanding don’t spend time reading cheap graffiti in a public stall.
People with differing beliefs have more informative and professional options. They move on.

Bolder-dash makes a statement in Message 35 (click link) of your thread to which you respond in Message 41:

Bolder-dash in Message 35 of Dr. Adequate’s thread writes:

Oh and by the way, do you know that Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, as well as the entire body of the National Academy of Science all believe as a policy that evolutionists never fair well debating creationists, so they should avoid it when possible?

Dr. Adequate in Message 41 of that same thread writes:

I do not "know" the stuff that you have made up in your head, because it is not, of course, true.


Well I never. Get away.

You do “know” that Ms. Eugenie Scott declined this invitation to a publishable debate.
But then again, you’ve indicated that you can’t be bothered (click link) to read the facts presented in this thread.
Please review Message 132 (click link) in which you can read my personal request sent to Eugenie Scott and the entire staff at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) as part of my efforts to find any qualified neo-Darwin believers willing to engage a written publishable debate with the creationist perspective.

Since you’re prone to calling people liars, we have another exercise for you Dr. Adequate.
Another request you’ll likely side-step in transparent necessity for self-preservation. This can be added to the first two exercises you’ve failed in Message 71.
Exercise #3

Here is Eugenie Scott’s email address available on the NCSE web site along with the entire staff: scott@ncse.com.

Now You email Eugenie and request that she and her staff join you in this proposed written publishable debate for evolution against the creationist perspective.

Explain to Eugenie, as I did, that the objective would only concern the observed evidence and interpretation of the evidence (excluding religion or philosophy) in a format that could be widely published and help educate millions of neo-Darwin skeptics.

This way, Dr. Adequate - you can “know” stuff.
But it takes more effort than calling folks liars from your easy chair on EvC Forum’s front porch.

Since a professional written publishable debate of the science could gain wide publicity and have tremendous influence to help to educate millions of neo-Darwin skeptics on the hot cultural issue of neo-Darwinism… the key question is why this invitation would not be welcomed and leveraged as a huge opportunity for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE)… to educate the millions of common folks who are neo-Darwin skeptics.

Then we request that you report Eugenie Scott’s response back to us Dr. Adequate.
If qualified neo-Darwin believers claim a widely publicized written debate would not help educate the masses, then perhaps you could explain or offer evidence for that counter-intuitive claim.

After this simple exercise, we can follow up with each of the others mentioned above.
This should be an exercise that you would welcome… if… you were sincere with a firm commitment to a publishable debate.
If you’re all talk and no walk, all claim and no game, all boast and no roast, then you’ll continue to pretend folks fear your demonstrated ability to do nothing. Maybe write some more disjointed Poetry about how tough you are.

Hopefully, you can do better than Message 145 (click link) with that statuesque statement that you… “can’t be bothered.”
Further lack of response from you may incite rational observers to further reflect upon your words in Message 151 above: coward, liar, fool.

If you were qualified, capable, and marketable as a lead scientist for publishers, then civil and honest discourse should be a reasonable option for you.
You aren’t and, apparently, it isn’t.

The type of irrational self-promoting behavior in your Message 151 above explains why you’ve been banned at other forums who don’t tolerate such behavior. It also explains why your friendly moderators here at EvC Forum have restricted your participation in discussion of Human Origins and Evolution (click link) as noted in ‘The Public Record’ in the Members with restricted posting privileges thread.

Percy is well aware of “obnoxious” behavior here at his Forum.
He allows it to the detriment of his service, in my opinion. Integrity and decency should be reasonable expectations for everyone.
That you claim to be a genius (click link) doesn’t excuse you.

Those of us who care remain concerned about your health and your well-being.
I’ve previously provided a link to the information below out of sincere concern for your behavior.
Your most recent contributions indicate some of this information should be shared directly.
Although it’s not my desire, I could detail an extended itemized list of specific symptoms from Mayo Clinic describing your behavior if you wish to continue defining yourself as a classic case study.

Help is available and your friends care Dr. Adequate.

From the Mayo Clinic (click link):
Definition:
Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Symptoms and other recommendations:
When you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may have a sense of entitlement. And when you don't receive the special treatment to which you feel entitled, you may become very impatient or angry. You may insist on having "the best" of everything — the best car, athletic club, medical care or social circles, for instance.
But underneath all this behavior often lies a fragile self-esteem. You have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have a sense of secret shame and humiliation. And in order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to belittle the other person to make yourself appear better.

When to see a doctor:
When you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may not want to think that anything could be wrong — doing so wouldn't fit with your self-image of power and perfection. But by definition, a narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of your life, such as relationships, work, school or your financial affairs. You may be generally unhappy and confused by a mix of seemingly contradictory emotions. Others may not enjoy being around you, and you may find your relationships unfulfilling.
If you notice any of these problems in your life, consider reaching out to a trusted doctor or mental health provider. Getting the right treatment can help make your life more rewarding and enjoyable.

I understand the behavior described by Mayo Clinic above is a symptom.
A moat protects a hard castle of sophistry. But the moat fills up when the person residing in the castle keeps throwing rocks of pretense into the moat.
It’s not my desire to denigrate you publicly but you must understand full disclosure is inevitable in the context of a written publishable debate. This would include professional employment history - or the lack thereof.

So where does that leave us… right back at Message 129.

If you cannot acknowledge your own words and you can’t be bothered (click link) to act on any of the difficult content… and you cannot find a single qualified teammate with publishable credentials…
Then you have no further contributions in this thread unless you wish to fill up the protective moat with rocks and transform a hard castle into a pile of rubble. This would further undermine your credibility.

Unwarranted self-promotion such as Message 151 only reflects the switchblade tactics in the back-alley of an intellectual ghetto.
Consider the moat carefully and contact me privately Dr. Adequate.

Regardless of the path you choose, Message 129 is repeated below for your convenience since you’ve failed to respond with integrity:

quote:
Hello Dr. Adequate,
Dr Adequate responding to ICANT in Message 104 writes:

The OP writes:

The proposal for this thread is to establish who among the intelligent and educated EVC proponents of universal common descent (neo-Darwinism) would represent evolution in a formal written debate exclusively regarding the scientific evidence. The debate would occur outside the confines of EVC Forum and would be publishable.

A single individual or an entire team of EVC folks could participate and collaborate in written responses on behalf of evolution - but at least one team member should be qualified with a Ph. D. in a technical field (to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers).

I am a "single individual" (is there another kind of individual?)


Competent, qualified, and professional married individuals are also welcome to firmly commit to engage in a publishable debate for neo-Darwinism.

Dr Adequate in Message 104 to ICANT writes:

I have a Ph.D. in a technical field. I am ready whenever he is.

I’ve researched the interest of publishers in a mathematics degree for debating science. For example, Anglagaard in Message 39 graciously offered a link to the Opposing Viewpoints series from Greenhaven Press. When I was hopeful we could secure firm commitments here from many qualified experts, I inquired concerning Greenhaven Press’ interest in a professional debate for publication. The Managing Editor was Elizabeth (Betz) Des Chenes and here is her reply (pertaining to folks such as you doc): “Greenhaven Press does not accept unsolicited manuscripts; if you wish to submit an e-resume, however, we would be happy to consider you for future projects (in your area of expertise, if at all possible)” (bold emphasis mine). Of the hundreds of ‘opposing viewpoints’ topics on the website, you might guess that none of them are debates concerning opposing viewpoints in math.

If you are sincere Dr. Adequate, you may request the email address of Ms. Des Chenes, the managing editor, from me and I will gladly provide it (it’s not on the web site). You could submit your e-resume to validate your lack of professional credentials (with a Liberal Arts Mathematics degree) to Greenhaven Press (or any other publishers) for the debate topic concerning the science of neo-Darwinism.

You declined to acknowledge any of the concerns detailed in Message 86, repeated here (with some additional comments) for your convenience.

Referencing part of Message 86:
  1. I was concerned when doc stated the requirements (simply to present the evidence) may be impossible for him as an individual in Message 44: Dr. Adequate states: “I just wanted to make the point that it is impossible for a single human being in a single lifetime to present "the evidence for evolution". All I can do is sketch out the major classes of such evidence, give a few examples, and explain why it is evidence. Hence, any readers who wanted to check that I wasn't simply cherry-picking the evidence would have to get up off their tuchi and do a little research of their own.”
    As ICANT described in Message 103, a debate obviously requires a significant effort beyond Doctor Adequate’s mere presentation of his position.
    Commitment to a written debate requires that doc also defend his interpretation of his evidence and attempt to explain why alternative evidence and interpretations are not valid.

  2. I was disappointed to learn that Dr. Adequate’s Ph.D. is in mathematics, a traditionally liberal arts degree and a deductive discipline that does not utilize the inductive logic of the scientific method.

  3. I was further disappointed to learn that doc was unemployed. Dr. Adequate’s plea for help in his thread I need a job. Please help me. (click link)) was disappointing because this diminishes possibility for a publisher’s interest in a quality written debate.

  4. I was further disappointed that doc would not answer Straggler’s inquiry or mine into doc’s previous employment. We cannot even determine whether doc has ever been gainfully employed.

  5. I was further disappointed to see the doc’s statement in Message 11 of his request for help: “I've worked out some things which I think might be useful, but the field in which I am known is in my judgment about as useful as a soap herring.”

You have adequately detailed your lack of marketability as a qualified leader of a debate team for neo-Darwinism in a professional written publishable format, Dr. Adequate. Further, your demonstrated debate skills at EvC Forum are primarily sarcasm and insults.

Your argument is not with me whether you’re a viable candidate to lead a professional debate team with credentials and competencies attractive to publishers.

Your argument is with yourself doc.

But you’re not alone arguing with yourself… your Administrators here at EvC Forum have repeatedly suspended you and ultimately banned you from participating in the “Human Origins and Evolution” forum.

  • Admin Percy in Message 339 of another thread speaks of your inability to engage in constructive dialogue.

    Admin Percy writes in Message 339 writes:

    I know the PZ Myers approach, or more locally the Dr Adequate approach, is a real good read, but it really gets in the way of constructive dialogue.

  • Adminnemooseus in Message 48 of ‘The Public Record’ in the Members with restricted posting privileges (click link) thread removes your posting permissions in the “Human Origins and Evolution” discussion forum…

    Adminnemooseus in Message 48 writes:

    Just coming off a 24 hour suspension, his (Dr. Adequate’s) "contributions" at the "Why are there no human apes alive today?" topic continue to be of an undesirable nature, not conducive to moving the debate forward. We have plenty of evo side members to carry on in a hopefully better manner at that topic. (bold emphasis mine)

  • What makes it even more disappointing doc is the fact that you take no responsibility for your ‘undesirable’ behavior here as evidenced in Message 319 of another thread.

    After being suspended and ultimately banned from the ‘Human Origins and Evolution’ Forum, Dr. Adequate writes:

    I suppose that asking a creationist of Mazzy's breed for evidence is indeed "not conducive to moving the debate forward". But that isn't my fault. (bold emphasis mine)

Honest self-assessment is appropriate in a professional setting doc. You were not repeatedly suspended and finally banned by your home team moderators because you were ‘asking for evidence’. You could gain credibility by taking ownership and responsibility for your behavior.

And you continue in Message 101 and Message 104

Dr. Adequate in Message 101 to ICANT writes:

I am not walking away. I am standing here asking him to bring it on. And every time I do so the coward runs away and hides, usually for weeks at a time.

Dr. Adequate in Message 104 to ICANT writes:

I have made a firm commitment to debate, from which the coward has run like a frightened little bunny-rabbit…


My delays are intentional doc. I give you and others plenty of time between posts to respond to my requests and to build a strong firmly committed professional debate team for evolution. I also observe styles, competencies, and character of folks posting here over time. Beyond that, we’ve had two weddings with extensive travel, including my lovely daughter’s wedding, dealt with the terminal illness and death of my father-in-law (an exemplary Viet Nam veteran who enlisted as a private and retired a Full Colonel), and more recently the recovery after heart surgery and subsequent untimely death of my cherished father.

Read this carefully doc and remember it…
Qualifications and character are key requirements for most publishers. Your steadfast decision ‘to ignore’ and keep dodging the science and the requests (click link) in this thread has demonstrated absolutely no reason for anyone to ‘run’ from you doc. I’ve stated repeatedly there is no rush in this process. We’re not interested in who can hurl the most macho sarcastic insults.

Dr. Adequate in Message 104 to ICANT writes:

I am rather more like a 36-year-old not standing on a soapbox and saying to a halfwitted poltroon: "Bring it on you sniveling little coward --- you're full of shit."


Your public demeanor degrades under stress Dr. Adequate.
Your responses appeal to emotions of the ignoble sort rather than to rational observers.

Interested folks will note your inability to address the exercises in science detailed in the examples listed in Message 71 and additional requests in Message 72 where your earlier baseless claims were dealt with.

Your typical response to ignore multiple requests (as in Message 81) is not exemplary. Anyone can do that.

You’ve struggled to engage in constructive dialogue (click link) in this thread as well as others.

It’s unclear how you could imagine that your performance in this thread makes folks afraid of you…

The best we can say at this time is your behavior is consistently derisive and unprofessional (click link).

Considering your suspensions, recent banning from discussing evolution at EvC Forum, sensitivity to unspecified ‘snipped’ offenses (click link) in response to Message 86, preoccupation with ‘cojones’ in Message 59 and Message 68, combined with other attributes including your plea for help finding employment, and your overall behavioral tendencies in this thread…
you may find this link helpful Dr. Adequate.

I’m not a doctor but the description and symptoms are clearly found throughout this thread.
I offer this sincerely and I hope you’ll give it careful consideration.
We can’t determine whether this is a general pattern in your life but your friends care Dr. Adequate.
This isn’t personal and you shouldn’t take it that way.

Beyond the fact that you’re banned from debating evolution here at EvC Forum due to your inability to move a debate forward, I take full responsibility that the wording in the Opening Post was such that a Ph.D. in the deductive field of math would consider himself qualified to offer “bona-fide credibility for potential publishers” concerning the natural and applied sciences.

The scientific method draws inductive conclusions (or generalizations) from a finite set of observable data and environments. Those conclusions are falsifiable by definition of the method. Inductive generalizations are often falsified with additional observations and/or other environments.
Science is different from the deductive practice in math – where relationships are proven and final (unequivocal fact).

Unfortunately, you have no credentials in the inductive field of science utilizing the scientific method Dr. Adequate. Therefore, since the primary objective of this thread is a publishable debate and qualifications are tantamount to quality for publishers, I will revise the OP to indicate a Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences where the inductive reasoning of the scientific method is applied. I will also include in the revision a requirement for demonstrated ability to function in a professional constructive manner – since this will be a requirement for publishers.

The overriding objective for this thread is to assemble the best possible team for a publishable debate. I wish you were a viable candidate as the “Leader” of a professional evolution debate team in a publishable format Dr. Adequate. But you’re not… for all the reasons mentioned.

Eye-Squared in Message 86 (with some edits added for clarity) writes:

It’s really easy to make a FIRM commitment, doctor, if you have confidence in your beliefs and abilities.
I’ll repeat the requirements for you:

  1. To confirm in writing (a post here on this forum is adequate) that you are firmly committed and that you will not withdraw for weak excuses you’ve hinted at in this thread such as
    1. “I don’t have time to ‘write a book for you.” (which was never requested)
    2. I can’t debate because I don’t like his/her “literary style” (click link).
    3. Not ignoring requests of you and withdrawing while mumbling “batshit crazy” or “silly irrelevant dishonest blather”. If you were to actually encounter such, you must be willing and able to confront it and expose it – to fulfill your self-expressed “ethical duty to try to speak the truth” and help educate the millions of neo-Darwinian “unbelievers”. You would further lose credibility if you were to half-heartedly commit and then ultimately withdrew while expressing nothing more convincing than insults.
  2. Demonstrate your scientific “Big Bat of Facts” ability (along with someone who knows physics) by addressing Exercises 1 and 2 in Message 71. Those Exercises may appear during a professional publishable debate and were even presented in your requested format in Message 66 (click link).
  3. Recruit others for publicly stated FIRM commitments to assist you in the specified disciplines listed. In light of your recent inability to respond to the exercises, you must be able to secure firmly committed resources in disciplines that you may not be well versed.

Dr Adequate in Message 104 to ICANT… Finally states a 'Firm Commitment’ and writes:

It is, however, a "FIRM COMMITMENT"…


OK doc, please review items A, A1, A2, and A3 above from Message 86 and confirm that your words "FIRM COMMITMENT" are in agreement. If you ignore and refuse to respond to this request for confirmation as you have with all the other requests you’ve ignored in this thread, then you will not be considered seriously either by me or most interested observers.

The good news for you doc (if you’re sincere and follow through with the requests) is you could still participate in the proposed publishable debate if you were able to secure firm commitment from at least one marketable Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences – assuming they valued your ability for constructive dialogue and desired your contributions on the debate team.

I’ve requested this of you repeatedly and you’ve evidently made no effort. I’ve suggested Cavediver as a possible leader of your team since he offered in Message 34 to debate cosmology. Unless I’m mistaken, I believe Cavediver has a Ph. D. in physics which could be marketable for publishers. There are also plenty of other marketable folks here at EvC Forum with Ph. D.s in the natural or applied sciences. Have you solicited anyone doc? Have you made any effort at all? Will you even acknowledge or answer these questions?

Further, I will make every effort and take plenty of time to gain firm commitments in all the disciplines listed previously. If you’re sincere about a written publishable debate, I request – again – that you help in that effort. If you’re not sincere doc, you’ll likely persist with ignoring (or ducking - click here) and clucking (click here) posts of an ‘undesirable’ nature.

If you’ve made no effort Dr. Adequate, then we can only conclude you’re more interested in personal puffery here than assembling the most qualified and marketable debate team possible to represent evolution (random mutations and natural selection).

After firm commitments are secured, and not before firm commitments are secured for the most qualified and capable team possible, then we’ll advance to Step 2 and get this debate train rolling down the tracks with formal contracts to begin the process.

You probably don’t believe this but I’m trying to help you Dr. Adequate. I want you and the team representing evolution (random mutations and natural selection) to have every opportunity to be as successful as possible in a published presentation and defense of neo-Darwinism.

Let me know if you’d like to discuss anything further in private, assuming you are interested in advancing this effort.
Regardless, a thoughtful and professional response would be appreciated.


Message 129 EOM.

Please take your time and read each line of this message multiple times Dr. Adequate.
You may have heard the wise saying: He who lives in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones.
Analogies should be clear to you and you should be perceptive where your present course is headed.

I suggest you counsel with your wife.
It’s worthy of your careful consideration before responding further.
I believe you have potential as part of a team if you can find any real scientists to join you, but a wiser solitary course is… advised.

Now, will you engage professionally and help assimilate a neo-Darwin team with publishable credentials including some real scientists who will firmly commit to debating the science for potentially millions to read and learn?

These are specific disciplines for which not one qualified scientist from EvC Forum has yet committed to engage:
Biology – Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34 but has not committed):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:

All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-13-2012 1:54 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 173 of 196 (663867)
05-27-2012 7:13 AM


General Response: Integrity – Can anyone address the topic?
Note to all,

This thread is not a typical EvC Forum topic.

If you are considering posting in this thread, then please take the time to review the entire thread starting with the opening post.
This thread is a long term invitation to assimilate the most credentialed and committed team of neo-Darwin believers possible for a publishable debate of the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science. The term ‘believer’ is derived from the Richard Dawkins quote in Message 1.

Recent contributions by evolutionists in messages 143 through 151 do not advance the objective at all.
Several other recent posts are off topic and those discussions should be taken to another thread topic.
Please ask yourself this question before posting… ‘Am I able to address the topic and the requests with honesty and integrity?’

I could continue to deal with diversions and dispersions consisting of straw-man misrepresentation, unspecified format contempt, poetry of personal puffery, and illegitimate taunts, but that’s a colossal waste of time. More of the same would further reflect poorly on EvC Forum.

The thread proposal for firm commitments to build a qualified neo-Darwin team, engage a contract, and deliver a written publishable debate of the science against the creationist perspective is real and sincere. The objective is to bring the actual science to the forefront and help educate many millions of people.

Your potential creationist opponent(s) are committed and available to begin the process whenever a qualified neo-Darwin debate team is assimilated and committed. But the first step is to gain firm commitments for the best possible neo-Darwin debate team that includes qualified evolutionists (Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences for publishable credentials).

If you have private questions or suggestions to advance the objective, they are welcome.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R


Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 12:29 PM Eye-Squared-R has not yet responded
 Message 178 by bluegenes, posted 05-27-2012 1:27 PM Eye-Squared-R has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12973
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 174 of 196 (663871)
05-27-2012 7:45 AM


All that crazy shit makes my eyes hurt. If anyone can be bothered to read it, please let me know if he said anything interesting.
Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by vimesey, posted 05-27-2012 7:57 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 176 by subbie, posted 05-27-2012 11:54 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 179 by Panda, posted 05-27-2012 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 370
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 175 of 196 (663873)
05-27-2012 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
05-27-2012 7:45 AM


The bookies have now closed all books on this year's Gish Gallop Derby.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 7:45 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3359
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 176 of 196 (663880)
05-27-2012 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
05-27-2012 7:45 AM


I'm no expert, but I suppose I'd give him 0.5 Time Cubes, maybe 0.6.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 7:45 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12973
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 177 of 196 (663882)
05-27-2012 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Eye-Squared-R
05-27-2012 7:13 AM


Re: General Response: Integrity – Can anyone address the topic?
Your potential creationist opponent(s) are committed and available to begin the process whenever a qualified neo-Darwin debate team is assimilated and committed. But the first step is to gain firm commitments for the best possible neo-Darwin debate team that includes qualified evolutionists (Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences for publishable credentials).

If you have private questions or suggestions to advance the objective, they are welcome.

Question: who are these "potential creationist opponent(s)"? Are they able to speak for themselves? Why are you apparently uncertain as to whether they are singular or plural?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 05-27-2012 7:13 AM Eye-Squared-R has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 178 of 196 (663883)
05-27-2012 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Eye-Squared-R
05-27-2012 7:13 AM


Re: General Response: Integrity – Can anyone address the topic?
Eye-Squared-R writes:

Your potential creationist opponent(s) are committed and available to begin the process whenever a qualified neo-Darwin debate team is assimilated and committed. But the first step is to gain firm commitments for the best possible neo-Darwin debate team that includes qualified evolutionists (Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences for publishable credentials).

Will the creationist opponent(s) have a Ph.D. in supernaturalism? Will they be able to establish the existence of the mechanism by which they want to explain the origin of species? I ask because, if they cannot demonstrate the existence of one or more supernatural beings, the debate is won by naturalists. Physical processes are demonstrably real.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 05-27-2012 7:13 AM Eye-Squared-R has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 213 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 179 of 196 (663889)
05-27-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
05-27-2012 7:45 AM


Dr. A writes:

If anyone can be bothered to read it, please let me know if he said anything interesting.


19,000 words of crazy shit.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 7:45 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3796
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 180 of 196 (664540)
06-01-2012 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Eye-Squared-R
05-27-2012 7:04 AM


Re: Larni’s Psychology and Indecision
Eye writes:

You could be more effective and gain credibility here by posting less irrelevant chat

What's that smell, is it.....irony?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 05-27-2012 7:04 AM Eye-Squared-R has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
91011
12
1314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014