Topic Proposal Issues

No, that is the mechanism.The effect is adaptive evolution.Maybe you should just learn to live with the fact that you are not merely biologically illiterate, but also, so to speak, biologically dyslexic. Why don't you spend your time on something which is within your capacities?

Won't someone promote sac's topic? If not, why not?

I see that new member Oliver Chant has raised an interesting new topic: "Evolution complete fact or fiction?".For too long our members have avoided this challenging issue. But I feel that this is time for this tacit self-censorship to end, and for us to seriously investigate the truth or falsehood of evolution.I shall go further. This theme is of such great importance and scope that a mere thread is not sufficient to encompass it, and I hereby call upon the moderators to create an entire subforum devoted to this subject. I suggest that it should be called "Evolution v. Creationism", as a plain and simple statement of its unique purpose.And, finally, let the debate begin!

Can someone get on this, please? It's the sort of thing that interests me. Thanks.

It seemed clear enough to me; though I can entertain the possibility that I am completely misunderstanding someone with no coherent point in such a way that I think I understand him as having a coherent point. But what are the odds?I think his point is that if physicists came to a fundamental understanding of the laws underlying our universe, then anyone asking the question "why" about this understanding itself would get no answer from the physicists; they'd just have to say: "Because that's the way it is".At that point, he suggests, we should turn to theological explanations. This is what I should like to take issue with.

Oh, and it turns out from his further explanation of his point that I'm right. Whoda thought it?

Well, you could ask if if he's so sensitive that he can't stand criticism, and if his answer is "yes" you could always direct him to another forum.I've already written my answer, it is perfectly tactful.

I don't see why peter1985's "Moral compass" topic can't be promoted.

Here.I'm sure we'd all enjoy slapping him around showing him the error of his ways.Of course, you'd have to make him say something of substance first. Perhaps if he could post these fifteen questions of which he speaks ... I seem to remember answering them several years ago when I first read this piffle.

I think I see his problem. He's a creationist.I don't see how he could have infected his calculator with his stupidity, but even if he could, anyone with half a brain would have spotted an error of that ... what's the word? ... ah yes, magnitude.

I think you should promote marc's topic. If he's posting on the thread, it's pretty much guaranteed that there's going to be whining about biased evil atheist liberals, it's what he does. Why bother trying to remove it from the OP? If it's promoted we may still get in some interesting discussion about epistemology, we can tune out the noise.

This is one of the best PNTs I've ever seen from a creationist, it should be promoted immediately and the poster should be given a pony.

I think if herebedragons needs to clarify or expand on any points, he might do so as well or better at the request of the membership (including Percy qua member) as at the behest of Admin.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Also, why not promote forexhr's thread?Yeah, his OP is very long. But I could condense the answer into three sentences, or two if I leave off "So fuck you, you pretentious monkey-loving jizz-spoon".I'll leave that off, shall I? OK. I'll be nice.ETA: I'm talking here about his topic proposal "Proof that evolution can build things by random chance alone". His other topic proposal is even stupider and easier, but let's do this one at a time.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How about Archangel's "Why did animals have to die in the great flood?" topic, then?