Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 129 of 196 (639479)
11-01-2011 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2011 2:42 AM


Re: Debate
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 (click link) 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.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2011 2:42 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2011 3:00 AM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 131 of 196 (639481)
11-01-2011 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by ICANT
03-24-2011 1:04 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate
Hello ICANT and welcome again.
ICANT in Message 106 writes:
Would you please explain to Dr Adequate what he must do to meet your SIGNED FIRM COMMITMENT in order for the debate to take place.
Posting affirmation here at EvC Forum is sufficient to express firm commitment (clearly defined in this thread) as we attempt to build a qualified professional and marketable team to represent neo-Darwinism.
I’ve stressed that quality is the most important goal and there is no need to rush this process.
As explained in Message 86 and more recently, Dr. Adequate does not have the credentials that a publisher would reasonably consider to be marketable in this effort. Doc’s further inability to engage in constructive dialogue is documented in the most recent message to him above.
The good news for doc, if his commitment is sincere, is this debate is still very possible.
  • If doc is sincere, he will make an effort to build the best team possible to include at least one Ph.D. in the natural or applied sciences for bona-fide credibility with publishers. A theoretical physicist Ph.D. in this thread has expressed interest in the debate regarding cosmology and he may be attractive to publishers not sure whether Cavediver is employed in his field of expertise. If doc is sincere, this may be a good person to begin recruiting to lead this effort. There are many others doc could solicit
  • If doc is not sincere, he will continue to do nothing more than Duck and Cluck (click links).
When we have firm commitments from the most qualified team possible for evolution, and NOT before, we will proceed to Step 2. I will select and notify qualified debate opponent(s) whom I’ve already contacted and both sides will then sign a formal contractual agreement to begin a search for a mutually suitable and neutral moderator. I believe there are major publishers who would be interested in the potential publicity and would offer qualified neutral moderators for their mutual selection. The next step will be agreement on the format, procedures, time allotted for each phase of the debate, etc.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 1:04 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 132 of 196 (639482)
11-01-2011 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Coyote
03-24-2011 10:51 PM


Re: Big Time Question
Hello Coyote and welcome back.
Coyote in Message 114 writes:
This whole thread has been silly.
Let’s review Coyote. Real science is bold and confrontational.
In another post linked here, you didn’t think the proposed written format is silly.
Coyote in Message 12 (sub-titled Debating Creationists) of another thread writes:
Presentation and discussion of the evidence in written form is the best format.
So clarification would be helpful, if you don’t mind Coyote. Please specify precisely what is ‘silly’ to you
  1. A professional publishable written debate concerning the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism? Or
  2. People pronouncing judgments of ignorance, stupidity, insanity, or wickedness upon others who don’t ‘believe’ in neo-Darwinism? Or
  3. People unwilling or unable to firmly commit to engaging publishable debate after judging flaws upon those who believe differently than you? Or
  4. Is confrontational science always silly to you? Or is confrontational science only silly when it challenges your personal beliefs?
Coyote in Message 114 writes:
If you want a professional quality debate, just contact Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education.
Or perhaps Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University. He did pretty well at Dover.
Thank you for the suggestion. We do need to find a Ph. D. with marketable credentials to lead the effort.
In Message 13 and Message 22, I’ve stated that commitments from others (beyond EvC Forum) were welcome to represent neo-Darwinism. I’d like to see the absolute best possible team with the most likelihood of success. Unfortunately, there has been no indication that anyone at EvC Forum has made any effort to enlist anybody from anywhere at any time.
So I contacted the following individuals at the National Center for Science Education:
  • Eugenie Scott, Executive Director
  • Glenn Branch, Deputy Director
  • Philip T. Spieth, Director of Operations
  • Joshua Rosenau, Programs and Policy Director
  • Steven Newton, Programs and Policy Director
  • Peter M. J. Hess, Director, Religious Community Outreach
  • Eric Meikle, Education Project Director
  • Andrew J. Petto, editor, Reports of the National Center for Science Education
  • Charles Hargrove, Archivist
  • Stuart Fogg, IT Project Specialist
  • Nina Hollenberg, Office Manager
  • David Almandsmith, Project Assistant
  • Robert Luhn, Director of Communications
  • Tully Weberg, Bookkeeper
Here is the text of the invitation:
Hello NCSE Staff,
Thank you for the service you provide.
I'm attempting to arrange a professional publishable written debate strictly regarding the scientific evidence for and against neo-Dawinism.
Neo-Darwinism (random mutations and natural selection) is the topic since it's the foundation of modern evolutionary theory.
The objective is to deal directly with the scientific evidence in a published format that could be widely publicised and help educate neo-Darwin skeptics.
A recent Gallup poll indicated that only 16% of Americans believe in a purely naturalistic explanation for all the diverse forms of life on Earth.
So this proposal appears to be a significant opportunity and could possibly be widely publicized.
The debate would engage the creationist perspective but would only concern the observed evidence and interpretation of the evidence - excluding religion or philosophy.
I'm trying to assemble the best team possible to represent neo-Darwinism and someone suggested I contact NCSE. This will likely take some time but this is the first step.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Let me know your thoughts please.
Eugenie was gracious in response but declined the invitation on behalf of the National Center for Science Education.
Kenneth R Miller declined to respond, unfortunately.
Coyote in Message 114 writes:
Why are you trolling internet chat/debate rooms instead of seeking out organizations and individuals who have been dealing with this issue for years? (bold emphasis mine)
You and many others here at EvC Forum are individuals who have been dealing with this issue for years. You’ve submitted over 3,000 posts spanning several years on these issues at EvC Forum. It’s my goal to advance knowledge and understanding in science. Zenmonkey’s thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) referenced in Message 1 seemed a logical resource to solicit someone to directly engage the issues for the millions of inferred afflicted people.
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. Why would you judge that to be silly Coyote? In the absence of a reasoned response, interested readers may draw their own conclusions.
Also, Cavediver in Message 30 seemed to indicate the real professionals and experts are here at EvC Forum:
Cavediver in Message 30 writes:
You would do well to remember that EvC is home to far more than its fair share of professionals, and please remember the important difference between experts and "experts".
Perhaps you’re right Coyote. It’s possible I’ve overestimated all the confident judgments at here EvC Forum.
Coyote in Message 114 writes:
Can't handle the big time?
It has been really tough getting firm commitments for a publishable debate from qualified folks here a tougher struggle than I expected.
It takes good measures of humility, honesty, and discipline to challenge one’s own beliefs or to expose one’s inferences to vigorous examination and debate.
Errors in basic science by condescendingly confident self-expressed experts have been exposed (click link) in this thread, apparently causing considerable pain.
People make errors in science, politics, and religion. Folks often judge those who disagree to be ignorant, stupid, or worse. Sometimes folks realize they were confidently wrong, and (hopefully) we’re all better for it.
The nature of real science is confrontational.
That’s how science advances.
We look forward to your thoughtful response Coyote.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 03-24-2011 10:51 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 133 of 196 (639483)
11-01-2011 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by AZPaul3
09-23-2011 3:08 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate Team for neo-Darwinism
Hello AZPaul3 and welcome!
AZPaul3 in Message 122 response to Dr. Adequate’s non-intuitive posting in Message 121 writes:
I do not see this as being productive in this thread and is indeed off-topic, but if that is what you want then I suppose I can respond.
You’re quite resourceful in Message 122 finding a video of a clucking chicken. You’ve likely put forth more thought and effort in that single post than Dr. Adequate has expended in this entire thread.
Now, we need your assistance AZPaul3 in some matters that doc has been unwilling and/or unable to even acknowledge in this thread
Please be resourceful and assist us in securing firm commitments from the most qualified team possible to represent evolution in a professional written publishable debate.
You may note that not a single qualified person here at EvC Forum has stepped forward to make a firm commitment in any of these areas of science.
The specific disciplines are listed below.
List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to a professional written publishable debate concerning neo-Darwinism involving the scientific disciplines of:
Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34): No One.
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.
Also, AZPaul3, not a single scientist at EvC Forum is willing or able to address the exercises in the green and red sections of Message 71 . These topics are salient as they could be leveraged in a publishable debate concerning neo-Darwinism. Would you please use your resourcefulness to locate at least one person, anyone, anywhere at EvC Forum, to determine who is actually ignorant in those exercises? Our friend Dr. Adequate has repeatedly ignored those exercises. This dereliction and subsequent puffery is yet another Golden Nugget in this thread a non-sequitur combination of Ducking and Clucking (click links).
You presented your belief in Message 30 of the thread ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.
AZPaul3 in Message 30 of Zenmonkey’s thread writes:
There is nothing that negates modern microbes spawning an evolution resulting in some multi-cellular creature that may, in some aspects, resemble an elephant in the next billion years or so, is there? I will agree that it is not automatic but I would argue it is well within the realm of probability. So, yes, random mutation+inheritable traits+Natural Selection does indeed enable such a possibility, though the outcome will certainly not be elephants. That's already been done by some microbes from a billion years ago. The modern kind will have to go make something else.
Inheritable traits are a given.
To clarify, please indicate which best describes your belief that random mutations and natural selection develop 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 (including microbes to elephants) within a population over time.
  1. This is merely AZPaul3’s personal opinion and AZPaul3 will not firmly commit to substantiate his personal opinion in a publishable debate; or
  2. This is factual and AZPaul3 is prepared to firmly commit to demonstrate the factual basis by engaging in written publishable debate — thereby presenting and defending his evidence; or
  3. This is factual but AZPaul3 will not commit to substantiate it in a publishable debate because (describe your reason for declining here if you don’t mind).
We look forward to your thoughtful and resourceful response AZPaul3.
It is also requested that interested observers take the time to review the previous posts above and the entire thread before responding to avoid unnecessary redundancy.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2011 3:08 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-01-2011 2:21 AM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 140 of 196 (643444)
12-06-2011 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
11-01-2011 2:07 AM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
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. (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.
Since you first mentioned entropy in this thread, Crashfrog, please share with us your highest level of formal education if you don’t mind
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. (bold emphasis mine)
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.
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 threadyour 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.
(bold emphasis mine)
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.

(emphasis mine)
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.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Note to Adminnemooseus:
Adminnemooseus in Message 134 writes:
Lay off the nasty abnormal formatting.
It only enhances your looking like a raving idiot.
Adminnemooseus
It’s unclear whether you intended to post as an administrator so clarification is requested.
Format hyper-sensitivity can be an indication that one is unwilling or unable to address the topic especially when the topic is not addressed.
For example, Omnivorous, in Message 75 (click link) expressed a pain like a boil on his ass from Message 71. Omnivorous complained about the green and red background formatting used to demarcate exercises 1 and 2 from the general text. He requested to ‘color it black’.
And when his request was obliged in Message 79 Omnivorous never responded.
We can only conclude that formatting was actually not the cause of the pain Omnivorous felt.
If you intended Message 134 as an EvC Forum administrator referring to someone as a raving idiot, you may wish to review the forum rules that you’re responsible to administer.
If you are demanding that certain formatting not be used for emphasis or demarcation of separate sections (like this note to you requesting clarification), then you must be much more specific on precisely what ‘nasty abnormal’ formatting you are banning in the Coffee House Forum.
Alternatively, you have the authority as an administrator to suspend me if you wish Adminnemooseus.
However, I suggest that would not reflect well upon you or EvC Forum in general.
If you intended to post Message 134 as Minnemooseus and you’re actually participating in this thread topic, then I request that you make a firm commitment to one of the scientific disciplines listed above for a professional written publishable debate concerning neo-Darwin science. If you decline the invitation, then please state your reason for us - if you don’t mind.
Assuming you decline the invitation Adminnemooseus, you could at least nominate the best Ph. D.s in natural or applied science at EvC Forum for each of the disciplines listed.
We need the most qualified and competent team possible to represent neo-Darwinism in a written publishable debate - for all to see.
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Edited statement about work.
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2011 2:07 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by subbie, posted 12-07-2011 12:33 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied
 Message 150 by Panda, posted 12-07-2011 11:52 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 141 of 196 (643445)
12-06-2011 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Larni
11-01-2011 4:21 AM


Re: Debate
Hello Larni and welcome back.
Eye-Squared-R to Dr Adequate in Message 129 writes:
Regardless, a thoughtful and professional response would be appreciated.
Larni in Message 137 writes:
As an interested lurker it would really help if you used a more thoughtful formatting.
As an interested lurker Larni, this was your second post in this thread without addressing the content.
You neglected to respond to the requests in Message 70 addressed directly to you.
In case the formatting in Message 70 rendered you incapable of responding, the requests in the message are repeated here with plain formatting for your convenience:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 70 to Larni writes:
Hello Larni — and welcome!
Larni in Message 69 to Dr Adequate writes:
I'm no creo but I sure can write creo drivel if you want to go halves on the book rights.
First Piece of creo drivel: blood clotting: how does that work? I don't know: therefor God.
In keeping with the narrow focus of this thread, you neglected to respond (as I request all do when posting) to the fundamental question.
Given the flexibility to propose any statement of belief (in neo-Darwinism) that you’re willing to defend in a professional and publishable format...
I must ask - are you in or out?
And if out Larni - please share with us your reason for declining if you don’t mind.
If you again decline to respond to the requests with plain formatting, then we can safely conclude that ‘thoughtful formatting’ is clearly not your problem Larni.
In that case, perhaps you could at least help determine who is actually ignorant in the green and red demarcated exercises of Message 71), if you don’t mind.
As stated before, a thoughtful and professional response would be appreciated Larni.
Please answer the questions in response.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Larni, posted 11-01-2011 4:21 AM Larni has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 142 of 196 (643446)
12-06-2011 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by jar
11-01-2011 9:49 AM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
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 for or against your beliefs because you do not have enough trust in them.
You present an interesting dichotomy of thought and action Jar.
Casting bold judgment upon others combined with a certain unwillingness to expose inferred evidence in a publishable debate.
Your potential debate opponent(s) will not restrict themselves to debating only someone they ‘trust’ in a written publishable format.
Real science is not timid or dependent upon ‘trust’. Real science properly engages any poorly developed conclusions — especially from ‘untrustworthy’ sources.
The written format lays the debate out in black and white. Terms are defined and fixed within the text. Evidence must be addressed.
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.
It takes good measures of humility, honesty, and discipline to challenge one’s own beliefs or to expose one’s inferences to vigorous examination and debate.
Both you and your opponent(s) would be forced to reckon the facts in a written publishable debate..
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 beliefs.
  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 beliefs.
  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.
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 you and others
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.
Would that you had the confidence, ability, and determination to present and defend such an inferred reality in a publishable debate.
Jar in Message 138 writes:
It really is that simple.
Apparently, only your opinion is that simple Jar.
However, it’s your prerogative to close your eyes tightly and keep repeating yourself.
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.
The nature of real science is bold and confrontational. That’s how science advances.
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?
If you should reach a point where you are confidently able to engage the science in a professional publishable manner Jar please make a firm commitment to an effort that could influence the lives of millions that many here describe as ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.
Evidence may include the scientific disciplines (detailed in Message 72) and repeated here.
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:
You’ve posted over 20,000 messages at Evolution vs. Creation Forum over seven years, Jar. As with your repetitive response to Message 124, your contributions are often little more than a one or two line chat, usually restating unsubstantiated opinions and how simple those opinions are.
A thoughtful and professional response would be appreciated Jar.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by jar, posted 11-01-2011 9:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 12-07-2011 9:00 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 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 140 along 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 seen this message but not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 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 threadyour 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 seen this message but not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 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 replied

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

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 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 seen this message but not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 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 seen this message but not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 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 replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 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 replied
 Message 178 by bluegenes, posted 05-27-2012 1:27 PM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 189 of 196 (688201)
01-20-2013 4:48 PM


No Qualified neo-Darwin Debate Team for Publication
Hello all — detailed individual responses to Vimesy, Subbie, Bluegenes, Panda, Larni, and Coragyps below.
Here is wishing you all the best yet in the new year, 2013.
This invitation began in June of 2010 as a response to the discussion topic categorically judging folks with different beliefs as ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (click link).
This is clearly a long term invitation to gather the most qualified team of evolution believers possible for a publishable debate of the scientific evidence regarding neo-Darwin and creation beliefs. Hopefully, we’ll find qualified commitments this year for an evolution debate team including science credentials that publishers could market.
IF you come often to EvC Forum for reinforcement of neo-Darwin beliefs and a sense of belonging where you enjoy chatting up mutual egos - while avoiding consideration of alternatives and judging neo-Darwin skeptics to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked
Then your mind is likely bricked up in a protective vault for your preferred philosophy you would naturally avoid a publishable debate that could expose scientific weakness or flaws in your beliefs and potentially educate folks.
In that case, you should stop reading here, skip this lengthy post, and move along to avoid internal conflict, mental anguish, and cognitive dissonance.
IF you ‘can’t be bothered’ (click link) to read this lengthy post and respond with integrity
Then you’re clearly unwilling to read or engage a thorough professional publishable debate of the science and you should move along without snarky comments to avoid further embarrassment.
IF you’re prone to irrational hyper-sensitivity and anger (click link for sub-title) when viewing format emphasis such as font size and colors that don’t please you
Then you should skip this post as well.
Hyper-sensitive readers could appeal to Administrator Moose (Adminnemooseus) to ban folks and protect neo-Darwin believers from fonts and formats that allegedly induce personal pain (click link). Unfortunately, Adminnemooseus has declined to clarify his previous format consternation as requested at the bottom of Message 140 (click link).
IF you decide to proceed reading this and you’d like to comment
Then get some coffee or refreshments and take the time to review this thread. Please address the topic and spare us more irrelevant odiferous chat.
IF you cannot firmly commit to assemble a qualified neo-Darwin team for commitment to a publishable debate
Then please explain why you cannot commit yourself and also help find scientists qualified and committed to lead the team for a publishable debate of the evidence concerning evolution versus creation.
Otherwise, you all could improve the quality of EvC Forum by taking entirely off-topic responses (like bookies, derbies, and imaginary Time Cubes) to the Peanut Gallery where they belong — or maybe Facebook. Respecting forum rules could avoid further warnings or suspensions from forum administrators.
The hope was that a published debate would be made available to further educate millions of Americans judged at Evc Forum to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked - based upon their beliefs.
The hope for a publishable debate assumed judgments upon others were scientific and rational (rather than philosophical and emotional) — and could be reasonably defended.
If judgments of creation beliefs were valid, a rational neo-Darwin believer should respond by welcoming an opportunity to assemble the most qualified and committed neo-Darwin debate team possible for publication that could expose and reduce alleged ignorance, stupidity, insanity, and wickedness — especially regarding science.
A quality published debate could create tremendous publicity for you while ostensibly educating a multitude of Americans allegedly afflicted with mental maladies.
A successful published debate by intelligent, bold, and heroic neo-Darwin believers could ostensibly help inoculate a new generation from inferred ignorance in science.
Jazzns, apparently unaware of this thread where no qualified neo-Darwin believers have committed, offers additional insights (reverse context) in Message 26 (click link) of another thread admitting evolutionists have lost a lot of live debates engaging the creation perspective:
Jazzns in Message 26 of another thread writes:
Similarly, those same (people) refuse time and again to engage in written debate where it is much easier to destroy their arguments. It’s also much easier to distribute a written debate and have it be the focus of intense criticism over a longer period of time.
(Parenthetical edit mine to exclude unnecessary reference to ‘liars’.)
Sadly getting a meaningful response concerning a qualified neo-Darwin written debate team here at EvC Forum has been like herding randomly mutated cats into a barn of Bulldogs screeches, emotional rants, and unqualified pretense including several expressions of pain and hurt by evolution believers are about all we have in this thread.
For convenience, the requests from previous posts and the results to date are repeated here:
Now, we need assistance from every neo-Darwin believer at EvC Forum
Please be resourceful and assist us in securing firm commitments from the most qualified team possible to represent evolution in a professional written publishable debate.
Note that not a single qualified person has stepped forward to make a firm commitment in any of these areas of science.
List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to a professional written publishable debate concerning neo-Darwinism involving the scientific disciplines of:
Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34): No One.
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.
Aside from potential fame and glory, a rational and humane response to this invitation to help educate the allegedly mentally deficient or afflicted skeptics of neo-Darwin theory should be one of empathy — a desire to help others deemed less fortunate rather than judging them as liars or cursing at them.
Reward Offer for the Person Capable of Assembling a Qualified and Committed neo-Darwin Publishable Debate Team Willing and Able to Engage Any and All Scientists Concerning Evidence for Evolution Versus Creation:
Rational and humane empathy should manifest itself toward others with assistance and commitment in times of alleged affliction.
Empathy toward education would be much more effective toward influencing a culture than debasing yourselves publicly with juvenile judgments.
Irrational responses, emotion, anger, and pretense offer no help in this process.
Regrettably, appeals for empathy have failed to secure any commitment from any qualified neo-Darwin folks in any discipline of science for publishable debate on a broad platform to help educate the millions of folks judged with mental or moral afflictions (click link).
Therefore, apparently lacking empathy as a motivator to form a qualified publishable debate team, it appears a reward is required to induce evolution believers to validate presumptuous judgments upon others.
Maybe a fist full of dollars
I’m offering a $100 reward for the person who can assimilate a committed and qualified neo-Darwin debate team from anywhere including Ph. D. credentials in the natural or applied sciences. The reward would be contingent upon the team actually completing a written professionally moderated publishable debate of evidence for evolution (random mutations and natural selection) versus creation. The primary objective is to help educate millions of skeptics concerning the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science.

Interested observers may reasonably inquire whether neo-Darwin believers who are highly judgmental of creation beliefs are aware of conflicting science they’d rather not debate in a professional publishable venue that could help educate potentially millions of skeptics.
Rather than sincere commitments including any qualified scientists, we have several neo-Darwin respondents in this thread who have unfortunately deprecated their own knowledge and understanding of basic science with misplaced condescension and confidence. We have several others compelled to repeatedly contribute nothing but nonsense relative to the invitations and requirements for a publishable debate — thereby reflecting poorly upon EvC Forum.
An esteemed long-term EvC Forum member presents a rationale of cognitive dissonance that may explain this anti-social behavior among judgmental folks as well as the lack of commitment by neo-Darwin believers. Although not intended toward neo-Darwin believers, the glove fits snugly here.
See Message 1 (click link) of the Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs thread.
RAZD in Message 1 of the Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs thread writes:
Lowering the importance of conflicting information is usually done in several ways: attacking the messenger (ad hominem), denial, calling the evidence lies or part of a conspiracy theory, for instance.
An apparent attempt to diminish cognitive dissonance using ad hominem is given near the bottom of Message 15 of this thread as the reason RAZD declines commitment to debate all the science against the creation perspective in a professional publishable venue: RAZD writes: The reason for these conditions (topical science restrictions for a written publishable debate) is to eliminate the terminally deluded and insane people (with whom there is no chance of a rational debate), as well as those too stupid to understand such concepts, thus leaving us with those who are ignorant but capable of learning ....
terminally deluded insane people no chance of rational debate too stupid to understand
Lack of civil discourse (click link) is often rooted in emotion or confined philosophy rather than reason. RAZD further explains this behavior in Message 126 of another thread where RAZD writes: The more you are emotionally attached to your beliefs the more you feel anger when they are threatened.
Casting insults and tooting one’s own horn (click link) from a relative safe harbor (EvC Forum) while declining direct written debate of all the science in a publishable venue is puzzling at best.
If the categorical judgments in the gold font quote from an EvC Forum member above were true, then an invitation for a written publishable debate should be welcomed by many neo-Darwin believers who are qualified in science to expose inferred errors and flaws, thereby validating these character judgments for all to see and learn.
Coyote comments on the power of written debates in Message 15 (click link) of another thread: they (written debates) require evidence, logic, and lots of references. Showmanship has no place there, and the glib response can be carefully examined and rebutted.
Coyote in Message 361 of another thread also presents rationale that reinforces this invitation for commitment from many evolution believers who are qualified in all the various scientific disciplines listed: You can't compartmentalize things: science works as a whole, and facts that contradict parts of science have to be accommodated. Science must change when it is contradicted by reliable facts..
However, invitations for commitment to assimilating a qualified publishable neo-Darwin debate team have clearly not been welcomed here at EvC Forum.
What this thread reveals instead is the piled-up snark of derogatory dodges, illegitimate taunts, and morbid mocks — including a trick-or-treat charade (click link) by an unemployed math guy who fancies himself a real scientist with imaginary credentials that publishers could magically market to the general public — despite evidence to the contrary presented in this thread from a publisher’s managing editor.
No sincere commitments to assemble a qualified team of neo-Darwin believers for contractual engagement and publication.
No apparent effort.
Arrogance often results in forlorn exposure (click link) of flawed character or beliefs.
Other examples of arrogant error in this thread include flawed claims by evolution believers concerning Ohm’s Law and the ‘real world’ relationships between power, heat, work, and entropy.
We have Ph. D. type folks here at EvC Forum professing to know the physics of how the entire universe came into existence
Unfortunately, we have self-proclaimed ‘experts’ in science confidently reinforcing fundamental errors accompanied by foul fits of emotion (click links).
We have unequivocal failure by these folks to understand the basic physics behind their clothes dryer or garage door opener (see details in Message 79 and especially Message 140).
Continuing analysis by a leading EvC Forum member in Message 15 of the Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs thread:
RAZD in Message 15 of the Cognitive Dissonance thread (with my comments added) writes:
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating (or debating in a professionally moderated publishable setting) in a neutral, scientific way.
What I come to understand from looking at cognitive dissonance between cultural groups is that reinforcement from within a person’s cultural group is a buffer\barrier against being forced to change the belief due to the confirmation bias they can fall back on.
one of the ways to reduce dissonance is to retreat to a place of comfort where you are surrounded by people with the same confirmation bias and beliefs -- the creationist (or evolutionist) sites and forums that welcome them and give them a sense of belonging.
(bold emphasis and parenthetical comments mine)
Continuing to the end of Message 15 of that dissonance thread, we see an astonishing display of active dissonance, by one who declines this invitation in Message 1 to debate all the science in a publishable venue that could be widely marketed and distributed in ‘the real world
RAZD in Message 15 of the Cognitive Dissonance thread (after declining to commit to a publishable debate that could reach millions) writes:
But the problem is not how to deal with individual creationists here, but to deal with this larger picture of a cultural belief that is reinforced by rather extensive material from creationist sites, especially for those used to (and expecting) to be able to just make reasonable sounding arguments rather than ones supported by evidence.
How do we reach outside the bubble of this forum and into the real world eh?
(emphasis mine)
Click Photo to Enlarge: Did He Just Say That? Shock at Behavioral Dissonance.
We may consider the term ‘behavioral dissonance’ as a kind description of one’s actions not matching one’s words.
Inconsistent expressions of positions compared to decisions or behavior.
This invitation to publishable debate on a big stage is reasonable and should be expected when judgments of ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (click link) are pronounced upon the intelligence and character of millions of people with different beliefs.
The published debate would be widely popular if done professionally — a great resource. If neo-Darwin believers were successful, the published debate could then be leveraged to deal with this larger picture of a cultural belief and further educate those millions of folks judged to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. The potential target audience would be roughly 85% of Americans (according to Gallup) who are skeptical that all life forms originated from a common ancestor via random mutations and natural selection
IF you (judgmental neo-Darwin believers) were secure and confident concerning all the evidence and all the science
Then you could all reach outside the bubble of this forum and into the real world. You could assimilate a stellar science team (including Ph. D. type folks in science for publication credentials) with firm commitments to a Professionally Moderated Written Publishable Debate for evolution and against evidence for creation.
Cleary, a professional moderator would reject the mostly dissonant responses by neo-Darwin believers in this thread — since they’re not professional and they add nothing meaningful.
A genuine effort has been made to be respectful and thorough in this thread over time despite many wasteful and snarky responses.
Therefore, a dose of indulgence with levity is overdue.
You seem very proud while judging other folks here.
But no bona-fide scientists will commit to a publishable debate
Clint’s not much for politics but he may have a couple of comments and questions
Click Photo to Enlarge: Some Possible Questions Along With Some Famous Quotes Below
A man’s got to know his limitations (click link for video clip)
  1. How confident are you judging the intelligence or character of those who don’t believe in evolution Low Medium or High?
  2. Will you assemble a qualified team of your best neo-Darwin deputies (including bona-fide science credentials) to meet in the street for a publishable debate for all to see?
An unqualified Barney Fife swagger alone is wholly inadequate for Main Street publishers.
We need some real neo-Darwin scientists confident and qualified folks like Marshall Stockburn and his deputies.
I know what you’re thinking
You’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?
Well do ya?
Declining the invitation in Message 1 displays the cognitive dissonance described by RAZD especially when unwilling and/or unable to assemble a qualified team to engage and expose those differing beliefs described as terminally deluded insane too stupid to understand in a professional manner that could have a broad influence on cultural beliefs.
IF the scientific evidence for neo-Darwin theory is strong enough to judge the character of skeptics
Then someone should explain why neither Dr. Adequate nor I can find a qualified and committed neo-Darwin debate team including Ph. D. credentials in science for contractual engagement and publication anywhere
Anyone?
Otherwise, the arrogant errors in science and behavioral dissonance in this thread should (hopefully) improve the judgment processes by those who may not understand everything they ‘know’ and acknowledge they may esteem their beliefs too highly for rational judgments upon the intelligence and character of others.

There’s not a word by qualified scientists in recent posts concerning the proposed publishable debate invitation in Message 1.
Surely, there is a neo-Darwin believer at EvC Forum who can do better than we’ve seen from Message 174 onward.
The worst possible scenario is to commit to a publishable debate and then ultimately withdraw - for any reason. Again, a leading EvC Forum member offers words that may be helpful here. The warning is directed to another member in Message 166 (click link) of another thread — but it is also appropriate here:
RAZD warning another member about evidence that may be difficult to assimilate - writes:
Let me warn you that you will be confronted with evidence that you will find difficult to understand or assimilate, not because the evidence is difficult, but because it does not match your worldview. This is due to cognitive dissonance, something that affects anyone confronting evidence that does not match their worldview
This thread is littered with woeful diversions, charades, and dispersions from judgmental folks apparently constrained by narrow philosophy.
Some folks are so philosophically impaired they refuse to type the word ‘Christ’ while debasing Christian believers with ‘xians’ (click link).
A publishable debate concerning the science of origins (species or otherwise) that did not fare well for such constrained psyches would cut to the intolerable bone marrow. Others display a pathological pretense to project unqualified superiority (click links).
Further irrelevant responses may get your moniker and message number painted on one of the vehicles in the pile-up of burning crashes on the EvC Forum ‘low road’ traffic jam of this thread.
Click Photo to Enlarge: Low Road Closed - Excessive Flame-Out in Basic Science
Below are sequential responses to the more recent topic-evading ‘low road’ crash posts.
Again
IF you are philosophically constrained by dogged unwillingness to consider evidence against evolution and for a creator
Then you should skip the remainder of this message and move along in your chosen dogma.

Vimesy in Message 175 chats up egos with imaginary bookies and derbies rather than addressing the topic of this thread:
Responding to Dr. Adequate who was incapacitated from his ‘hurting eyes’ - Vimesy in Message 175 further evades the thread topic and writes:
The bookies have now closed all books on this year's Gish Gallop Derby.
To any rational reader, it’s the ‘Darwinian Dodge’ that is predominant in this thread Vimesy. Dodging the invitation to commitment to a publishable debate has practically become an art form here.
It would be most excellent if you could break that trend and respond with integrity to the thread topic concerning a qualified neo-Darwin debate team for a written publication.
Since you brought Dr. Duane Gish into this discussion, Dr. Gish holds a Ph. D. in biochemistry from UC Berkely. He did biomedical research and taught at Cornell University Medical College.
The term ‘Gish Gallop’ originated with Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).
The term is intended by some (such as you Vimesy) to be a derogatory reference to live oral debates by Dr. Gish.
Though you may not be aware, Eugenie also offered this warning (click link) for those considering live debates with creationists:
Eugenie Scott at TalkOrigins cautioning evolutionists about losing live science debates against the creationist perspective writes:
Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate
The worse situation is that he [evolutionist] and his friends think he did just fine, and remain ignorant of the fact that the majority of the audience left the auditorium convinced that evolution was "a theory in crisis"
Before you accept a debate, consider if what you are about to do will harm the cause more than promote it. Many [evolutionist] scientists justify the debate by saying, "creationists [scientists] will claim that [evolutionist] scientists are afraid to debate them." So what? Who are they going to make the claim to? Their own supporters? A letter in the local newspaper that will be read by how many people, and remembered for how long?
If the alternative is to show that scientists are not afraid of creationists by having some poor scientist get beat up on the debating stage, are we better off?
And let's face it -- some scientists do it out of a sense of ego. Gee, I'm really going to make mincemeat out of that creationist, they think. Well, are you such a big shot debater that you can guarantee that people in the audience aren't going to go off after your debate and make life miserable for the local science teacher? "Gee, Mrs. Brown, I went to this neat debate the other day. You'd be surprised at how weak evolution is. Are you going to teach it this year?" Want to lay odds on Mrs. Brown teaching evolution again? Is your ego more important than students learning evolution?
Think about it.
[Clarifications or comments added]
Regrettably, Eugenie Scott has also unequivocally declined this invitation on behalf of herself and each member of her staff at the National Center for Science Education for a written publishable debate strictly limited to scientific evidence and physical mechanisms to help Educate millions of folks concerning the science of origins (see the black background section of Message 132 for details).
As with judgmental EvC Forum folks here, one may reasonably muse whether the National Center for Science Education is capable of successfully presenting and defending their neo-Darwin beliefs in a professionally moderated written debate of the science
Since education is the purported charter of Ms. Eugenie Scott’s organization to promote evolution over creation, it’s unclear why a moderated written head-to-head debate would be shunned as a decisive educational opportunity to be widely publicized — possibly a ‘best-seller’ with reviews on talk shows.
Due to Dr. Adequate’s denial that well-known evolution believers such as Eugenie Scott avoid debate of the evidence in this age of scientific enlightenment, Dr. Adequate has been tasked to investigate and report back to us as requested in Exercise #3 of Message 172 (click link).
Dr. Adequate has struggled with every request made in this thread and has responded to none. Since Dr. Adequate’s hurting eyes have most recently rendered him incapable of responding, Exercise #3 is repeated here in hopes that you or someone could assist him Vimesy
Bolder-dash makes a statement toward the bottom of Message 35 (click link) of your (Dr. Adequate’s) 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.
In addition, an overwhelming extraordinarily successful Gish Gallop describes the struggles of evolution proponents to respond effectively to Dr. Gish in live debates - as noted by evolutionist Richard Trott (click link) at Talk Origins:
Evolutionist Richard Trott advising and warning peers of Duane Gish’s ‘extraordinary’ debate success writes:
The debate was a typical example of Gish's ability to control the terms of the debate and make outrageous statements of "fact" seem perfectly reasonable to a sympathetic audience. Gish has debated enough (far over 300 times) to know what to expect from a scientist unfamiliar with him, and his presentation was expectedly formulaic and extraordinarily successful.
(bold emphasis mine — please read further before commenting)
With this type of ‘extraordinarily successful’ debates by Dr. Gish (as assessed by an evolution believer), a large throng of observers in the hundreds of live debate audiences likely concluded Dr. Gish’s debates were a ‘Galloping Gash’ cutting through evolution mish-mash of inferred mechanisms transforming iterative progeny of the sort — worms to women.
However, the topic of this thread is not live debates with Dr. Gish or anyone else.
Further references to live debates by Dr. Gish or ‘Gish Gallops’ should be taken to another thread.
Those who wish to decline a live debate of evolution with Dr. Gish (or any other scientist) should start another thread topic and evade that type of commitment there.
In contrast to a live debate format, a publishable written debate concerning all the science required for neo-Darwin theory against the creation perspective will be even more challenging for neo-Darwin believers.
  • Terms will be defined.
  • The debate will involve the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science.
  • Evidence must be presented, acknowledged, and addressed. IF there is no evidence for creation as many here repeatedly state, then this should be a breeze, a TKO (Technical Knock-Out). However, with no qualified evolution team in the ring, the creation perspective remains standing and retains broad support by default as measured by the Gallup Poll referenced earlier by Bluegenes.
  • Known laws of science (similar to those in this thread for which highly educated science guys have struggled comprehending) will be applied and leveraged for/against proposed mechanisms. The neo-Darwin team should include folks with actual working knowledge of scientific laws and principles to avoid basic errors such as we’ve experienced (click link) here.
  • Plenty of time will be allowed for written points and counter-points. Bare assertions like JAC-RATTs (defined for Jar at the bottom of Message 170 (click link)) without evidence or physically valid mechanisms will be insufficient and ineffective.
  • Responses will be in plain print for all to see and learn from that point on.
  • There will be no ‘galloping’ excuses for poor performance by either neo-Darwin believers or creation believers, Vimesy. No excuses. None.
I understand your field is law, but you could still make a commitment to contribute any knowledge you have as well as help assemble a qualified neo-Darwin debate team for publication. There have been a few genuine contributions from your peers here, particularly Coyote. But most responses have been either false claims with condescending confidence concerning basic science or less noble forms of dissonance and evasion — such as your ignoble comments about bookies and derbies. Relevant thoughts are welcome if you have any.
Similar to this thread... interested observers of a publishable debate will find detailed responses by neo-Darwin skeptics nailing every issue to the wall for all to see.
This may include sloppy assumptions or errors in basic science as we’ve seen in this thread strangely no admissions of errors or corrections of errors by folks here.
Concerning errors in this thread, we have only silence only persistent dissonant silence on documented errors in basic science.
A little humility is normal and could add credibility among neo-Darwin believers in this thread discussion.
In keeping with the topic in the opening post of this thread Vimesy you neglected to respond to the request for firm commitments to a professional written publishable debate.
Please select any area of expertise near the top of this message for which you are confident and list your name to represent neo-Darwin theory in a written publishable debate. If you are not qualified for any discipline in science, you could help find someone who is qualified to join you.
Or share with us your reason for declining this invitation, Vimesy, if you don’t mind.
You should resist petty irrelevant responses that get you suspended.

Subbie in Message 176 resorts to imaginary off-topic ‘Time Cubes’ (again) rather than addressing the many issues and requests directed to him in Messages 167 and 168:
Dr. Adequate in Message 174 avoiding Message 172 and thereby dodging Exercise #3 writes:
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.
Subbie avoiding Messages 167 and 168 while demonstrating the ‘Subbie Side-Step’ in Message 176 writes:
I'm no expert, but I suppose I'd give him 0.5 Time Cubes, maybe 0.6.
Some more levity for you Subbie from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly:
You see in this world there’s two kinds of people my friend, those with loaded guns, and those who dig (click link for video clip).
OK You can put down that shovel now and stop digging in this thread Subbie.
When you’re not wishing someone to be banned (click link) for imaginary forum violations, you’re so persistently off topic and irrelevant that all we see are muffled posts as you fling dirt over your head from a deep hole.
I understand that invitations to stand and deliver in this thread are apparently difficult - but irrelevant off-topic chat only diminishes you and the quality of EvC Forum.
Well managed debate sites don’t tolerate repeated diversions such as yours in a topical forum.
Carefully choreographed ‘Subbie Side-Steps’ about Time Cubes only highlight your inability to address invitations for firm commitment to a publishable debate of neo-Darwin theory.
If moderators care to improve the quality of EvC Forum, there have been many missed opportunities in this thread.
However, the multitude of off-topic diversions, dispersions, and charades by neo-Darwin believers here serve to illustrate lack of conviction or confidence (to put it kindly) in the zealous judgments upon others that motivated Message 1 (click link) for this invitation to debate on a professional stage for publication.
Your shallow responses and unwillingness to address these invitations for publishable debate of the science, Subbie, belie your sheltered EvC Forum navel-gazing (click link).
Interested observers will note that you are unwilling to demonstrate the integrity to clarify your fit of emotion in Message 143.
You have demonstrated no ability to clarify your own words as requested in Message 167 or answer any of the ‘Level of Confidence’ questions in Message 168 (formatted simply for you).
You should honestly answer the tough questions in Message 140 instead of wishing to ban someone because the ‘format’ didn’t please you.
In the interest of quality, there’s no rush in this thread. You could still make a thoughtful effort to honestly clarify your foul emotion in Message 143. Either clarification or retraction of Message 143 is appropriate in a professional setting.
It would be an indication of character and strength.
Even more appropriate is the reason why you will not make a firm commitment to assemble a qualified team for publication concerning evidence for evolution versus creation that could help educate millions of evolution skeptics. This would require confidence in your ability to present and defend evidence for neo-Darwin beliefs in a professional written debate where your impertinent comments would be properly moderated.
Here’s yet another chance for you to ‘pony up’ as you’ve generously lectured (click link) folks to do in another thread.
If you cannot debate the scientific evidence in a publishable venue for the potential edification of millions of people, it’s OK But you should own your position (click link) on ‘The inevitability of evolution’ (of the sort worms to women) and share with us publicly your reason for declining this invitation Subbie.
If you again decline to answer the questions, your request in Message 1 of your thread seeking Facebook help is a more profitable endeavor for your time (and ours):
Subbie requesting help for his Facebook game writes:
So, for reasons that pass my understanding, I've become, not addicted, but enthralled with a silly new game on Facebook called "The Ville." For those not familiar, it's a Sim-style game.
The sticking point that I've run into is that there is a fair amount of stuff in the game that requires assistance from other players to complete. My wife is currently the only person I know on Facebook that plays this stupid thing, and lots of stuff needs more than one person to help.
If anyone is on Facebook, not playing the game, and wouldn't mind giving a couple minutes a day helping me out, I'd certainly appreciate that, too. You don't have to really play the game, just create a game account, then once a day or so, click to give me a hand with something. It doesn't require you to actually do anything to help, just indicate that you're willing to help.
If you are willing to assist, pm me your Facebook identity so I can friend you, or let me know and I'll pm you mine.
If you're looking for some fairly mindless diversion that's not badly done, I can't really say I recommend it, but it's kinda cute.
Concerning this invitation for professional publishable debate, you should stop digging and either get in or get out Subbie.
A couple of options are offered here:
  1. You could refrain from chatting on this EvC Forum thread like it’s a Facebook account and firmly commit to assemble the best qualified publishable debate team for neo-Darwin theory (or explain your reason for declining), or
  2. You could spend all your time on Facebook and create a new ‘Time Cube’ game where folks engage in a ‘mindless diversion’ and strive to improve your fantasy ‘Time Cube’ rating. With some community organizing, you could claim ‘Time Cubes’ somehow slow global warming and get free federal grant money. You could ‘spread the wealth’ of Time Cubes earned among Facebook participants in your new ‘Time Cube’ game - regardless of participant effort. Instead of ‘The Ville’, you could call it ‘Obamaville’ where everyone has a ‘fair shot’ accumulating Time Cubes. But then most folks would likely find a more profitable endeavor for their time and effort.
Either address the topic in this thread or waste your time elsewhere Subbie.
If you choose to spend your time on Facebook games, you could elevate both your mindless score on ‘The Ville’ and the quality of posts here.

Bluegenes in Message 178 repeats himself while declining to respond to anything at all in Message 123 directed to him:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 173 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).
Bluegenes in Message 178 responding to Eye-Squared-R writes:
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.
Your chosen philosophy apparently constrains your science and your beliefs regarding origin of life as well as origin of species.
Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator Bluegenes.
Science can, however, provide levels of confidence for inferred conclusions concerning life and the universe - independent from self-imposed philosophical constraints.
Properly understood physical mechanisms and evidence generally support only one of two philosophical inferences (there are other possibilities but these two are most commonly considered and are mutually exclusive):
  1. A worm-type creature’s descendants randomly mutated enough successful iterations (without any intent or purpose) to become an intelligent beautiful princess with no need to kiss a frog to find a prince. Mankind then created the concept of God to meet some strangely evolved common need for understanding intent and purpose, or
  2. God created mankind directly after his image as the crowning jewel of His creation with self-conscious reasoning skills and an innate drive toward understanding intent and purpose, while endowing each person with a free will to acknowledge or deny.
Some folks determine to reject evidence outside the flimsy walls of their dimly lit narrow temporal view.
Some may be adamant that either A or B above express truths that are self-evident but they may not understand everything they ‘know’ in biology, physics, geology, etc.
We often fail to recognize our own confirmation bias while doggedly binding our scientific inferences within our restricted philosophy — embracing only what seemingly reinforces our beliefs while failing to consider alternative explanations. This bias is common with individuals and cultures regarding both A and B above. Probing questions may be ignored and faulty mechanisms exclusively embraced as truth.
The professional written publishable debate proposed in this thread requires vulnerability of all participants to possible exposure of personal error.
Exposure of personal error can be painful but it is worthwhile as it promotes knowledge and understanding of truth.
An insightful book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn provides analysis of how real science progresses along with interesting historical perspectives where the vast majority of ‘experts’ were in error.
Modulous cites Thomas Kuhn in Message 6 (click link) of another thread: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."--Max Planck (quoted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn)
Your philosophical restrictions on the possibility of a creator ‘genre’ were addressed in detail in Message 123 (click link) pertaining to purely naturalistic philosophy of origins — see the section below the skull photos including this:
Eye-Squared-R responding in Message 123 to Bluegene’s philosophical constraints writes:
The simplest living cell is analogous to a factory (click link). Without belaboring details unnecessarily, factories have moving parts with meshed mechanical components, switches, analog sensors, motors, actuators, energy regulation, waste disposal, and other functions with control algorithms to process inputs to outputs, all contained in a functionally protective shell.
Intelligent and rational observers, unconstrained by personal bias or philosophy, may conclude it is not necessary to establish that an engineer exists as a genre — as you put it - before debating evidence whether a factory occurred via random processes or was designed and built with purpose.
Now, if you determine not to acknowledge the possibility that intelligent engineers exist as a genre, then you must be able to demonstrate how a fully functioning factory is assembled by random processes. Never mind a self-sustaining, self-reproducing factory.
In addition, any naturalistic (unguided) theoretical mechanism must reasonably 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.
You’d be dealing with Ph. D. level debate restricted only to science, Bluegenes.
You’d be dealing with ‘demonstrably real’ physical processes in a publishable debate — for better or for worse — just as some of your highly regarded scientist peers have dramatically failed in their understanding of basic science (issues of their own choosing) in this thread.
Repeated philosophically false dichotomies offer no protection for your beliefs concerning science in a professional written debate, Bluegenes.
Are there debate topics in science that you’d rather not face in a publishable debate for potentially millions to see?
If so, tell us what those topics are and we could hopefully find someone qualified, willing, and able to assist you.
You introduced the Gallup Poll on views of human origins in Message 85 of this thread Bluegenes. The 2012 poll results indicate belief in special creation growing significantly from 2011, while the inference that humans genetically mutated from worm type creatures over time through random DNA transfer errors and natural selection - has declined to 15 percent.
As referenced in Message 89, this 15 percent (unguided evolution belief) is about equivalent to the number of Americans who believe they (or someone they know) have had at least one "close encounter" of the "First," "Second," or "Third" kind with extraterrestrial aliens. However, the evidence for personal encounters with extraterrestrial aliens is probably not worthy of publishable debate.
Meanwhile, the inference that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years is up by six percent (roughly 15-20 million additional Americans since 2011) to 46 percent.
These polls do not validate truth in science but they do indicate the massive opportunity you have to help educate these millions of Americans in a professional written publishable debate Americans you believe to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.
Assuming you could substantiate your neo-Darwin beliefs with scientific evidence and valid mechanisms — there is huge opportunity.
Many millions of folks are interested. Who knows — a quality publication could be a ‘best seller’ on the NY Times list! Or guest appearances on MSNBC!
Now would be a particularly good time to answer the questions directed specifically to you in Message 123 Bluegenes.
Hopefully, you will not ignore them again.
You’ve been invited to firmly commit to a publishable debate team and validate your claims in a widely publicized venue.
Do you have a Ph. D. in natural or applied science Bluegenes?
If not, can you help find someone who does for a firm commitment to a publishable debate team?
Please don’t be shy. Bring it with confidence Bluegenes.
If you again decline the invitation, now would also be an appropriate time to demonstrate a measure of integrity and answer the question posed directly to you in Message 125 repeated here in gold font for your convenience:
If you are unwilling or unable to make a firm commitment, please state your reason for declining a written publishable debate (limited strictly to the scientific evidence), if you don’t mind.

Panda in Message 179 continues to avoid questions directed to him in Message 87 and especially Message 171.
Dr. Adequate in Message 174 declining to swing his ‘big bat of facts’ — because his eyes hurt - but requesting help from no one in particular writes:
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.
Panda responding to Dr. Adequate in Message 179 writes:
19,000 words of crazy shit.
Interested observers will note that’s 19,000 words for which neither you nor Dr. Adequate nor any of your neo-Darwin peers have an answer
No answer with any integrity at all.
Thus, we have a lack of commitment to a publishable debate of the science concerning evolution (random mutations and natural selection) versus creation.
Subbie called it ‘crap’ in Message 143.
Subbie could not respond meaningfully either but at least Subbie hasn’t succeeded in getting me banned yet.
Toilet stall graffiti will not win over many neo-Darwin skeptics Panda.
There’s a consistent pattern here Panda. Go up to the top right of this page, click ‘Thread Details’, and fetch all your contributions.
Then fetch the responses of each of your peers. You all emote with equal effectiveness.
A thorough review of responses should cause some introspection when judging the intelligence or character of others — unless you can justify judgments in a publishable debate as requested. Your refusal to respond to the invitations with integrity is not lost on interested observers.
My request to you in Message 87 (click link) still stands unanswered from almost two years ago. It’s repeated here for your convenience:
It would be most helpful, Panda, if you would divulge your position on the topic of the thread: FIRM commitments to present and defend evidence for neo-Darwinism in a professional publishable debate.
That old request is only 32 words Panda not thousands of words.
It should not be too difficult for you to respond with integrity.
You mentioned honesty in Message 82 Panda
Lacking any commitment from you to address the invitations in this thread, you could answer your own inquiry in Message 99 of another thread to another EvC Forum member:
Panda in Message 99 of another thread asking a question that could reasonably be addressed to himself in this thread - writes:
Ask yourself: what are you hiding from?
Little wonder fewer neo-Darwin skeptics spend their time here at EvC Forum.
It should be no mystery when reviewing your performance in this thread.
There are better options to folks for ‘understanding through discussion’.
Make an effort to respond with integrity to the questions in Message 87 and Message 171.
Otherwise, your comments belong in the Peanut Gallery thread
If you feel compelled to cuss and discuss while evading commitment to present and defend your beliefs in a widely publishable format, please do it there in the Peanut Gallery and spare this thread more of the stench of non-topic snark.

Larni in Message 180 and Message 183 with his nose in the air - but not much else.
Larni in Message 148 to Jar writes:
To some people science is a democracy.
Eye-Squared-R in Message 169 to Larni writes:
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.
Larni in Message 180, while declining to answer all the requests in Message 169, writes:
What's that smell, is it.....irony?
Larni Continues in Message 183 offering more Off-Topic Team-Building Ego Chat with Dr. Adequate writes:
At first I was sure the smell was irony.
I rather it's actually the stench of defeat.
Sniffing smells are important to you Larni. We get that. You described the place you live as a total shit hole (click link).
One solution for your overactive sniffer is offered below:
Click Photo to Enlarge: Snuffing an Over-Active Sniffer
Any stench you smell is in your own house and of your own sexist behavior as detailed near the middle of Message 169 (click link) for which you had no meaningful response. Nothing with integrity.
  • Irony is someone like you with training in the ‘higher academic field’ (click link) of psychology intentionally referencing the female gender in a disparaging context. Your self-proclaimed superiority (click link) is apparently habitual along with uncivil discourse in response.
  • Irony is when the condescendingly confident and judgmental neo-Darwin believers (click link) here at EvC Forum are unwilling and unable 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.
  • Irony is that several evolutionist scientists in this thread have been confidently wrong concerning basic science — but unwilling to admit error publicly. Irony is gutteral condescending flame-outs when the flamethrower is in error.
  • Irony is your buddy who excuses himself from responding to the requests and requirements in Message 172 because he says his ‘eyes hurt’ — and then mocks that which his hurting eyes prevented him from reading as pathetic, contemptible, cowardly excuses!
    That’s actually irony plus a rich dollop of comedy! If that doesn’t elicit a chuckle, then you have no sense of humor Larni.
    Humor’s good.
The grand irony for you, Larni, is that you’re apparently unable or unwilling to commit to assembling a qualified team for publishable debate and unwilling to explain your reason.
And you’re still wasting our time with irrelevant macho snarky chat.
Now that’s a stinker!

Coragyps in Message 181 informs us that he refused to read and respond:
Coragyps in Message 181 writes:
Or, in short:
tl: dr
Abbreviated text messaging Coragyps? This must be a new low for EvC Forum.
Apparently, that’s all you have.
The text message ‘tl: dr’ is clarified as too long: didn’t read from one who apparently has read lengthy text books in college for a degree in science.
You’ve posted about 5,000 messages over nine years at EvC Forum but you can’t allow yourself to acknowledge or respond to five messages.
Shame that.
This is among the shortest posts ever with no substance at all
You demonstrate compulsion to excuse your philosophical and judgmental brethren who also struggle to assimilate a qualified and committed neo-Darwin debate team of scientists for publishers.
You’re bold silence and refusal to address the topic contributes evidence in support of Message 15 of RAZD’s Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs thread.
Rather than informing everyone about your self-imposed constraint to read and respond, a better course would have been no response silence.
You’re free to shelter your beliefs by restricting what you read, but you’ve missed many Golden Nuggets in this thread.
Unlike you Coragyps, interested observers are taking the time to read and comprehend.
The reason I know this is many folks have viewed the pictures (as tabulated by host stats).
Do you have a Ph. D. in physics or geology Coragyps?
Regardless, 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 of neo-Darwin skeptics to read and learn?
Go to the scientific disciplines near the top of this message.
Post your name in a category of science for publishable debate of evidence concerning evolution and creation. You could be the first!
Or explain why you cannot commit please.

Someone asked who the debate opposition would be
The creation perspective will be represented by a subset of those judged at EvC Forum to be ‘ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked’.
IF a confident qualified evolution team could be assembled to validate categorical judgments upon others in a professional publishable debate,
Then the names and the number of opponents should not matter.
The creation perspective is well represented, highly educated, qualified, capable, and committed.
It is I, however, who originated this thread and retain the patient determination to slog through this process knee-deep in wasteful posts from neo-Darwin believers who apparently prefer any response other than commitment to assimilate a qualified debate team for contractual engagement and publication.
The fundamental request is not that difficult
We wish to secure firm commitments for a qualified neo-Darwin team (including Ph. D. credentials in science) for debate of the science to advance toward contractual engagement with a publisher. The more the better!
IF you choose to respond
Then please do so with integrity and address the invitations for publishable debate.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2013 5:26 PM Eye-Squared-R has replied
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2013 11:05 PM Eye-Squared-R has not replied
 Message 196 by Panda, posted 01-21-2013 8:06 AM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024