Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 81 of 196 (600713)
01-16-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Eye-Squared-R
01-16-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Dr. Adequate’s Uncommitment
I shall as usual ignore your silly irrelevant and dishonest blather and ask you, once again, what steps you have taken to procure a creationist interested in participating in this project.
I'm ready when you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 01-16-2011 4:35 PM Eye-Squared-R has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 03-20-2011 3:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 196 (609487)
03-20-2011 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Eye-Squared-R
03-20-2011 3:01 PM


Dr. Adequate Continues To Make A "Firm Commitment"
(Dishonest, impertinent, and willfully stupid whining snipped.)
I am still ready whenever you are; and I should still like to know what steps you have taken to procure the participation of a creationist.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 03-20-2011 3:01 PM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 95 of 196 (609512)
03-21-2011 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by ICANT
03-21-2011 1:22 AM


Re: Debate
BTW I just don't think any of them have the guts to accept the challenge ...
A curious delusion which would have been cured by actually reading the thread.
What the thread does not contain is any evidence of a creationist willing to participate; or evidence that Eye-Squared R has been willing to look for one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 03-21-2011 1:22 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2011 5:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 196 (609852)
03-23-2011 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ICANT
03-23-2011 5:47 PM


Re: Debate
The challenge has been issued.
Do have what it takes to accept.
Yes. That is why I have in fact accepted.
Its your choice. You have been called out.
Step up to the plate.
I'm ready whenever he is.
He should now put up or shut up.
Let the debate begin.
Indeed. But first he'll have to get a creationist to participate.
And since every time I ask him what steps he's taking to do that he starts whining and blubbing and screaming and lying, I don't believe that he's tried, or that he's ever going to.
Why can't the coward even try to find one creationist to join in the debate?
I haven't seen anyone run so fast and so far from his own challenge since Kent Hovind.
If you're so eager to see the debate begin, why don't you find a creationist for him?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2011 5:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2011 9:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 99 of 196 (609861)
03-23-2011 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eye-Squared-R
06-06-2010 3:13 PM


"This Thread Topic Is Narrowly Defined"
Eye-Squared-R, in the OP, writes:
So this thread topic is narrowly defined. The question is:
Are you willing to engage in a professionally moderated publishable debate on behalf of evolution?
The answer is YES.
If there any part of "YES" that you don't understand, then creationists ought to make you their king, since that would be incomprehension even beyond the dreams of Gish or Hovind.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 06-06-2010 3:13 PM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 101 of 196 (609866)
03-23-2011 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ICANT
03-23-2011 9:54 PM


Re: Debate
I don't have too find them for him.
No, but it would be helpful if you want the debate to begin, since he hasn't produced any.
What he does not have is a firm commitment from evolutionist.
Which part of "YES" do you not understand?
Is it the consonants that are giving you trouble or the vowel?
After it has gone this far do you think you can walk away and not do the debate without egg on your face?
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.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2011 9:54 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 2:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 196 (609882)
03-24-2011 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by ICANT
03-24-2011 2:18 AM


Re: Debate
You saying yes is not a SIGNED FIRM COMMITMENT.
It is, however, a "FIRM COMMITMENT". What is this "SIGNED" nonsense? How do I sign my name on this forum, and where did he ask me to?
You need a team that can cover the 5 disciplines outlined.
Why shift the goalposts? I am in no need of a team --- but he is in need of an excuse.
Here's what he wrote in his OP:
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?) I have a Ph.D. in a technical field. I am ready whenever he is.
You have already said you did not have the ability to cover all the subjects.
This is, of course, not true.
First order of business is the challenge.
He has done that.
Second the Firm Commitment to debate.
I have done that.
He presents his team ...
And that's what we're waiting for.
Once the debate begins the affirmer states his case and presents his evidence.
Then the opposing side presents the rebutal.
The affirmer is allowed to rebut the rebutal
The opposing side then presents final rebutal.
These pappers must be written in a publishable form.
It will be very time consuming as you will only get two chances to state your case.
Then the debate moves on.
This is the way all debates I was in on the debate team was conducted except we put our cases and evidence together and then met face to face with a time limit for presentation and then a short time for rebutal.
I don't think that this is what he has in mind. We are, after all, talking about a book, not a pamphlet.
So why not get somebody in Myers or Dawkins league to help you and go for it.
Because that was not what I was asked to do in the OP.
If it is now his position that I need, not to participate in his project myself, but rather to persuade PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins to do so, then I think this is a contemptible way of evading the debate. But so far as I can see this is your excuse, not his.
Again, let me remind you of his OP:
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).
If you now want Richard Dawkins to participate, or if he now insists that I produce a professional cosmologist, then this seems to me to be a paltry excuse for evading debate. He has exactly what he originally asked for --- an EvC member with a Ph.D. in a technical field who is ready and willing to represent evolution.
If he now wishes to slime his way out of it, that's his problem.
I am glad you are not walking away.
But you are not meeting the requirements for the debate to move to step 2.
I have made a firm commitment to debate, from which the coward has run like a frightened little bunny-rabbit.
You are like a 6 year old standing on a soap box yelling at his daddy bring it on you big bully, you just full of hot air.
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."
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 2:18 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 12:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 129 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-01-2011 2:06 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 196 (609951)
03-24-2011 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICANT
03-24-2011 8:11 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate
ICANT writes:
I really think this is what he is wanting you to commit to doing,
And I thought it was this:
Eye-Squared-R, in the OP, writes:
So this thread topic is narrowly defined. The question is:
Are you willing to engage in a professionally moderated publishable debate on behalf of evolution?
The answer is YES.
I am sick of his ducking and weaving and evasions and excuses. He has a YES. If he won't take YES for an answer, that's his problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 8:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 10:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 115 of 196 (609963)
03-24-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
03-24-2011 10:41 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate
You are agreeing to debate as normal debating is done here on EvC.
I must have missed where I said that. Perhaps you could quote me doing so, or perhaps you could continue to chase the magic butterflies in the fairyland in your head.
He did ask you specifically if you were willing to give a firm commitment to supporting the things I presented to you.
Which things?
I ask because your excuses for him not advancing the debate appear to be rather different from his.
Or just sit there saying yes until he gets tired of waiting.
For what? For me to say something other than yes?
I am ready to debate when he produces some creationists. I shall not get tired of waiting, because this is not a fatiguing process.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 10:41 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 116 of 196 (609964)
03-24-2011 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Coyote
03-24-2011 10:51 PM


Re: This whole thread has been silly
This whole thread has been silly.
Why are you trolling internet chat/debate rooms ...
Because he's a troll?

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 119 of 196 (625170)
07-21-2011 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 4:18 PM


Re: This whole thread has been silly
Perhaps you could find some thread where your lies and nonsense are on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 4:18 PM Mazzy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 121 of 196 (634636)
09-23-2011 7:45 AM


* bumped to make derisive clucking noises *

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2011 3:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 135 of 196 (639488)
11-01-2011 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Eye-Squared-R
11-01-2011 2:06 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
So, to summarize: you're still trying to wriggle your way out of it.
You know, you could have said so much more concisely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-01-2011 2:06 AM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Larni, posted 11-01-2011 4:21 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 136 of 196 (639489)
11-01-2011 3:43 AM


The Troll
The Troll
He comes to us on hands and knees
and whimpers: "Kick me if you dare" ---
but when I say: "Just as you please"
he finds he has to be elsewhere,
and on his yellow belly crawls
to safety for a month or two.
A month or two goes by; he bawls:
"Now kick me" ... as I raise my shoe,
he flinches from the sturdy leather
and finds he'll let the matter pass:
explaining that he's doubtful whether
I'm really fit to kick his ass;
and though my offers are profuse
to kick him as he claims to crave
he always snivels some excuse
and hides back in his trollish cave ---
wherein he prides himself upon
how no-one dares to take him on.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 145 of 196 (643454)
12-07-2011 6:35 AM


I can't be bothered to read through his vast slabs of nonsense. But he's still chicken, right?

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Larni, posted 12-07-2011 8:52 AM Dr Adequate 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