Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9045 total)
75 online now:
AdminPhat (Phat), AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (6 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 887,179 Year: 4,825/14,102 Month: 423/707 Week: 154/197 Day: 43/55 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thread Reopen Requests
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3937
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 106 of 305 (131192)
08-06-2004 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by AdminNosy
08-06-2004 10:50 PM


Re: Advancing?
quote:
I presume you mean this specific series of threads regarding DS's quotes.

Yes.

quote:
I do have another suggestion for DS. It would seem reasonable for you to interpret the quote you supply. That is, what do you think it is saying; what is the significance of that and why do you think the individual said it.

I agree.

So, DarkStar would present the quotation, and also -

1) Tell where the quote came from (print or website source). {Edit note: changed "of" to "or" in preceding sentence - AM}

2) Brief bio of the person who made the statement (who is this person?).

3) What AdminNosy said above.

Adminnemooseus

Note: I noted that this message will be on a new page - Therefore I quoted the entire content.

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-07-2004 12:13 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by AdminNosy, posted 08-06-2004 10:50 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by DarkStar, posted 11-18-2004 11:02 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 305 (131225)
08-07-2004 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Adminnemooseus
08-06-2004 10:30 PM


Re: How about a move?
Thanks Adminnemooseus,

I shall attempt to offer a new topic that will meet the suggested guidelines. I will provide an edited cut-n-paste version of my comments from each chapter in order to provide a clearer picture of my position and then will choose a quote, one by one, in an attempt to fully cover each scientist, their quote, and their full position. Please continue to offer suggestions for changes and improvements.


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-06-2004 10:30 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3638
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 108 of 305 (132253)
08-10-2004 3:31 AM


please unclose Darkstar's collection of quotes thread. I do not agree that the topic is toast.

A number of individuals on this site have been trying to get Darkstar to simply admit that he's been trying to be deceptive. Darkstar is notorious for ignoring people's reponses and jumping to a new topic so he could avoid a direct confrontation with the refutes people have spent precious time researching and typing up.

As froggie pointed out very early on in the thread, Darkstar simply ignored the fact that he misrepresented Darwin and simply moved on to something else. By closing the thread now, you are simply endorsing his method of skipping from one stone to another and come back to the first one later. He needs to face the fact that he is being very childish for playing his game of hitting and running from subject to subject.

If Nasa's off-topic post bothered you so much, a simple suspension of her posting priviledges would have been sufficient. Also closing the thread is like try to stab a corpse to death.


The Laminator

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!


Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-10-2004 3:47 AM coffee_addict has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3937
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 109 of 305 (132257)
08-10-2004 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by coffee_addict
08-10-2004 3:31 AM


Topic reopened
Please see comments at message 52 there.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by coffee_addict, posted 08-10-2004 3:31 AM coffee_addict has not yet responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4020 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 110 of 305 (132348)
08-10-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brad McFall
03-15-2003 2:06 PM


the demon returns without all the evil
I will search for the Monod quote on Maxwell's demon.

There is a footnote in Niche Construction The Neglected Process in Evolution which was sort of being hit on in the most recent BSM thread and so I will call all Wolframites interested in discussing it to try to do so in the sense of something otherwise culturally that violates"" the 2nd law. I think the writings on Gladyshev between Berrbery etc and me show that Georgi might be correct that this discplined understanding is only an error that arises from the huge amount of science that's needs to be comprehended even to discuss the problem. The niche-constructers however re-opened this e/c issue for me. I dont however see it as an e/c one so far. Perhaps I can be dissuaded.

This book was publised by Princeton Univ Press in 2003 and has a footnote page 172 "A possible alternative source of guidance is von Neumann's (1956, 1966) description of self-reproducing automata, later cellular automata, which combines a universal Turing machine (Turing 1936, 1937) with a universal construction machine (Arbib 1969; Laing, 1989). This approach is also relevant to any enquiry into the universal properties of niche construction."book is shelved QH546.3 .O35 2003.

Soory Moose if this is not what you meant by "message1" I guess you wanted to keep this only for "requests". My bad- I will take this up back in the BM thread. Feel free to move and delet this if necessary.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-10-2004 11:05 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 03-15-2003 2:06 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 305 (142841)
09-16-2004 10:53 PM


Hi Moose. I've been busy and outa town and wondering if you would consider reopening the caveman thread so I can respond to some posts which were in response to my remarks. buz.

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-17-2004 12:59 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3937
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 112 of 305 (142856)
09-17-2004 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Buzsaw
09-16-2004 10:53 PM


Buzsaw's request declined
I have added this note to your message 16, at the topic in question:

quote:
{Note from Adminnemooseus - This topic was closed before Buzsaw had a chance to reply to the replies. Buzsaw has requested that the topic be reopened, to make his replies. I think that the topic does not merrit being reopened, so I am declining his request.}

My answer is "Sorry, afraid not". Maybe one of the other admins feel different.

Adminnemooseus

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-17-2004 12:03 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 09-16-2004 10:53 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3937
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 113 of 305 (146024)
09-30-2004 12:10 PM


Moosehole is at it again....
At the Change in Moderation? topic, SLPx posted the text of the subtitle.

I was slow to connect what he was talking about, but I now realize it's the The usual creationist embellishment topic.

There, SLPx posted as message 1:

quote:
"If anyone is interested in a thorough analysis of the genetic code's optimal design, from a leading expert in information science, Dr Werner Gitt, see "In the Beginning Was Information", pages 94-104"

Actually, Gitt is basically an after thought in "informaiton science." He is actually an information technologist, and I once searched several IS websites, university IS departments, etc., to see if Gitt was mentioned anywhere.

He wasn't.


To which I responded in message 2 (before closing topic):

quote:
Probably belongs elsewhere. Hit "Post New Topic" by accident?

Certainly not the makings of a new topic.

Closing down.

Adminnemooseus


As SLPx was responding to a very specific statement (the first paragraph of his message), I judged the message to be something that was intended to be a response in another topic. Thus my message 2.

I certainly don't see SLPx's message 1 as justifying a new topic. I don't care if it was in the FFA.

Further feedback welcome, either here or at the "Change in Moderation?" topic.

Adminnemooseus


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4020 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 114 of 305 (153776)
10-28-2004 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Buzsaw
03-22-2003 4:49 PM


Adminnemooseus
Seeing that John DID repost and both Wounded King and I were interested in the topic I wish I had had this thread left open.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=28&t=3&p=14
I dont think it should have been cut back at #182 as you suggested. Just because others want to make the point which I did also notice in the few posts before you stoped that one does not mean that the relation between genes (say 30,000) for man and messages (said, 150,000) for same need follow the nonlinearlity of Gould's emergence, to speak like mammy does me. I do not want to resort to this kind of backhanded commenting. Of course I understand it is hard to figure out how to limit useless postings, like if I had posted a letter to my mom, etc. I am sure JAD,WK &BSM would survive but I am not interested in micro.net either and perfer this older CGI WOLRD. At the moment I only wanted to thank Davison so feel free to keep it closed. You know where I stand. Surely it is serious and not funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 03-22-2003 4:49 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 305 (156196)
11-05-2004 11:48 AM


Absense makes the heart grow fonder.....
This is not a request to reopen a thread and so perhaps this should have been posted elsewhere but I was unsure where that should be so this forum will have to do, unless and until a moderator determines otherwise.

Now that the election is over and morality has trumped the leftist agenda, at least for now, I may find more time to drop in every now and then. Let me start by thanking percy for the time consuming response he posted to my "quotes" thread. Though the response was heavy with personal opinion, as is to be both expected and cheered, the time that was taken to research and respond to a number of quotes was greatly appreciated and shows that it is possible to respond with something other than the frenetic behaviour that others seem to prefer.

Many thanks to percy for the time and energy used to respond in a professional and polite manner. Though the thread is now closed, it did spark a vital debate, though not always a profitable one, on the necessity of being able to clarify statements, positions, and opinions, with regards to quotes, concerning the issue of creation vs. evolution. Thanks again to percy, and to all who participated in the debate. I wish I had been able to contribute more but the political interests I hold had to receive the bulk of my attention and, for me at least, it payed off big time.


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by MrHambre, posted 11-05-2004 1:38 PM DarkStar has responded

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 381 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 116 of 305 (156218)
11-05-2004 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by DarkStar
11-05-2004 11:48 AM


A Challenge
DarkStar,

Welcome back. If you're interested in renewing the subject of "Macroevolution is a Myth," I'd like to participate in a Great Debate with you. This would be a head-to-head debate where we would argue the scientific nature of macroevolution. Obviously you'd be pointing out (as you have previously) the non-existence of evidence for macroevolutionary transitions and the unscientific nature of macroevolution.

Let me know what you think. I consider it a good opportunity for you to establish your perspective.

regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message has been edited by MrHambre, 11-05-2004 01:39 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by DarkStar, posted 11-05-2004 11:48 AM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by DarkStar, posted 11-05-2004 5:48 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 305 (156367)
11-05-2004 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by MrHambre
11-05-2004 1:38 PM


Re: A Challenge
While on the surface this may seem as though it would be a good idea, the reality is that evo's must rely on a limited number of fossils to prop up their belief in macroevolution. They love to refer to these fossils as transitionals but, truth be told, these are hollow arguments when one considers the vast number of fossils that would have to be present, both before and after said transitional, in order to show any semblance of true macroevolutionary evidence.

Creo's will use these same fossils, and the enormous lack of continual transitionals both before and after, to support their beliefs in creation while claiming that said fossils merely depict species which have long since gone extinct.

While the discussion of the myth of macroevolution is an interesting topic, the reality is that it is a fruitless endeavor once one attempts to drag this myth into the realm of science. We all know that there is no more scientific evidence to support macroevolution than there is to support creation, perhaps even less.

True, some have chosen to view the fossils that are available as being strong scientific evidence supporting the concept of macroevolution but they do so on the basis of their own personal bias and beliefs rather than on anything even remotely close to being true science fact.

Hell, one could even use fossils as scientific evidence that ancient men were skilled engravers who found ways to preserve their engravings in the sedimentary layers of rock. However, choosing that position would be about as equally unscientific as the position of those who claim these fossils are transitional, and are thereby scientific evidence of macroevolution.

Any discussion regarding the myth of macroevolution would have to be held in a forum designed strictly for the discussion of myths, recognizing that personal opinion is not, and never should be referred to as, science.

If you would like to discuss the myth of macroevolution, please open a new topic about myths and I would be happy to inject myself in the discussion. Having said that, be forewarned, I have limited time to play on the computer and days, even weeks could pass before I am able to post or reply.

Thanks


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by MrHambre, posted 11-05-2004 1:38 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2004 3:42 PM DarkStar has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3937
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 118 of 305 (156488)
11-05-2004 11:44 PM


This it the "Thread Reopen Requests" topic
Nothing more, nothing less.

Debate goes elsewhere.

Adminnemooseus


DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 305 (161315)
11-18-2004 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Adminnemooseus
08-06-2004 11:16 PM


Re: Advancing?
This would be acceptable if all interested parties are willing to accept the fact that my time is often limited and my devotion to other areas in my life must receive the greater precedence.


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-06-2004 11:16 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 305 (162129)
11-21-2004 8:41 PM


Re: MrHambres' Request
From Short Subjects

Great Debate Challenge to DarkStar

MrHambre writes:

I started this thread to discuss the possibility of our engaging in a one-on-one debate concerning your assertion that macroevolution is a myth.



That thread in question is now closed, which is just as well. I have not, to date, seen a single example of a one-on-one debate being allowed at EVC even though I have attempted to have same a small number of times only to be told this is an open forum in which all are invited to participate and share their own views.
Thanks anyway. I do appreciate the offer.


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by AdminJar, posted 11-21-2004 9:48 PM DarkStar has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021