Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution has been Disproven
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 152 of 301 (184392)
02-10-2005 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Admin
02-10-2005 9:11 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
I think cut-n-pastes of abstracts of technical papers fit this category of sometimes being the best answer and sometimes not, so I'm going to request that in this thread they be accompanied by some explanatory text in the member's own words.
You're accusing me of cut-and-paste because I posted the abstracts of the articles I referenced? Fine. From now on, I'll simply post the reference without any further notation and let the interested reader dig through the literature to find the information. I post the abstracts as a courtesy. It's unnecessary to the argument. From now on, I'll simply state something along the lines of "RNA is capable of self-catalysis. Here are 25 references you can check to verify I'm not making it up." ALL of the abstracts are available through PubMed if anyone's interested. On the other hand, anyone who actually bothers to read the abstracts can certainly see where they support my assertions.
Of course, the likelihood of a creationist actually bothering to dig up the reference is slim. However you want it Percy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Admin, posted 02-10-2005 9:11 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2005 11:00 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 157 by Admin, posted 02-10-2005 11:28 AM Quetzal has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 153 of 301 (184393)
02-10-2005 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Juhrahnimo
02-10-2005 1:16 AM


If you reject a particular possibility, then anything that supports that possibility is ridiculous.
We're not like you, J. We don't reject any possibilities except those contradicted by evidence.
Crash, we went over this in detail in another thread
We barely scratched the surface; you ran off when it got too hot for you. You never understood what I really meant, or what it would take for God to substantiate himself. You continue to labor under the misapprehension that there's no possible way I could believe in God, but that's not true. I could believe in God if he actually existed.
Did you want to switch over to that thread to continue our discussion or am I mis-reading you?
The entire thread was you misreading me; why on Earth would I want to continue that? It's obvious that your mistaken views of what and how I believe can never be changed, because you don't want them to change. It's far more comfortable for you to believe that everyone else shares your abominable mental habits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Juhrahnimo, posted 02-10-2005 1:16 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 154 of 301 (184394)
02-10-2005 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Quetzal
02-10-2005 10:47 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
Hey, where did that come from?
Percy wasn't "accusing" you of cut-n-paste. He even said that abstracts are a reasonable thing to copy. He was asking that, due to the nature of the discussion in this thread and the lack of understanding of some of the posters that you try to help by simplifying it a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2005 10:47 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2005 11:34 AM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 155 of 301 (184396)
02-10-2005 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Quetzal
02-10-2005 10:38 AM


Excellent post
I should have read this first.
That is just what Percy was asking for. It's obvious that you have to use very, very short words for some people. If this post isn't simple enough then it is a clue that we have yet another hopeless case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2005 10:38 AM Quetzal has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 156 of 301 (184402)
02-10-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Juhrahnimo
02-10-2005 1:36 AM


Re: so....
For reference, PS isn't disagreeing with me. Cech used the term "molecular machine" in his article. I personally don't like the machine analogy any better than I like semantically confusing terms like "coding". However, everyone but you seems to realize that these are analogies used to illustrate an idea or concept (in this case, input-process-output similar to a machine) - not that Cech or anyone else thinks they're "machines" in the sense of a mechanical device, let alone the implication that they were manufactured or designed with a purpose. I'll be happy to say I agree with Cech's experiment - it's not controversial. He was reporting the results of an experiment, after all. I'll also be happy to say I don't necessarily agree with his terminology, although I certainly understand what he meant by it. Does that clear things up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Juhrahnimo, posted 02-10-2005 1:36 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 157 of 301 (184407)
02-10-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Quetzal
02-10-2005 10:47 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
Hi Quetzal,
I was surprised to see this because your Message 151 seemed to be just what I was hoping for, and high quality to boot. As Nosy has already said, it seemed like J wasn't grasping all the content of the abstracts (he's not alone in that, I don't get them all, either) and that some additional explanatory text would help.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2005 10:47 AM Quetzal has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 158 of 301 (184410)
02-10-2005 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by NosyNed
02-10-2005 11:00 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
Thanks for your input. However, in point of fact Juhranimo expended a fair amount of electrons accusing me of not only cut-and-paste, but not actually reading the articles I posted. When Percy not only agrees with him, but uses the exact same terminology (i.e., cut-and-paste), it is obvious the Admin/Board Owner agrees.
To me, the abstracts are not only self-explanatory in most cases, but directly refuted the contentions they were designed to address. If anyone had questions about the details, a simple "what does this mean" would have sufficed to generate as much explanation as one could wish. However, Percy has stated his preferences, so be it. Actually makes my life easier. It's a hell of a lot less time consuming to post "Shapiro R. "Prebiotic ribose synthesis: a critical analysis" Orig Life Evol Biosph. 1988;18(1-2):71-85" refutes your assertion that RNA couldn't form naturally."
This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-10-2005 11:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2005 11:00 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Juhrahnimo, posted 02-10-2005 6:14 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 164 by Sylas, posted 02-10-2005 9:01 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 171 by Mammuthus, posted 02-11-2005 4:07 AM Quetzal has not replied

Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 301 (184454)
02-10-2005 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Quetzal
02-10-2005 11:34 AM


(sigh)
My goodness, some folks seem to lash out in all directions, whether at friend or foe. That's kind of what I meant when I used the word "berserk" in an earlier post. So much for amino acids either making themselves, or being made by something else that made itself. Or was it made by something that was made by something, that was made by something else that made itself? Whatever. God is still God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2005 11:34 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2005 6:22 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied
 Message 161 by AdminNosy, posted 02-10-2005 6:37 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied
 Message 163 by Admin, posted 02-10-2005 8:17 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied
 Message 180 by AdminNosy, posted 02-11-2005 5:47 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 160 of 301 (184456)
02-10-2005 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Juhrahnimo
02-10-2005 6:14 PM


Re: (sigh)
This has to be one of the single most brilliant refutations of scientific evidence ever encountered on EvCForum. Congratulations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Juhrahnimo, posted 02-10-2005 6:14 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 161 of 301 (184458)
02-10-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Juhrahnimo
02-10-2005 6:14 PM


In spite of....
In spite of the fact that I've been participating I'll step in as admin. You are in a science thread, Quetzel has gone to considerable trouble to help educate you. You seem to think you can play silly ass when you have no answer to what has been presented.
You have a days suspension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Juhrahnimo, posted 02-10-2005 6:14 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 162 of 301 (184467)
02-10-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Rrhain
02-10-2005 4:33 AM


Re: But wait, there's more
Excellent, thanks for the details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2005 4:33 AM Rrhain has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 163 of 301 (184469)
02-10-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Juhrahnimo
02-10-2005 6:14 PM


Forum Guidelines Warning
Hi Juhrahnimo,
Sorry this happened to you, but as I was trying to explain earlier while not singling you out, we place great importance on moving the discussion forward by addressing rebuttals through evidence and/or reasoned argumentation, and this seemed to be something you were reluctant to do.
The suspension is not to silence you - that's why it's only for a single day. I'm sure both Creationists and evolutionists very much do want to hear from you. But EvC Forum has worked hard to establish a reputation as a serious science discussion site, and the suspension is only intended to accomplish what the warnings did not, namely get your attention. We like being respected as a quality site, and we don't want to lose what we worked so hard to earn. Enforcing the Forum Guidelines is how we stay focused on that goal. At EvC Forum you rebut your opponent's arguments through evidence and argument.
When you get back the best place to start is answering Message 151.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Juhrahnimo, posted 02-10-2005 6:14 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 164 of 301 (184474)
02-10-2005 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Quetzal
02-10-2005 11:34 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
I can't speak for "admin"; but bear in mind that we tend to hold evolutionists to higher standards; or at least that is the ideal.
Your standard here has been outstanding, in my opinion, and providing abstracts is very useful indeed. I do the same; please keep it up.
In the spirit of the guidelines, the ideal post includes more than extracts from the literature; it also includes some additional comment or explanation to help advance debate. You have done this, in my opinion, and set a standard to which others may usefully aspire.
It is likely that some admins, including myself, will continue to try and express concerns in terms that place heavier obligations on the evolutionary side. This is appropriate (at the risk of causing offense to our creationist contributors) since creationists are outnumbered, usually much less well informed, and can easily feel outgunned by too many responses and too much detail for them to handle. I still want to see lots of detail provided; but anything we can do to assist digestion and focus is a good thing.
You're doing great, in my opinion. Thanks -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2005 11:34 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2005 9:27 PM Sylas has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 165 of 301 (184478)
02-10-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Sylas
02-10-2005 9:01 PM


Apologies to Ned and Admin/Percy
Thank you Sylas.
My apologies to Ned and Admin, as well. I obviously over-reacted. I admit to be a bit irritated at J for his insulting broadsides - especially the one about cut-and-paste - so I was probably a bit over-sensitive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Sylas, posted 02-10-2005 9:01 PM Sylas has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 166 of 301 (184479)
02-10-2005 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Juhrahnimo
02-10-2005 1:45 AM


Re: Yes,
My point in bringing in Genesis is that we are expected to be impressed by the title Creation Science. I repeat Creation + Science. Now, on the surface, I suppose one might expect this to consist of a genuine attempt to find out HOW God created the universe and life. You know, processes, laws governing those processes, all the data to reinforce Creation Science. But what we find? An endless attack on the opposite theories with weirdo speculations. Maybe CS should be called the Evolution Rebuttal Pseudo-Science. Seems closer to the mark.
Edited for clarity
This message has been edited by Nighttrain, 02-10-2005 21:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Juhrahnimo, posted 02-10-2005 1:45 AM Juhrahnimo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Admin, posted 02-10-2005 9:48 PM Nighttrain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024