|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution has been Disproven | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
This has to be one of the single most brilliant refutations of scientific evidence ever encountered on EvCForum. Congratulations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Excellent, thanks for the details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024