Member: TazmanianDevil: Forum: Suggestions and Questions Thread: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
Percy, step back for a moment and think this through. Is it really possible to advocate creationism without referencing god? Might as well demand that we advocate evolution without referencing natural selection or genetic drift. -----------------------------------------------The question is do these guys exist at all? How many rocks do we have to look under before we can say to ourselves that these guys are just a figment of our hopeful imagination?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Touch up url a bit by changing "m=211#233" to "m=233#233". It is best that those two numbers are always the same, because some members may have their page displays set up such that 211 and 233 are not on the same page.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
Tazmanian Devil on "articulate informed creationists"
Second the nomination! I was going to nominate it myself, but Buz beat me to it.
All of Taz's comments are very good, but I found his first paragraph to be particularly profound:
There have only been a few "articulate informed creationists" I have conversed with over the years. The pattern that I have picked up from these guys is that they are usually smart enough (smarter than me most of the time) to compose their messages in riddle-like style to make the rest of us put extra effort into interpreting their posts. You and I both know that with enough command of the English language, one could write academically coherent literature while making the over message a one big riddle to support just about anything, and this is the tactic that these so-called "articulate informed creationists" use to support their position.
Remember, the POTM forum is not the place to debate the matter. I wonder if Taz's message should be spun off as a new topic.
First of all, I'd like to thank you guys for nominating one of my puppies. I certainly didn't have the intention to make it a POTM post. It was just something that came straight from my brain. And yes, I will spun that into a thread after I come back from my 3 day trip on Sunday night. If anyone else wants to do it, go right ahead.
Lampropeltis asked a straight forward and simple question, and Doddy gave a straight forward and simple answer. It's right to the point and very easy to digest. Too often have I seen people concentrate on really complex ways to answer simple questions. I guess it's human nature to try to make everything so complicated nowadays. Remember that the concept of natural selection is very simple. I think it's best that when we answer questions like the one being asked in that thread we should keep the wordings simple.
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
Author: mark24 Forum: Creation/Evolution In The News Thread: Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report") Msg #: Message 35
It's a little gem that I am paraphrasing for effect:
"I AM" -Exodus 3:14
"Well, so am I." -Mark24
What makes it especially funny is that "Mark24" rings like a Bible verse.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Although Wounded King and I are in strong disagreement about evidentiary claims in the "Homosexuality and Natural Selection" thread, in msg 182 he defends scientific inquiry from an onslaught of purely emotive arguments that intend to castrate science for personal reasons.
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
In effect this is a second to Chiroptera's nomination. We're seeing some exceptional writing from Percy on the Behe thread. It's hard to single out just one post because, like the best debates waged by RAZD, it's all of a piece. This is strong stuff, but every tag is a clean, above-the-belt hit. Read and learn, all who intend to repeat the usual urban legends they heard in Sunday School about science.
I'm enjoying the posts of other participants, too. We're seeing a slam-dunk use of source materials by Dr. A and some game retorts from ICANT in his unenviable effort to keep the pace.
Many thanks to Laurie Anderson--er, molbiogirl--for getting this one out of the gate. The thread began with her funny, revealing anecdote, and it's been all gas pedal from there.
I was lucky in that I'd listened to a podcast by Dr Zach where someone had asked the same question, but Dr Zach didn't really explain it (he explained how mimicry could be the optimum, but not how it could get started). So only two days before I read that thread Lampropeltis made, I'd read up on the topic, so I still had all the analogies I found useful floating around in my head.
Edited by Doddy, : clarified
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.
Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact — which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!" -Stephen Jay Gould
To me, a deeply profound quotation. Why creationists tend to win formal debates.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for — but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
God caused or uncaused? Faith and Belief Social and religious issues. #36 and #37
The beginning of message #36 in particular, is something I have tried to get across to no avail, ad nauseum, for my whole career of irrefutability at EvC. :)
I can see that Mark24 makes a lot of valid points also.
Both Rob and Mark are taking part in a battle royale, and ofcourse, telling each other that the other person is wrong wrong wrong, but I can see that they both have valid points. Thre are a few good posts in there, albeit without personal snipes, most of Mark's posts are pretty high standard IMHO.
Obviously I agree with a lot Rob says as we both share irrefutability, and are fast becoming giants of philosophical history. ;)