|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Panda writes: Buzsaw writes:
I would ask for evidence of this, but I realise that I would be wasting my time. Regarding behavior, it is anathema on nearly all boards for moderators to debate on behalf of their own ideological positions in threads they are debating in as Admin and AdminPD have done on this board, both in the science forum and the Coffee House Forum as I have cited. You would probably just point at a mountain while stuttering "But...but...but...". Mountain? What about all of the other corroborated evidence cited? The bully pulpet majority Admin and opponents of the minority constituency hone in on the most indirect evidence so as to divide and conquer bogging the thread down so as to distract from and obfuscate the minority opponent's paradigm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz writes: What about all of the other corroborated evidence cited? Please provide a link to even ONE corroborated piece of evidence? Edited by jar, : fix subtitle Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
cavediver writes: The consensus of my opponents boiled down to, the property of space to expand is that space expands. Really, Buzz? That is the level of explanation you were offered? Were you that blind to my posts, or is it just Lie-for-Jesus-June? Who is blind to who's post is relevant to who's PoV perspective is being alleged. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:What thread are you talking out specifically? I looked at the what I've done as AdminPD back to 2007 and I don't see anything related to you in the Coffee House. I'm also having difficulty finding anything where we've discussed the Roman Catholic Church. Would you please provide a link to the offending thread? Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What about all of the other corroborated evidence cited? quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
malcolm,
My very first posting ever on this website was a topic I started where I asked:
I read recently where an editor of Discovery Magazine stated that Darwin provided a testable mechanism for evolutionary change, and as such it has stood up to the rigors of such testing. I am not so sure that this is true. Can people point to tests that have verified that natural selection causes evolutionary change? What tests have they conducted? Do these tests accurately mimic the real world? As I questioned whether or not NS was really as tested and verified as claimed, I of course brought up the mechanisms which make NS work (random mutations). I then had to spend the next 100 or so posts listening to posters telling me that I couldn't discuss the mechanisms of NS because when I asked the original question in my OP they didn't understand that when I said Darwinian evolution I was not talking about Lamarkian evolution, or babels evolution or some kind of UFO ray controlled evolution. Apparently discussions of natural selection had to be limited to "some animals die and some don't" because without the variation of random mutations that is all NS is. And the Admin sided with all those crazies who said I was off topic for bringing variation into the discussion. So next I proposed a thread titled "What are the merits and shortcomings of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory?" This thread was denied because it was too broad to talk about, on an evolution vs. creation website. I was getting a pretty good idea early on that something was amiss with this board but I persisted. I then proposed a thread called "New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet", because I felt that all anyone could ever come up with to discuss evolution was changes in bacteria eating habits or drug resistance. Since I don't feel this type of evidence does much to show the emergence of novel new body structures, not only in simple organisms, much less in complex organisms-so I wanted to discuss more sophisticated evidence. Percy began the discussion right away by saying it was a weak topic that probably should never be promoted. I was then subjected to listening to an onslaught of posters moan about why bacterial evidence should be ignored! Along with that, your side then proceeded to talk endlessly about fossil records, and attempted to say that the fossil records are great evidence for Darwinian evolution. For some reason my explanation that fossils are possible evidence of ancestry or relationships but not of the mechanisms of how they came to be. After going around and around I got this from Percy:
Naturally I am not a participant in this discussion, but this thread is at a familiar impasse, so I thought it might help to briefly characterize the situation as I see it. Evolutionists believe the processes of random mutation and natural selection that we observe at work in the world today are sufficient to produce the observed diversity of species found in the both today and in the fossil record, but they do not have the kind of direct evidence of what happened in the past that creationists might find convincing. Creationists believe the processes of random mutation and natural selection, though real, are insufficient to produce the aforementioned diversity, but they cannot point to other observable processes or mechanisms that might have been responsible. This was Percy's "impartial" assistance to the thread, wearing his admin hat. cont'd Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
so I replied to percy (admin)
But the point of this thread is not just what evolutionists BELIEVE these mechanisms can do, the point is what they can actually show with evidence what these mechanisms can do. And so far, despite all of the repeated contentions that there is lots of evidence aside from the bacteria diet kind, there seems to only be talk of this evidence, not evidence of this evidence. I believe if all of these people are allowed to SAY that they have presented evidence here, it is not asking to much for them to just number and list those evidences so we can be clear what evidence they are talking about. You can not say that the fossil record is evidence for the mechanisms of common ancestry. They are only evidence for the possibility of the common ancestry, not the mechanisms. So, as moderator, and in accordance with the forum guidelines, please ask them to spell out their evidence clearly, by number, or stop just saying they have given evidence without saying what evidence. If they can only give bacterial evidence then my opening premise still stands. The name for the Theory of Evolution should be changed to the bacteria diet theory. Now this was met with quite a strong rejection from percy-you know the one that promised he would never stand in the way of anyone asking for evidence. he said I wasn't co-operating, yet he refused to point out what any of this supposed evidence that everyone was saying they presented was. At this point I had already seen quite a bit about how things get handled around here. So if your comment to me malcolm is to start an appropriate thread to talk about the evidence of the ToE, my response to you would be, I would, if the normal rules of English and sanity applied here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
As I questioned whether or not NS was really as tested and verified as claimed, I of course brought up the mechanisms which make NS work (random mutations). We could discuss why NS does not require a single mutation in another thread if you promise to participate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
At this point I had already seen quite a bit about how things get handled around here. So if your comment to me malcolm is to start an appropriate thread to talk about the evidence of the ToE, my response to you would be, I would, if the normal rules of English and sanity applied here. So you ask for evidence, but then turn around and refuse to discuss it. In my eyes, this is not an honest way to approach a discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
The reply from me that you're referring to is Message 74.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Even if free discussion was allowed here (I mean in that other parallel universe where anything is possible), natural selection is not even a thing, so there is nothing to show. Natural selection is an adjective, like quickness, or funny, that people have mangled so badly as to make others believe its a real thing, and not just a description of one aspect of death. Its like attributing a cause and effect to surrealism or ambiguity. Its nonsensical. These are just descriptions of an observation.
Variation-supposedly in the form of mutations- is really the only thing evolution has. Wrap your mind around that if you can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Even if free discussion was allowed here (I mean in that other parallel universe where anything is possible), natural selection is not even a thing, so there is nothing to show. Natural selection is an adjective, like quickness, or funny, that people have mangled so badly as to make others believe its a real thing, and not just a description of one aspect of death. Its like attributing a cause and effect to surrealism or ambiguity. Its nonsensical. These are just descriptions of an observation. Variation-supposedly in the form of mutations- is really the only thing evolution has. Wrap your mind around that if you can.
We could discuss all of this in another thread, or even in a one on one discussion if that would suit you better. You could even decide how the thread will be moderated, and by who (slevesque would be a good pick for you if he is willing to be moderator). Does this interest you at all? Edited by Admin, : Fix quoted text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
natural selection Natural selection is an adjectiveNoun: The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. And even if it wasn't a noun, it would be an adverb/verb pairing. Being correct is not your forte... Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The reply from me that you're referring to is Message 74. A very interesting thread... I've just been reading through. Here are Taq's own posts - all eight of them - and you link to BD's three replies from there. I think it gives a good flavour of how much real debate BD is really interested in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Its a description of an observation, which dupes like you repeated often enough to make it become a noun. Do you know that OMG and 'muffin top" are words now too?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024