Summations Only

Whether or not you understand Shapiro is irrelevant to your understanding of CRISPR.Besides, what Wounded King said to you then was this; He's saying the same to you now. I agree with him. You could try reviewing the appropriate evidence in your own words, rather than just throwing out quotes and citations. That's a shame. If you genuinely feel that you have important points to make you should go ahead and make them. If you feel that you are being unfairly treated, I can only suggest that you try to rise above it and let readers draw their own conclusions. Don't get caught up in the meta-argument about whether your being maligned or not; just present your core case. If it's a good enough argument it will sink or swim on its own merit regardless of whether people are rude to you.Mutate and Survive

Actually you are neglecting to mention that we asked you questions about Shapiro's paper and you admitted not understanding Shapiros work. In particular you had no clue that "purifying selection" was standard terminology referring to natural selection while trying to explain to us how Shapiros work did not involve natural selection despite his use of the term purifying selection.You also went on at length about how a paper about random mutation being a "null hypothesis somehow disproved that mutations were random, when the actual paper gave evidence against directed mutations.There is ample evidence in the Shapiro and Wright discussions that you don't understand biology papers in sufficient detail to understand criticisms of your positions.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No. Once again, I show that I am merely human showing human feelings and emotions. You and many here show true hatred and violence toward creationists on almost every post. What? You don't think you do because you don't make overt and obvious posts like I do? You and most of the anti-creationists on this board ooze hatred toward creationists from every pore. It is built into your DNA. You have done it all of your life, so it has got to the point where it is just a part of daily life for you. In short, when you point a finger at me regarding my character, you have three fingers pointing right back at you. You are just another arrogant , fucking hypocrite.

Care to show some evidence of this? especially the violence part.

foreveryoung isn't big on requests for evidence, Doc. Please note his quote in my signature box. Don't worry about evidence, just think about the possibility that it might be true.Wouldn't want him thinking you were hating on him by asking for evidence, would you?

I think you drastically overestimate our regard for you. I feel like I can speak for most of us when I tell you that we just don't think about you enough to hate you. The boot does not hate the ant, to paraphrase a recent movie.It's pity, not hatred. You need to adjust your emotional radar. We're not angry with you; we're saddened by you.

As CrashFrog said, I have very little regard for you.
To hate you would be to elevate you beyond the standing of being "just another random poster on a forum".So, since I know I don't hate you, why would you make such claims?
Perhaps the answer lies here:

quote:

---

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings. (Wiki)

---

quote:

---

In psychology, the false-consensus effect is a cognitive bias whereby a person tends to overestimate how much other people agree with him or her. There is a tendency for people to assume that their own opinions, beliefs, preferences, values and habits are 'normal' and that others also think the same way that they do. (Wiki)

---

I have been following this thread and the forum, itself, for awhile and I sense that there seems to be a strange assumption. The purpose seems to be to encourage a good exchange of debate, but only provided it is under the scope of objective repeatable calibrated scientific evidence. The assumption seems to be that something good will happen.While the scientific community, with it's stumbles and pitfalls corrected and explained as they occur in real time, continues to review and ostensibly only promulgate good science, I have seen nothing personally to form any other conclusion - there is no conspiracy. In fact, the little evidence I have seen from other side that is truly objective repeatable calibrated scientific evidence to dash an earlier version of The Best That We Understand It To Date - rather than being evidence against the scientific method - is instead a testament of how the current model of the universe right down to the nearest quark IS adaptable exactly in a manner that the scientific process would have predicted.So here we are, inviting Creationists to come into debate with us, provided they adhere to the rules of presenting objective repeatable calibrated scientific evidence and rephrasing the conclusions thereof in such a manner as to demonstrate they understand what they are talking about.I ask us all - how can such a constraint produce anything other than defeat for the Creationists? We are asking them to walk into a buzsaw of trouble here.I keep finding myself preferring to read and maybe stick my nose into those threads that are not exactly EvC per se, but rather delve into nuances of those that have accrued a decently sized modicum of respect in my own limited ability to appreciate their talents here.So I am thinking of not inviting my ID facebook friend over here, because I suspect it will not be a good thing.Edited by xongsmith, : Opps - finish thought #1.Edited by xongsmith, : verbiage added for obfuscation and dark matter flows

Well that's obviously what we rationalists think, but I was under the impression that creationists believe that they are equally right so why would they worry about coming here and defending their position?My personal 'belief' is that cretionists know that their arguments about nature are weak - except the extremely delusional - so prefer to discuss these things with themselves and reinforce their beliefs rather than challenge them.

Hi Xongsmith,This site exists to examine the claim that creation and ID are every bit as much science as what is currently taught in public school science classrooms. This is how I originally came to the debate, and this is still how I frame it.--Percy

At least we have enough smarts to know that utter chaos just doesn't emerge naturally into unimaginable order and complexity in every aspect of nature from the submicroscopic world to the yet unknown extent of forces and bodies in the cosmos.There is nothing visibly observable in our environs that, through random and natural means progresses from chaos into order.At least our physically observable Biblical predictions were predicted milleniums previous to the fulfillments rather than predictions concocted up pertaining what is perceived to have happened the past millions and billions of years, defying the common meaning and usage of the term predict.We creationists have enough smarts to understand history as that as being something historically verifiable and falsifiable through archeology, research and written records, etc. .we creationists have enough smarts to know that the physically unobservable billions and millions of years past were not necessarily uniform.The Buzsaw paradigm calls for an infinite energy, infinite forces and infinite gravity, etc, not assuming uniformity, whereas the BB/evolutionist theories implies that our wonderfully complex and orderly physically observable Universe expanded from a hot submicroscopic zero time and space singularity event, having no space into which to have existed, no time in which it could have happend and no outside of which to expand into.So pray tell, Tangle, who is it that believes the delusional stuff? You scholastically brainwashed sheeple or the objective ole man, Buzsaw.

I have 100 dice numbered 1-6 and 1 dice numbered 1-100, i throw the 100 sided dice to select one dice marked 1-6 then throw the selected 1-6 dice. All totally random right.Now comes selection if the dice i select trough the throw of the 100 sided dice is showing the number 6 i leave it alone, if its not 6 i throw the dice. and repeat the process.So the above process cant never produce 100 dice all showing 6?This is how evolution works random mutation, random location of that mutation, but not random selection. You are talking about extremes and extremes usually do not conform to our notions of how things work.
Examples
-extremely cold when an atom gets cooled to near absolute zero it no longer acts as an atom but as a wave.
-extreme speed everything you push goes faster but when you reach the speed of light that do sent happen because nothing can go faster then light.
- extremely small things like atoms behave according to quantum mechanics and not according to Newtonian physics.
-extremely massive things like black holes our understanding of physics brakes down when we talk about them.When we talk about the big bang we are talking about the hottest most massive thing in the universes history stuck in the smallest space in the universes history. You think it behaved do to your knowledge of how things work.when you talk about infinite energy space blablabla you are again talking about an extreme do you think they really behaves according to your understanding of how things work?

This made me smile - it reminded of the playground squabbles we used to have where one boy would say something stinging but obviously true and the other would fluster and finally blurt out something like..."Well at least MY sister doesn't smell of cat piss, like yours does."There'll be a formal critical thinking fallacy for it, but if not, I'm naming it the 'but, anyway, your sister smells' fallacy.

This non-response shows that you've run out of gas, Tangle; that the ole creationist man has out-debated you, as was the case years ago with EvC's first Great Debate when evolutionist Jar, who bragged he'd put me away in a couple of messages, ran out of gas at the beginning of page two of that notorious EvC event.The judging of the event never happened as was to be the case because the appointed evolutionist judges knew Jar lost. That, BTW, was a debate on science.Not long after that was this creationist's first of two permanent bannings by Percy/Admin, preceeded by no suspensions. Go figure where the creationists have gone. They're too thin skinned to take the heat that creationists get sooner or later here at this site. Edited by Buzsaw, : noted by color

The only person on this thread to make an implied threat of violence is you. I suggest that you have a think about that. Actually, I think that I don't make threats of violence because I don't make threats of violence. Which I don't. And you do. Again, when you're feeling a bit calmer, I suggest that you have a little think about the merits of threatening strangers with violence over the internet. No. Not even close. Your mind reading powers really are off today.Mutate and Survive