Summations Only

When creationists claim to have scientific evidence for their claims, then when they come here to debate they should indeed be held to the standards that they claim. Therefore, indeed, they need to 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. And we are completely correct to expect that of them. After all, they chose their battle; we're just accommodating them.Similarly, if an atheist were to claim to have conclusive scriptural evidence that supported a view totally at odds with Christianity and accept to engage in a debate on that basis, then he would likewise be expected to adhere to the standards of that discipline. If he refuses to adhere to those standards, then he will be in violation just as the same as a creationist refusing to adhere to scientific standards despite claiming to.Of course, if a creationist wishes to not claim to have scientific support and to argue for his position purely on Scriptural grounds, then that is the standard that he must adhere to. But the moment he claims scientific evidence or support, then that is the standard that he must adhere to. It's their choice. They chose their battle, albeit not even remotely well. If they're not up to it, then they shouldn't engage.

We've all read Shapiro's, as Larry Moran accurately refers to it, "schtick." We advised you before you sent your email to Shapiro that if you phrased your questions by misusing terms like "intelligent" and "sentient" and "nonrandom" in the same way that he does that of course he is going to say that you understand him. My own particular advice way back in Message 688 was this: Cells are not intelligent, nor do they guide their own evolution. Shapiro has chosen this manner of description as a means of gaining himself attention. He certainly has yours. But within the general biological community Shapiro has won few converts. No consensus is building around his ideas.That's not to say it won't happen, but it seems very unlikely given that any attention he garners is due to an extravagance of expression rather than any useful new ideas or research. Seeking opinions is your problem. You're weighing opinions when you should be weighing evidence. Unable to understand the evidence, you attach yourself to the opinions you like the best.--Percy

What you can't read what the topic is about? Its about why creationists have given up attempting debating on this site. You would be suspended for being off topic if you were a creationist writing about this in this thread.But that's your tool, isn't it Percy? Its the quickest way to halt a debate when you don't like who is winning. EVERY topic will have tangents that need to be expounded on. You use this fact to sabotage any debate from a creationists standpoint.Is so silly, all of your minions like granny and panda writing on here about-"well, why are the creationists so thin skinned, why can't they just accept that we will insult them, distract their message, that we will be off topic and not be called for it-why can't the creationists just accept that it will be a totally unfair debate and still stay here and debate us? I can't understand it!"You can't understand why they don't bother? Of course you can't, its too complex an idea for you. So how in the world do you expect to understand the problems in the theory of evolution?Am I allowed to give you a warning for being off topic Percy, like Dr.A always does, or RAZD or Jar...?

We understand your struggle with reality.
Your behaviour is forgiven.
/pat

Buzsaw is not one who argues on scripture alone. Nearly all of you would never admit to one cited scientific evidence that I've ever cited, regardless of how imperical that evidence happens to be.The "buzsaw of trouble" is censorship, unwarranted bannings, evolutionist bigotry, meanspirited responses from antagonists, bully pulpit unbalanced moderation and personal attack by respondents. By the same token, the fiesty and effective ole creationist debater is not allowed to engage because the bully in the pulpit, et al. are not up to exposing their oxen to the gorings that they would be exposed to on behalf of Biblical (I say "Biblical") creationism in the science threads.

But you refuse to show us an example of this? Delusion is strong in this one.

And yet again you demonstrate your inability to understand simple English.Sad, truly sad.

No I get your point, I just don't think that it is a valid one.You are trying to demonstrate a pattern of unfair treatment, but you're doing it on the basis of a just two incidents; your Shapiro debate and your CRISPR debate. You can't demonstrate a pattern based upon two incidents and especially not on an incident that is so open to debate.In the Shapiro debate, the problem was not so much whether you understood Shapiro or not, but whether either you or Shapiro were making valid points in the first place. I never thought that Shapiro's rhetoric was justified in the first place, regardless of whether you understood him or not.You were told that you didn't understand the issues in the CRISPR thread because when you cited articles in that thread they did not say what you seemed to think they did. That is an entirely fair criticism.Neither of these debates proves that you have been unfairly treated. They may very well demonstrate that you have a history of making bad arguments though. That would serve as a fairly coherent explanation for why people keep disagreeing with you. We can both accuse each other of being bull-headed, it doesn't really get us anywhere though.The point of this board is to debate the evolution/creation issue. That's its raison d'etre. If you are not going to participate in that discussion, for whatever reason, then your course of action should be clear; leave this board and never come back. If, as you say, the reason for your "unfair" treatment is that your interlocutors and the board moderators are fundamentally unfair, then you have nothing to gain by continuing to debate us. In particular, you have nothing to gain by trying to persuade such unfair opponents that the problem is their own unfairness, that's a guaranteed non-starter. Unfair people are rarely willing to admit that they are unfair. Continuing to participate in the meta-debate about whether or not the EvC punters are bastards is going to get you nowhere. If you're wrong you'll look a fool, if you're right we'll never acknowledge it, because... well, we're bastards. I can imagine no more futile exercise.If you really believe that we're all unfair, you should tell us to go to hell and leave the forum. If you stay however, you should put forward your argument. Go ahead and argue for your vague, confused anti-evolution grumbling. Let the readers judge the merits of your arguments. Otherwise you have nothing to offer and absolutely nothing to gain by participating.Basically, it's lead, follow or get out of the way.Either post and argue your point, go into lurker mode or leave.Whining from the sidelines is always an option, but it's not one that I would recommend.Mutate and Survive

Shapiro has never claimed, in black and white, that mutations are not random with respect to fitness. In your questions to him he skirts the issue time after time by using evasive language. We explained that to you multiple times.

The answer to this is quite simple. The evidence is not on the side of creationists. When creationists are systematically forced to base their arguments on evidence they have no argument. What is their reaction? Often, it's not very mature. In order to deflect their utter failure in the scientific arena they play the martyr card. "Oh, look at all these mean people saying mean things about me, whaaaaaaa!!!!". In fact, ID supporters produced an entire feature film that was nothing but whining. By doing this, they never have to face up to the intellectual bankruptcy of creationist/ID. After it becomes apparent that they will be forced to muster evidence to back their claims I think creationists just simply have nothing to post.

You know , I think you may have something there Taq. I now realize, the reason evolutionists don't want to fairly debate their theory is because they have no evidence. And what's their reaction when they are asked t give evidence-they say it's off topic or they ban the questioner. Or they whine and whine about having to have their theory questioned in schools, lest students find out that there is no evidence. They say, "Oh its not fair to ask us for evidence, evolution is slow. Its hard to see. Fossils disappear a lot. Its not easy finding evidence...Hey, there was a bacteria once that ate something, isn't that enough for you...we weren't there, we can't go back in time..wha. Oh look at all those mean creationists who want to discuss the failure of our theory to provide real evidence in schools, whaaa whaa!" It's really quite immature.I believe you have really stumbled onto something. Its the same reason why they censor wikipedia, why the National Academy of Sciences has a policy not to debate the subject, why PZ Meyers is afraid to debate, why Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate. Why Percy cuts off all questioning from creationists. Because they have nothing. They hide from the intellectual bankruptcy of their theory, by bullying away any objections. It all makes sense now, thank you Taq. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

So, your reply is just a long-winded version of "I know you are, but what am I?"./pat
Go on. Go and play outside now.

I'm no biologist but Francis Collins is. He was head of the project that mapped out the entire human genome. He calls DNA the "language of God". In his book "The Language of God" he writes the following.

quote:

---

Believers would be well advised to look carefully at the overwhelming weight of scientific data supporting this view of relatedness of all living things, including ourselves.

---

He also says that the fundamentals of so-called scientific creationism are hopelessly flawed. That it involves either ignoring the overwhelming body of scientific evidence of radioactive decay clocks, all the fossils and all of the genome sequences" or if they are considered it has to be suggested that God is just trying to trick us to test our faith.To suggest that there is no evidence is ludicrous. Paul writes in Romans that we can learn about God by observing the world around us. Why can't you believe him?

thank you for your excellent post.I have never claimed that Shapiro was a denier of evolution.I am of the opinion that he is a an evolutionist whose theory is one of intelligent, organized response to nature and the enviroment. He is not one who agrees with Darwin's or the MS's position that all changes, ie. mutations, et. al are random w/o reagard to fitness.I don't believe he is and ID proponent, but is one who is comfortable in his theory, and does not see the need for the vitrolic Darwinism-Id debate.I am of the opinion that Shapiro's theory is consistent with a continuing creation, that in my opinion, based upon scientific findings, leads to something other than complete randomness.In re Larry Moran, I am of the opinon he has a secular naturalism bias.I thank you for your measured intelligent response and opinions. This is the type of debate I anticipated when I entered this forum.

Do you base those opinons on your discussions with Shapiro?I have read several critiques of his book and he is well regarded as are his theories.