Salty Discussion Post-mortem

This is the post before the second one you posted from donVon: don Gesendet: 26.03.2003 04:39
Salty, I did read your paper and find the idea interesting.I just have no way deal with the idea because of the lack of research on the subject.BTW "familiarity breeds contempt" does not mean that the result of familiarity is that we regard the object of familiarity as contemptible rather that we become so familiar with it that it is common.M: Well well well, don is a creationist and his second sentence shows that even he is aware, somehow, that salty has not supported his assertions..amazing.I think the thread got closed (it was originally going to be a pause) because salty refused to make any effort to support his statements and he was alone versus several of us who were criticizing him. If there had been more creationists supporting him I think the thread would have stayed open. In any case, I think that this demonstrates that the stranger the ideas put forth by creationists the more discussion is catalyzed i.e. Peter Borger, Fred Williams, and lately salty.As to the change in administration...Admin has indicated that there will be changes but as of yet we do not know what they will be.

S:Not that I intend to hang around, but nobody knows anything about evolution except that it has occurred.M: Or more acurately, YOU don't know anything about evolution except that it occurred. You certainly are not qualified to speak for the rest of us.S: It is very difficult to provide evidence for mysteries.M: Oh really? Then it is pretty amazing how far science has come by solving and providing evidence for many phenomenon considered magical or mysterious. The only thing mysterious is that people like you cling to superstitious ga ga and try to claim that it is somehow science.S: It is child's play however to expose the Darwinian myth as a joke.M: Then why did you fail so miserably in an entire thread dedicated to you with over 200 posts?S: It was done a dozen times before I was born.M: Again, assertion without substantiation....at least you are consistentS:It was not my idea to close the thread, it was moose that made the suggestion.M: Moose made the suggestion to pause the thread and let everyone step back. You suggested never reopening it again...so it was your idea to close the thread"Thank you moose. I agree completely and see no compelling reason to reopen it. salty " Post 2 in "a haitus for the Salty topic? Evolution forum.

S:Here is one for the books. Over 200 posts dealing with a moron, coping with bilge, nonsense and mindless speculation? That must be some kind of record!M: Nope, others have beat you on that account. But it was more like over 200 posts trying to get you to support your "bilge, nonsense and mindless speculation" as you have termed it.S:I would think you might have better things to do.M: Slow week...and it only takes a few minutes to answer your posts since there is never any actual evidence to debate.S: It is nothing more than a perfect demonstration of the lengths to which those adherents of the purposeless, random, goaless and Godless must go in order to protect the most pathetic hypothesis in the history of science.M: And this last sentence of your is a perfect demonstration of your incredible bigotry....there are plenty of people who believe in god AND evolution but since you are not a scientist you would not know that...as to defending the most pathetic hypothesis in the history of science, when did you get the impression I or anyone else was defending the semi-meiotic hypothesis? Even you were unwilling to do that!S: I'm writing a paper even more ridiculous than the last.M: That is a truly lofty goalS: You can whistle for this one.M: I can't whistle while I am smiling Salty, you have tried varying tactics to try to get me not to respond to you on this forum from insult to self denigration i.e. the second sentence of your post. If you read through many of my posts to you, and Quetzals and Taz' posts you might find a more productive and probably less stressful means of sharing your thoughts. Switch from just making baseless assertions and actually discuss the exact data, arguments, or other forms of evidence that led you to each of your conclusions. We may not agree with you but we will have to support our positions as to why we do not. It is called debate. You might even find it more enjoyable than just coming here to flame us.

the other is abrasive AND dysfunctional

S: There is nothing frivolous about interacting with creationists, unless of course one is an atheist. saltyM: Hey imagine that! Yet another unsupported statement...what a rarity from salty....why would atheists and creationists not wish to understand each others views? Since there are both on this forum the forum itself negates your assertion....aside from the fact that there are plenty of people who believe in god/vishnu/allah etc. and both understand and accept the theory of evolution.

Not to mention some little threats from the likes of Zephan directed towards Scott for example....Post 8 A primate puzzle for page, Evolution forum.

S: You have no idea of what I have or have not thought of. Such arrogance!M: Actually, we do have a pretty good idea of what you have not thought of. You make it clear that most basic concepts in biology and especially of experimental research are completely beyond your grasp. You have also admitted to not keeping up with anything remotely current and base all your claims on long debunked and dead people...so it is pretty clear you have never thought of anything that approaches science.S: Of course I am an outsider and proud of it.M: Then why do you whine like a baby any time you are challenged, threaten to leave, beg me and others to stop posting to responses to you? Hardly sounds like someone who is proud of their stance...oh yeah, and don't forget your statement that you had the majority on your side and the majority is always correct ..maybe Taz' diagnosis should have included schizophrenia?S: Einstein once admitted that if he had obtained the academic position that he had sought, he never could have conceived of relativity.M: And you claim that Taz is arrogant? At least Einstein understood the subjects he was talking about.S: I think I have done remarkably well considering that I have been surrounded (at UVM) by a bunch of Darwinian mystics for the last 30 odd years.M: Lost your position, are completely unknown in the scientific community outside of a few of us who post on this forum...after 30 years?..that is your definition of having done well? Hate to see what you call having done poorly.S: I am sure that spurred me to expose them as apparently I have, judging from some of the behavior they have exhibited.M: you mean behaviour like trying to get you to support the assertions you make? Not accepting that you are the genius you say you are? Not accepting the statements you make uncritically?...oh horrors of horrorsS: I don't think being a curmudgeon is half as bad as being a blind follower of a transparent myth.M: Oh you mean like the flood? or ex nihilo creation of kinds?

Funny then that a sceptical scientfic community embraced and then greatly expanded on and provided evidence for Darwin's theory both during his lifetime and to this day....which you would know if you actually read any of the scientific literature post 1900

S:The difference between this forum and Terry's is that over there fundamental differences are tolerated and respected.M: From the admittedly little that I have read on that Terry's forum is that anyone who is a creationist can say whatever they want and when anyone from the evolution side makes statements supported by fact they are banned. I will agree with you that I do not respect your hypothesis. You have not supported it and refuse to so why should I? However, you have not been banned from this forum so your views have clearly been tolerated.S: Here there is absolutely no deviation permitted from the selection/mutation, undirected, goalless, Godless, purposeless view of the universe.M: That is an interesting observation for all of the creationists that post in the various forums on this board ...I did not realize that TrueCreation, Peter Borger, Zephan, Drummachine, Sonnikke (to list just a small group) subscribed to your last statement.S: I have never understood why anyone could conceivably question Intelligent Design as it is manifested everywhere in the living as well as the nonliving world.M: Good then, provide us with the testable hypothesis of intelligent design and then show us multiple examples.S:Why debate the obvious?M: Yes, why debate that the theory of evolution is obvious? And for someone asking the above question, you spend a lot of cyberspace time trying and failing miserably to do so.S: I can't believe guys like Dawkins can even be sincere. Can anyone? The real issues at stake here have nothing to do with evolution.M: It is your agenda and sincertiy that are in question. You make statements you cannot support (you don't even attempt to). At least Dawkins does...even if some of what he says I also think is wrong.S: We are witnessing the eternal struggle for the control of the way man views his position in the universe. I chose a long time ago to take my chances with those who believed that there was a purpose in our existence. That does not make me a fundamentalist bible banger.M: What makes you a fundamentalist is that you equate your religious superstitions with science. That you believe in a purpose or that there is a god does not. As I understand it, Percipient believes in god and believes in evolution (Percy: correct me if I have misrepresented your view).S: Terry, who someone here described as a "worm", disagrees with me on a number of things, notably the age of the earth, but doesn't have to treat me with utter contempt because of it.M: Actually salty, you would feel treated with utter contempt regardless of the responses you get. As long as people do not just blindly accept what you say without question your response is either insult or whining.S: It is true that Terry has had to ban people when they get obnoxious and don't contribute to the discussion.M: Here they moved you to the umoderated forums S: Over here they let the guy contribute and then call him a bunch of names but never actually question the validity of the facts that he has presentedM: So you are now a confirmed liar. There are now 4 threads at least on this board questioning the validity of the "facts" you have presented.S:No one has questioned the evidence that macroevolution is no longer in progress or that Weismann's germ plasm continuity is a myth, or that selection has never produced a new species, or that the female genome includes the male genome, or that, as in ontogeny, the information for all of evolution may have been present from very early on, or that a primary role for sex is to stabilize the species and bring evolution to a virtual standstill, or that the germ cells from various vertebrate taxa are not even homologous with one another, etc. etc.M: Are you unable to read salty? Every one of those points was questioned and you never provided a single shred of evidence. Are you willing to provide it now?S: Instead, not able to cope with evidence, you choose to attack the messenger as well as all those who might conceivably share some of his views.M: I have not seen anyone who shares your views...and as to coping with evidence..you would have to provide it first. Do that and then see how we cope.S: You constitute a perfect example of what was once described as a GROUPTHINK.M: You constitute a perfect example someone with a complete lack of scientific or any other kind of logical reasoning skills coupled with a religious fundamentalists agenda with complete lack of integrity to top it off.

The most tested and confirmed hypothesis in history which is now a theory with more support than the theory of gravity...oh you probably don't believe in that either...what is that for you, the "semi-feet-sticking-to-floor-during-mitosis" hypothesis of salty soon to be published in the Journal of Advances in UFO Abduction Witnessing Today?....on the other hand if you did not believe in gravity it would make it hard for you to "stand on the shoulders of the great scientists of the 20th century"

P: To make a small clarification to the Mammuthus post above, I believe in God, but I accept the theory of evolution.M: thanks for the correction PercyS: Hasn't Salty provided enough evidence by now that he's not really all there? Isn't this less a discussion and more a "let's torment the poor creature" game? Shouldn't our treatment of Salty move to the "treated politely but not taken seriously" category? Shouldn't he be receiving our hopes and encouragement for recovery instead of our criticisms?M: Ok...it is just hard to resist when he makes such ridiculous statements and then claims that nobody ever addressed his "evidence". However, this will probably never change as "..he's not really all there."..so there is probably little point in continuing to torment him.P: Curiousity as to what really happened at UVM has been expressed a couple times, and I share it. Does anyone have a contact at UVM to whom they could make inquiries? It would be very interesting to know how Salty acquired tenure and emeritus status, and how the biology department dealt with him through the years.M: That would be an interesting story. Scott seems to have the longest history with salty...maybe he knows?cheers,
M

S:I'm still waiting for someone to question any of the EVIDENCE that I have presentedM: Please list the "evidence". Until you do so there is nothing anyone could consider even if they wanted to. For example..when you say sexual reproduction is a blind alley that is an assertion not evidence.So in the list make that assertion and then cite your own experiments or those of others that support it. Where applicable cite studies that are in conflict with your "evidence". Do this point by point for each of your assertions....do you understand? If you cannot do this then you cannot even claim to have a hypothesis...This should be a simple task. And it would be far more productive.

MP: Well at least he's not comparing himself to Einstein any more.M: LOL! I totally agree with your distinctions between salty and Behe. In addition, aside from Behe's creationist ID schtick, I have never heard his work in biochemistry denigrated and he has published in some notable peer reviewed journals.1. Puhl, H.L., Gudibande, S.R. & Behe, M.J. (1991) Poly[d(A T)] and other synthetic polydeoxynucleotides containing oligoadenosine tracts form nucleosomes easily. J. Mol. Biol. 222, 1149-1160.
2. Puhl, H.L. & Behe, M.J. (1995) Poly[dA] poly [dT] forms very stable nucleosomes at higher temperatures. J. Mol. Biol. 245, 559-567.
3. Mahloogi, H. & Behe, M.J. (1997) Oligoadenosine tracts favor nucleosome formation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 235, 663-668.
4. Behe, M.J. (1998) Tracts of separated, alternating, and mixed adenosine and cytidine residues in the genomes of prokaryotes and eukaryotes. DNA Sequence, 8, 375-383.So in principle he knows how to work as a scientist though note that none of the science he has worked on professionally is evolutionary biological in nature (see also Medline). He does leave science at the door when he argues ID. But at least he argues it. He seems to be more than willing to engage his critics, listen to their evidence, and present what he considers evidence in response. I am certainly not a fan of Behe but he is leaps and bounds better at framing and arguing his position than salty...salty refuses to learn from us, maybe he could learn from someone he claims to be so similar to?

S: There is no reason in the world for me to debate my points with you or anyone elseM: That is a truly odd position to take for someone who clearly desires recognition and wishes to promote his viewpoint.S: I have made it very easy for you or anyone else to see EXACTLY what my position is. If you refuse to read it, that is your defect not mineM: I have read most of it, Quetzal all of it...you have ignored or insulted any questions we have asked of you regarding it....that is your defect not mine.S: Why do you insist on a double standard for me and Richard Dawkins. He has published his view of the world just as I have published mine. You just seem to prefer his version, based as it is on pure blind chance.M: Actually, I give a crap about Dawkins. I rely on primary literature in deriving my conclusions. But in any case, Dawkins regularly cites experimental or natural observations to support his claims...you don't and you refuse to.S:The simple unvarnished truth is that you don't like my conclusions. I am not terribly happy about some of them myself.M: The simple truth is you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence that would suggest why you have drawn your conclusions.S: publishing a paper is like having a baby. I will protect my baby to my death and neither you or anyone else will ever change thatM: I have published many myself. However, as a scientist, if someone points out that I am in error convincingly, then I do not defend it to the death. If they provide evidence that I am incorrect, I have to withdraw my conclusions...what you have described as your position is that of a dogmatic fundamentalist...not a scientist.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 03-28-2003]