Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,128 Year: 5,385/9,624 Month: 410/323 Week: 50/204 Day: 26/24 Hour: 3/3


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Creationist Shortage

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Shortage
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(2)
(10)
Message 35 of 415 (661640)
05-08-2012 9:41 PM


Its a debate site??
Wait, wait, this is a debate site? Really? Are you sure? You guys are going to have to inform Percy of this then, because he clearly also has no idea that this site was intended for debate.
Perhaps you can put a big red message at the top of this site that says something like:
ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT ALLOW CREATIONISTS TO VOICE THEIR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT ON EvC, AND ALTHOUGH VIRTUALLY ANYTHING THEY SAY WILL EITHER BE CENSORED, OR THEY WILL BE ACCUSED OF BEING "OFF TOPIC" EVERY TIME THEY MAKE A VALID POINT, AND EITHER BE SUSPENDED OR REFUSED POSTING PRIVILEGES, OR BE INUNDATED WITH A BARRAGE OF AD HOMINEN ATTACKS THAT THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO RESPOND TO OR AGAIN WILL BE SUSPENDED, THIS "IS" A DEBATE SITE, AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT AND ANY OTHER DEBATE FORUM IS THAT DEBATING IS NOT ALLOWED HERE BY, BY DICTATE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.
I think that would help to clear things up greatly.
Oh and by the way, do you know that Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, as well as the entire body of the National Academy of Science all believe as a policy that evolutionists never fair well debating creationists, so they should avoid it when possible?
Silly me, of course you must know that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Panda, posted 05-08-2012 10:30 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 05-08-2012 10:38 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2012 2:15 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2012 7:32 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 05-09-2012 7:23 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(2)
(9)
Message 138 of 415 (662347)
05-14-2012 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Percy
05-14-2012 9:52 PM


why there are no creationists here
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...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 05-14-2012 9:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Panda, posted 05-15-2012 5:20 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 145 by Taq, posted 05-15-2012 11:45 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(3)
(11)
Message 146 of 415 (662426)
05-15-2012 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Taq
05-15-2012 11:45 AM


Re: why there are no creationists here
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Taq, posted 05-15-2012 11:45 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Panda, posted 05-15-2012 7:28 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 05-15-2012 7:49 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2012 6:11 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 05-17-2012 5:49 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
(3)
Message 153 of 415 (662491)
05-16-2012 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by GDR
05-15-2012 7:49 PM


Re: why there are no creationists here
I am not sure your point here GDR. Doesn't all of the fossil evidence support the notion of guided evolution every bit as much as it does Darwinian evolution? With perhaps the caveat that it in fact supports the notion of guided evolution EVEN MORE SO, since what we find in the fossil record is fits and starts of new life forms, rather than smooth transitions.
So if you are going to support your belief in Darwinian evolution, based simply on fossils, you might as well believe anything, intelligent design, Lamarkism, what have you. Fossils say nothing about the process, just the result.
Also I would just like to note with great enthusiasm, that isn't it great that we no longer have to have discussions on this board which relate to the topic; as evidenced by Percy and Nwr's diatribes on Shapiro, which clearly have nothing at all to do with the topic. I am so glad there is a new paradigm at EvC which allows free range thought with no interruption from Admin about staying on topic. Or maybe admin just hasn't noticed the off topic rants yet?
Wait, isn't Percy Admin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 05-15-2012 7:49 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2012 6:09 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 156 by GDR, posted 05-16-2012 9:50 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 05-17-2012 5:55 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
(3)
Message 306 of 415 (669361)
07-29-2012 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Percy
07-29-2012 6:32 AM


Re: I agree with Dr Adequate about topic
percy,
Your post is just about the dumbest or most dishonest post I can think of. Virtually EVERY creationist who posts here has told you they have a problem with the moderation here, and that is the reason why they give up contributing, and you just act like a blind mute who can't read, and say, no no, that's not the reason...its factors outside our control, yadda yadda.
I would ask which it is you are, a liar or stupid, but I fear your answer just wouldnt be that interesting.
You allow evolutionists to be as big of bullies as they wish, with encouragement from you often, you allow them to post nonsense one liners, and silly ad hominem attacks, you ban creationists from certain forums, you continually participate as both a moderator and a participant in the thread debate, and you hold grudges against posters who don't bow to you.
Given all that, why would a creationist wish to participate willingly in your site. Many of them would, if it weren't for you. You seem to delight in your censorship.
It doesn't really mean much for the most egregious of bad moderators to say, "the moderation isn't bad." Antonin Scalia also says he isn't political. So what.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Percy, posted 07-29-2012 6:32 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Genomicus, posted 07-29-2012 1:18 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 309 by Panda, posted 07-29-2012 1:25 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
(1)
Message 308 of 415 (669365)
07-29-2012 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Genomicus
07-29-2012 1:18 PM


Two simple questions Genomicus:
How long have you been posting here?
Do you deny evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Genomicus, posted 07-29-2012 1:18 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Genomicus, posted 07-29-2012 3:28 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(3)
Message 320 of 415 (669434)
07-30-2012 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Genomicus
07-29-2012 7:19 PM


Re: levels and levels and levels
First off, I appreciate the intelligence of your posts. But the thing is, you don't really ever direct challenges to the underlying principles of Darwinian evolution, at least not in a comprehensive manner. Mostly you are just willing to debate some of the more subtle aspects of the mechanisms; aspects which only one or two other posters here are informed enough about to even comment on. Most of the others here readily admit they are not even sure they understand much of what you are talking about.
As such it doesn't put you in any position to experience much of the biased moderation. And what you do experience, you don't seem to care about. You note that the evolutionists here do tend to post in a condescending manner, but you apparently don't mind the fact that if you were to respond equally condescendingly, you would be admonished for it by the moderators. So you come here willing to accept a somewhat un-level playing field to begin with. I don't.
Also, when people either tell you that you don't know what you are talking about, or they state positions which are illogical, you are just willing to let that slide, without really questioning the fundamental premises behind their believes. Its sort of a c'est le vie attitude, which is certainly fine, and your prerogative, but if someone says something that doesn't make sense, I intend to challenge that, or else why bother being here.
For instance, RAZD and Percy believe in a completely unguided process to evolution, and yet at the same time they believe in a deity that has some interaction with humans at some level-an interaction then is different than a deities interaction with say a rock presumably. And yet this is a pretty silly notion philosophically: They believe a process of organization was begun, which could have lead anywhere, like to a mindless sludge for example, but instead it just so happened to lead to a conscious being like humans, and then, only then did some deity decide, you know what, this is interesting, who knew that it would lead to consciousness, but since it did, NOW I will have some spiritual tie to it. Its a position that should at least be challenged, but this is not the forum that allows that position to be challenged fairly. Percy will call you off topic, no matter where you challenge it, or you will be subjected to insults, without being able to respond. So why bother.
Finally, it insults my sensibilities to watch someone like Dr.A be able to post crap like this in another thread about cosmology to another poster who is so much smarter than he is, that he makes Dr.A look like a mosquito:
quote:
Your opinions merely make me think that you're vain, lazy, and ill-educated. It is the manner in which you express them that gives me graver cause for concern. For example, have you noticed that you're referring to yourself in the third person and pretending to be a cat? I am only a layman in matters psychiatric, but I cannot think that this is a good sign.
Without wanting to respond, you know what A, you are a complete windbag full of crap.
But you don't particularly mind that, because you are allowed to talk about protein receptors while only being challenged with mild condescension-which you accept. Fair enough.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Genomicus, posted 07-29-2012 7:19 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2012 1:59 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 322 by Coyote, posted 07-30-2012 2:06 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 323 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2012 6:24 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 324 by Percy, posted 07-30-2012 8:36 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 326 by Genomicus, posted 07-30-2012 10:14 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 328 by nwr, posted 07-30-2012 10:38 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 329 by Taq, posted 07-30-2012 12:50 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 370 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2012 1:31 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
(1)
Message 325 of 415 (669467)
07-30-2012 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Percy
07-30-2012 8:36 AM


Re: levels and levels and levels
I have to admit, I can't argue with that. Its the most honest and reasonable message I have seen you write.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Percy, posted 07-30-2012 8:36 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Tangle, posted 07-30-2012 4:29 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 334 of 415 (669534)
07-30-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Genomicus
07-30-2012 10:14 AM


Re: levels and levels and levels
I m well aware of the tactics used by this forum and other places (such as Wikipedia) that have the clear purpose of trying to control the debate on the subject through censorship and other means, just the same way they wish to control any discussion even of just the weaknesses in the theory in schools. That is not science, that is propaganda, which is mostly what this site wants to be. You have just stated that you accept an un-level playing field. Why?
Secondly, you say that evolution and ID can be accepted together, as if the evolution we are talking about is not Darwinian evolution. But that doesn't make any sense. Everyone on this site who talks about evolution is referring to Darwinian evolution. As soon as you change the dynamics of how that evolution can perform-that is to say that the evolution can occur through guidance or pre-planning-you have relinquished the entire notion that these evolutionists require-a process that requires not intelligence. A God if you will. There is no other option. As such, ID can never co-exist with the evolution that the supporters of the theory adhere to.
You can't say that evolution has intelligence, but claim that intelligence is an accident of an initial random process. Its either at its core a random process or it isn't. There is no third choice, and I think its really equivocating to suggest there can be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Genomicus, posted 07-30-2012 10:14 AM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Genomicus, posted 07-30-2012 6:38 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 336 of 415 (669541)
07-30-2012 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Genomicus
07-30-2012 6:38 PM


conviction
You seem to delight in taking positions of neutrality. First you said that indeed the evolutionists here often are condescending, but now you appear to be walking back that statement-OK, that's your choice. You also have admitted that the playing field is not level here, but you simply wish for me to accept that and argue on your terms. That's your preference not mine.
But your arguments become more problematic to me with statements like this:
quote:
But here's the deal: ID and evolution can work together, and complement each other. You can have engineering and evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. What is exclusive is either the view that intelligent design must deny evolution or that evolution implies that every feature in biology must be the product of random mutation and natural selection (and other mechanisms).
ID indeed must deny evolution, as the word is used to mean a system. Now ok, you have said you are now using the word evolution as a substitute for common descent, which is of course confusing, because one doesn't know when you no longer simply mean common descent. Because you go on suggest that Random mutations and natural selection indeed can be part of the package of your version of ID. I guess its sort of a water downed version which is not really sure if it is saying processes are guided or they aren't. Maybe you could be more clear on this. Does your theory rule out Darwinian evolution or doesn't it?
It allows for some Darwinian evolution but not others? Where are you drawing the line, how much change can Darwinian evolution account for, and how much is guided? And which came first, the Darwinian evolution or the guided evolution?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Genomicus, posted 07-30-2012 6:38 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Genomicus, posted 07-30-2012 7:19 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 337 of 415 (669544)
07-30-2012 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by NoNukes
07-30-2012 1:47 PM


You are incorrect nonukes, I have been banned from science discussions.
Not only that I was also immediately reprimanded by PD admin for asking as to why under the topic of discussion problems, because apparently this is not a discussion problem (funny definitions if you ask me). Of course it was no problem at all for panda to use "reporting discussion problems" for whatever enjoyment he chooses.
But the most important point is that evolutionist here are constantly given the benefit of the doubt that everything they say is supported by evidence without actually ever needing to provide that evidence, whereas the reverse is not true. You get to put this badge next to every statement you make that says your ideas have been thoroughly vetted through the "scientific method" without ever needing to actually prove this is so. You can say evidence abounds for your theory, but if asked to provide that evidence you can run under the skirts of the admins protection. That is standard practice here.
And this is how the discussion is thwarted and controlled by the site. If one questions if that is really true, you are accused of being off topic, and thus its impossible to refute wild claims made by the evolutionists. While creationists are forced to meet impossible standards of written verification or they are said to be thwarting the rules. The evolutionist is free to just say anything they want and pretend that its true.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: I replied to Bolder-dash about the message (restricted out of only the Biological Evolution forum) via PM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by NoNukes, posted 07-30-2012 1:47 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Panda, posted 07-30-2012 8:10 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 353 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2012 8:47 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 339 of 415 (669547)
07-30-2012 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Taq
07-30-2012 12:50 PM


who is the layperson?
But the thing is, you don't really ever direct challenges to the underlying principles of Darwinian evolution, at least not in a comprehensive manner.
This is false. One of the fundamental principles of the modern synthesis is the independence of mutation and selection. This is expressed by the idea that mutations are random with respect to fitness. One of the posters here was citing Shapiro and Wright as supporters of the notion that mutations were not truly random with respect to fitness. So what happened? I took the time to read and understand an article written by Wright that dealt with this very issue. I spent the time going through each of the figures and tables and discussed both the methods and results in a way that was understandable to the layperson. I discussed how the evidence failed to show a non-random relationship beetween mutagenesis and fitness. You can find the thread here:
This post is like from the twilight zone. I can't see in any way how it relates to what I was discussing with genomicus.
But it does highlight one point that is relevant. During the topic of Shapiro and Wrights papers, the point of the modern synthesis was brought and how Shapiros and Wrights concepts could be incorporated into the modern synthesis. The comments from me (which were deleted by admin and deemed off topic!) were directly related to what the modern synthesis actually means in terms of evolutionary theory. Bringing up the modern synthesis during that discussion by you and others was not considered off topic, but asking you to define what the modern synthesis actually means was!
It is a perfect example of the absurdity of how discussions are controlled here. My sin wasn't being off topic, I was no more off topic than you were. My sin was making sense of the holes in your theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Taq, posted 07-30-2012 12:50 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Taq, posted 07-30-2012 8:27 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 347 by Percy, posted 07-30-2012 9:07 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 340 of 415 (669548)
07-30-2012 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Genomicus
07-30-2012 7:19 PM


Re: conviction
I am still not clear from you-does your hypothesis allow both random mutations and natural selection to be a force of evolution, AS WELL AS guided mutations and a guided system to be a force of evolution? The two work in tandem?
Which is more prevalent? Which came first? Which has precedent? Which creates novel functions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Genomicus, posted 07-30-2012 7:19 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Genomicus, posted 07-30-2012 8:13 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 344 of 415 (669555)
07-30-2012 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Genomicus
07-30-2012 8:13 PM


Perhaps I have a problem with what you definition of what random means then.
You are suggesting that there is a biased path pro-ordained into the structure of the genome. So a biased path would be a path that isn't random. But its random mutations and natural selection which control evolution. But interestingly (or one can say confusingly) not quite random, because some features can be exploited to not be random. So its pro-programmed randomness?
So at the heart of your intelligent design hypothesis is randomness? In your theory does the genome have an inherent desire to improve itself or an inherent drive to survive? And it does so through means of mutations which could lead to destruction just as likely (or more likely) through deleterious mutations as beneficial ones?
You still seem to be wanting to play both sides of the fence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Genomicus, posted 07-30-2012 8:13 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Genomicus, posted 07-30-2012 8:54 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 345 of 415 (669556)
07-30-2012 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Taq
07-30-2012 8:27 PM


Re: who is the layperson?
In order to discuss randomness vs. non-randomness first we must know what that means. You call the "modern synthesis" a culmination of that randomness, without really ever saying what that synthesis is. I think those are misleading terms which require more complex explanations.
So I disagree with you abut what is on topic and what isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Taq, posted 07-30-2012 8:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2012 2:03 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 359 by Taq, posted 07-31-2012 12:18 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024