anti evolutionists verse the forum, move 2

Originally posted by randolph
22 total edits? Jeez, robbie, I just came in because the thread title was so enticing.

dude you are not also another edit policeman? 'the evidence before the court is incontrovertible, there is no need for the jury to decide, the defendant your honour is quite clearly guilty, yes guilty of using the editor function. bbbbbbut isn't that why it is there he cries as he is being led away to the dungeons for daring to use a feature that was legitimately designed to be utilized, the defense cries, 'but this is art, not skill', enough of this nonsense, take him away! (see black beetle and the dialogues of Plato for a discussion between the difference between art and skill)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…therefore in the light of the tremendous odds against such endless variety and complexity of life forms, is it any wonder we find it difficult to believe that it all evolved in the right direction JUST BY CHANCE? ..…(my emphasises)

Here we go again, the same old endless crap about the evolution process consisting of nothing more than “pure ...[text shortened]... ch step starting with a random mutation BUT then being selected by NON-random natural selection.[/b]

if you do not refrain from your baseless assertions and rather pathetic attempts not to address the issues raised then what must we conclude other than you have no or at very least little substantiating evidence for your claims and also if you do not agree with the comment, then i suggest you write to the author! please refrain from using words like crap in a serious scientific debate, it really does reflect badly on your case!

gentlemen of the jury, the word 'crap', will now be struck from the register

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…therefore in the light of the tremendous odds against such endless variety and complexity of life forms, is it any wonder we find it difficult to believe that it all evolved in the right direction JUST BY CHANCE? ..…(my emphasises)

Here we go again, the same old endless crap about the evolution process consisting of nothing more than “pure ...[text shortened]... ch step starting with a random mutation BUT then being selected by NON-random natural selection.[/b]

And how the natural selection works. What are the factors and rules controls the selection and what is the source of those of factors?

(Excuse my ignorance, I said I don't know much about biology)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Moving the goal posts? It's enough to show that Behe is a joke.

Have you got any sources apart from Behe for this malarkey?

i thought that i was out, well seeing that you are talking to me again, try this, although i myself do not endorse all that they say, especially with regard to the young earth etc it provides an interesting basis for some of the points raised

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe03.asp

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you do not refrain from your baseless assertions and rather pathetic attempts not to address the issues raised then what must we conclude other than you have no or at very least little substantiating evidence for your claims and also if you do not agree with the comment, then i suggest you write to the author! please refrain from using words like ...[text shortened]... on your case!

gentlemen of the jury, the word 'crap', will now be struck from the register

…please refrain from using words like crap in a serious scientific debate,..…

This isn’t a “scientific” debate; this is creationism verses science debate.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…please refrain from using words like crap in a serious scientific debate,..…

This isn’t a “scientific” debate; this is creationism verses science debate.[/b]

the problem with the robbies of the spirituality forum is that he is not debating. he is merely communicating his wisdom to us. we may decide to be heathens and heretics and dismiss it. but under no circumstance are we allowed to discuss it with him. he is sure of the unquestionable nature of his beliefs, any debate is a blasphemy.

that is one of the reasons i asked the spirituality forum to be replaced with philosophy forum. maybe when we will be doing philosophy they will not be afraid of the possibility of smiting if they decide to think for themselves.

on a side note, i believe that robbie has accomplished one thing. we forgot knightmeister and jaywill and josephw. we no refer to that category of spirituality posters as robbie-carrobies.

Originally posted by ahosyney
And how the natural selection works. What are the factors and rules controls the selection and what is the source of those of factors?

(Excuse my ignorance, I said I don't know much about biology)

…What are the factors and rules controls the selection.…

“rules”?

Those individuals that have some sort of competitive edge over other members of the same species that make them better able to survive and pass on their genes are generally selected by natural selection precisely because of that competitive edge -that’s it! It is as simple as that! -there isn’t much more to say about that!

It doesn’t matter what “sort” of competitive edge those members have over other members of the same species -it could be any kind of competitive edge as long as it increases the chances of passing on their genes, the result is the same -natural selection will generally select for it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is this really the best you guys have got, vague insinuations, attempts at slandering the professor and his work, it hardly merits a responce, really in the immortal words of Palynka

pathetic

baseless assertion!

It was not a vague insinuation it was a direct and very clear statement. If you have quoted the Prof correctly then he should be stripped of his professorship as he clearly does not deserve it.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I'm not so interested in Biology so I will not be able to argue with you in any biological fact whether it is true or not. All what I'm asking about is that [b]could in your statement imply that it could be wrong. Which means that for many who don't have as much knowledge of biology as you (assuming you know what you are talking about) it is a matter of ...[text shortened]... of believing in GOD existence. With no knowledge of biology it will be simply a blind faith.[/b]

You are quite correct. I am not claiming that there is direct evidence for every step in the development of every biological feature, however, there is no doubt that every example of 'irreducibly complexity' that Behe has proposed to date can be proved to be reducibly complex proving Behe wrong. It is not necessary to show that the particular path proposed was the one taken in reality as Behe's claim is that no possible path exists.

EDIT: The reason why I'm saying so, is of course the assumption that the existence of GOD can not be proven , and as there is what can be called a proof for evolution theory then it some people automatically assume it can replace GOD, which is not correct in both sides of the assumption.
Again I agree. Evolutionary theory only rules out some particular types of God, it does not rule out all Gods.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i thought that i was out, well seeing that you are talking to me again, try this, although i myself do not endorse all that they say, especially with regard to the young earth etc it provides an interesting basis for some of the points raised

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe03.asp

But this is the prelude to a circular polka in funny hats. Behe is out, his arrestingly beautiful essay titles notwithstanding.

I wouldn't presume to discourage you in your quest to demolish evolution, but I suggest changing tack.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
But this is the prelude to a circular polka in funny hats. Behe is out, his arrestingly beautiful essay titles notwithstanding.

I wouldn't presume to discourage you in your quest to demolish evolution, but I suggest changing tack.

really, how very interesting , what would you suggest?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the problem with the robbies of the spirituality forum is that he is not debating. he is merely communicating his wisdom to us. we may decide to be heathens and heretics and dismiss it. but under no circumstance are we allowed to discuss it with him. he is sure of the unquestionable nature of his beliefs, any debate is a blasphemy.

that is one of the rea ...[text shortened]... d jaywill and josephw. we no refer to that category of spirituality posters as robbie-carrobies.

as soon as you rid yourself of your propensity for condescension and dogma, which in my experience is unparalleled in any other forum member and evident in statements like, idiot, idiotic, brainwashed etc etc, then and only then will i enter into dialogue with you, that notwithstanding you are free to comment and there are many others who i am sure do not meet you're criteria of idiot and idiotic and may well provide some interesting thoughts.

manners maketh the man!

as for the bold jaywill and knightmiester and josephw they remain remarkably silent on this issue, i wish they would contribute something.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
really, how very interesting , what would you suggest?

"Evolution: can you do anything with it?"

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…please refrain from using words like crap in a serious scientific debate,..…

This isn’t a “scientific” debate; this is creationism verses science debate.[/b]

no this is science verses the myth of evolution debate, which has already been proven, by numerous references and attested to by the most learned of people to be unscientific, please let us not delude ourselves, so far it has nothing to do with creationism, that merely shifts the emphasis away from the scientific arguments and provides a target for evolutions very own inadequacies, so if you can address any of the issues raised without recourse to to creationism which is not even on the agenda yet, then all and well!

you are right, the word serious should be excluded, especially when one is dealing with fairy tales and mythology masquerading in the form of science as is the case with evolution!

Originally posted by twhitehead
It was not a vague insinuation it was a direct and very clear statement. If you have quoted the Prof correctly then he should be stripped of his professorship as he clearly does not deserve it.

i thank Palynka so much for his thrifty economy of language and minimal approach another baseless assertion!