Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guys You are killing this board.
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 16 of 28 (145281)
09-28-2004 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
09-28-2004 1:04 AM


Not really,
I was just reapeating the same material in different forms one the infinitesimal chance it might sink in - it didn't.
Face it buzsaw, you are not intellectually capable of handling science material. These days it is politically incorrect to say things like that but it doesn't make it any the less true. I posted the same stuff, post after post, rephrasing it, but it never sank in. You can't understand basic science never mind anything advanced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2004 1:04 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2004 1:26 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 28 (145286)
09-28-2004 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Eta_Carinae
09-28-2004 1:11 AM


Re: Not really,
I was just reapeating the same material in different forms one the infinitesimal chance it might sink in - it didn't.
Well don't feel taken, my friend, I know the feeling. I was there all ten pages too, hammering away with my points from the Biblical standpoint. Isn't that what EvC is suppose to do, debate evolution versus creationism? The reason the thing went ten pages is that I stood my creation ideological ground on what my position was, posting the reasons for why I believed them to be true and your arguments to be false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-28-2004 1:11 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-28-2004 1:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 18 of 28 (145291)
09-28-2004 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
09-28-2004 1:26 AM


Re: Not really,
But that isn't what you did really. You kept asking for things in a scientific framework not a Scriptural one.
And of course arguing science from a Biblical standpoint is stupid because the Bible is as useless as tits on a mule for science. You might as well stand there with a wet haddock in your hands as use the Bible for anything not pertaining to mythology or a spiritual guide.
What part of mythology don't you get?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 09-28-2004 1:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 19 of 28 (145301)
09-28-2004 3:08 AM


Comments/Questions to admins links etc.
I put out 3 links in my often posted "signature", where comments/questionsions can be directed to the admins. This includes the "Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum" topic. If anyone has any problems with how a proposed topic is being handled, they're welcome to inject input there. People seldom (never?) do though.
The Eta_Carinae as a "Big Bang..." moderator sound like a good posibility.
Personally, I believe in the need for the Proposed Topic system. But we do need more moderators/reviewers. But it is damn seldom anyone volunteers. Want to volunteer? E-mail me at mnmoose@lakenet.com, or e-mail one of the other admins.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Trixie, posted 09-28-2004 4:49 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4032 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 20 of 28 (145389)
09-28-2004 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Eta_Carinae
09-27-2004 11:10 PM


Re: Maybe I'm mistaken but several other of the ..
Eta_Carinae writes:
Heck if you need a Mod for the Cosmology section I'll do it.
I second Lam's nomination of Eta for cosmology moderator.
I realize I post rarely and I don't even know if our "votes" have any sway on this matter, but I had to add mine, regardless. I am well aware of Eta's education and I doubt that you will get a more qualified moderator for the cosmology forum.
Just my opinion, if it's worth anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-27-2004 11:10 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 21 of 28 (145415)
09-28-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Adminnemooseus
09-28-2004 3:08 AM


Re: Comments/Questions to admins links etc.
I third Lam's proposal of Eta as Cosmology Mod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-28-2004 3:08 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 22 of 28 (145474)
09-28-2004 7:22 PM


AdminEta is in the works
Just sent him an e-mail (replying to his). I expect he'll be set up as our newest admin by tommorrow.
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by coffee_addict, posted 09-28-2004 7:25 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 24 by jar, posted 09-28-2004 7:29 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 23 of 28 (145475)
09-28-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Adminnemooseus
09-28-2004 7:22 PM


Re: AdminEta is in the works
Yoo Hooo!
Now, I have a new butt to kiss.

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-28-2004 7:22 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 28 (145477)
09-28-2004 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Adminnemooseus
09-28-2004 7:22 PM


Re: AdminEta is in the works
Fantastic, he'll be a jewel.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-28-2004 7:22 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 25 of 28 (147220)
10-04-2004 4:09 PM


Reply to something from messages 1 and 7
A couple of quick comments to Eta.
From message 1:
quote:
Since this board has evolution in it's title, let the threads be naturally selected. They shall whither or flourish on their merits.
I think it is important to get a topic off to a good start. The various admins try to do some "natural selection" on message 1.
If we pass a bad message 1 to be a new topic, it may well evolve into something good. But then we are getting something that I really hate - Good messages being buried in what are overall bad topics. Why would anyone new to the topic wish to wade through who knows how many bad messages, to get to a message that should have been message 2 (or even message 1) of the topic?
I want the topics to be a series of quality messages right from the begining. Not "chat lines" that might have some good stuff buried in them somewhere.
My opinion is, many of the best topics are slow to accumulate messages. A prime warning sign of a topic going bad, is that it is fast accumulating messages (the "chat line syndrome").
From message 7:
quote:
Why was the Bodes Law topic refused?
I haven't recently studied that topic, but last time I saw it, even Admin_Eta declined to advance it.
You may be one who is into distant cosmological considerations, but I think that considerations of planets around stars other than the sun to be totally disconnected from the creation/evolution debate. Sheesh - I'm inclined to think that considerations of planets other than Earth (geologist bias?) to be rather disconnected from the creation/evolution debate.
We have all kinds of trouble discussing the formation of planet Earth. Why digress to planets light years away?
Adminnemooseus (and minnemooseus)

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 28 (149676)
10-13-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
09-27-2004 10:24 PM


quote:
The John A. Davison state of the art?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: John A. Davison
Forum: Boot Camp
Thread: Junk DNA. Is our destiny already pre-programmed?
Post #: 233
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me put it this way. I stole, lock stock and barrel, most of my ideas about evolution from my many sources. I am an intellectual thief. I've never had an original idea in my head since I received my Doctorate in 1954.
this is from Moose in postoftheMonth.
This is very significant no matter how one discusses the needed independence in the discussion of artifical and natural selection. I was visiting my Grandma in Fredonia this weekend and found the 1966 Fredonian where my Grandfather SAID that molecular INFORMATION is not needed as to the issue of what is today Gould's refusal to accept consilience BY HAVING TWO NATURAL KINDS. Dawkins on the other hand refuses to accept jumps up to the class level for thinking about it for two minutes.
It is because of the *strong* molecular representations we have and can have here at EVC ,unlike other boards, (which is a good thing) that makes it possible to think that a "great" debate would be appropriate where I think I can say both me and JD would disagree. It was clear EXACTLY why I had problems at Cornell(Stan and I never explicity discussed canalization but Provine thought that the 50s/60s period was necessary to understand embryology. He was wrong. Smallhausen and Waddington started all that that information gains from the knowledge needs today(regardless of computers). Dawkins makes the distinction (between recipe and blueprint embryology) but gives the fox till 2050 for him(RD) to make a recipie criticsm or any energy division no matter how arranged before then. The date WAS 1551 as Gould had it instead.I'll open this parenthetical later if at all). I will address this later if I can exact my hedgehog spines from the opening image in my mind. I however have NOT had my gradfather's thoughts which did not change since 54, for sure!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-27-2004 10:24 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by coffee_addict, posted 10-14-2004 5:32 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 27 of 28 (149829)
10-14-2004 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Brad McFall
10-13-2004 1:34 PM


Sometimes, I admire Brad for his ability to make me feel so stupid like this. Here is what I read in his last main paragraph:
Brad writes:
It is because of the *strong* molecular representations we have and can have here at EVC ,unlike other boards, (which is a good thing) that makes it possible to think that a "great" debate would be appropriate where I think I can say both me and JD would disagree. It was clear EXACTLY why I had problems at Cornell(Stan and I never explicity discussed canalization but Provine thought that the 50s/60s period was necessary to understand embryology. He was wrong. Smallhausen and Waddington started all that that information gains from the knowledge needs today(regardless of computers). Dawkins makes the distinction (between recipe and blueprint embryology) but gives the fox till 2050 for him(RD) to make a recipie criticsm or any energy division no matter how arranged before then. The date WAS 1551 as Gould had it instead.I'll open this parenthetical later if at all). I will address this later if I can exact my hedgehog spines from the opening image in my mind. I however have NOT had my gradfather's thoughts which did not change since 54, for sure!
This is what I understood from it:
It is because of the *strong* molecular representations we have and can have here at EVC ,unlike other boards, (which is a good thing) that makes it possible to think that a "great" debate would be appropriate where I think I can say both me and JD would disagree. It was clear EXACTLY why I had problems at Cornell(Stan and I never explicity discussed canalization but Provine thought that the 50s/60s period... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 10-13-2004 1:34 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 10-15-2004 11:34 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 28 of 28 (150099)
10-15-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by coffee_addict
10-14-2004 5:32 AM


thanks slam a lamma!
I can not get into all my reasons to think that this book
http://www.findarticles.com/...i_m1134/is_6_112/ai_105371468
Page Not Found | Penguin Random House
is in part an attempt TO NOT USE CROIZAT'S METHOD, IN SCIENCE and so one finds a human in the proper place of MAMMALS. A Magister it was not.
or GO non-
Page not found - Book Slut

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by coffee_addict, posted 10-14-2004 5:32 AM coffee_addict 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