|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Guys You are killing this board. | |||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tony650 Member (Idle past 4053 days) Posts: 450 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3727 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I third Lam's proposal of Eta as Cosmology Mod
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Just sent him an e-mail (replying to his). I expect he'll be set up as our newest admin by tommorrow.
Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Fantastic, he'll be a jewel.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
A couple of quick comments to Eta.
From message 1:
quote: 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: 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 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024