Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A little rant for desdamona
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5261 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 1 of 85 (101806)
04-22-2004 7:19 AM


This post follows on from Message 98, but my words here would not be appropriate in that forum.
desdamona writes:
I am working on this Sylas.
Let me be blunt. You have a much more serious problem, and that is rudeness.
If you come here calling people liars, and farts, and much else besides, a bit of formatting is not going to help much.
Don't try to tell me it is others that started the matter. You have direct responsibility for your own behaviour, and it is not pretty. It is also compounded by a level of basic ignorance that is amongst the worst I have ever seen.
The only possible way you can recapture a shred of dignity at this stage is to apologise, and rethink your whole approach.
Note that criticism of another person is sometimes appropriate. You have, I think, recognized that your basic knowledge of evolution is not good, as in Message 93. There is no shame in admitting this; but you need to be more aware of the implications of your ignorance of evolution.
Your charge that Darwin "appears" contradictory is wrong. You got that by reading a dishonest quote mine, not by any attempt to read Darwin for himself. Darwin's own text is perfectly clear and not remotely contradictory.
Evolution is not faith. It is science, the same as physics, or chemistry, or any other field of science. It is not based on suppositions or a desire to reject God or a need to overturn the bible. It is based on observations and evidence and scientific inference just like any other field of science; and just like any other field of science it is used by believers and unbelievers alike.
You simply do not know enough about the subject to have a meaningful scientific criticism at this stage; and more importantly you no basis for casting slurs on the integrity of those of us who accept basic evolutionary biology. There are people here (not me, however) who are professional scientists directly involved in evolutionary biology.
There is no moral defect in disagreeing with us, of course. You can trust on faith that evolution is false. I would have no objection to that; but that is a quite different claim.
It is also not a scientific criticism. In fact, it is not an argument of any kind. It is what you choose to believe. It makes not a scrap of difference to how others might think on the matter, especially those of us who have put a lot of effort into the hard work of becoming sufficiently educated on the subject to understand what it is about.
If you have an actual scientific criticism, I will be happy to engage. But note that this is intended to be a debate forum. If I disagree with you strongly, and try to back up my views that you are mistaken on something, that does not mean I am being unfair or angry or unkind. It's debate. If you don't want to engage with views you don't share, then just go away. If you do want to engage, then show a bit more respect, or else you will only end up bringing disrepute on the views you want to defend. That's another hard fact of life as well.
You can quickly find all kinds of supposedly scientific criticisms of evolution from various websites. There are very good reasons for the fact that these sites are almost all considered risible pseudoscience. It is not because they have the wrong conclusions. They are pseudoscience because of elementary scientific errors, and we can consider these on a case by case basis if there is a specific instance you want to propose.
When you start making scientific criticisms, however, you need to back them up, and be prepared to talk to people who give arguments against what you propose. You are not ready for that yet; you need to learn a bit more of the elementary background. Questions, of course, are always welcome; and there is no obligation to accept the answers. Just be ready for substantive comments on the answers you give for debate...
And to keep to one topic at a time, in each thread.
OK...
The above was quite a rant, for me. My usual style of engagement is much more substantive, and I will return courtesy for courtesy; regardless of outstanding disagreements. Improvement in behaviour merits an instant clean slate. Can you do that for me, and for our other colleagues in this forum? You will be the major person to benefit from this.
Cheers -- Sylas
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-22-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by docpotato, posted 04-22-2004 12:27 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 6 by coffee_addict, posted 04-22-2004 2:24 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 7 by Loudmouth, posted 04-22-2004 2:38 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 16 by Trixie, posted 04-22-2004 5:47 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-22-2004 10:37 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 51 by Garf, posted 04-25-2004 1:14 PM Sylas has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 85 (101824)
04-22-2004 11:03 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2004 12:23 PM AdminAsgara has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 85 (101847)
04-22-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminAsgara
04-22-2004 11:03 AM


A humble suggestion for the Queen
I think Des has reached the point where a suspension is needed to help her understand that she should attempt to read what Sylas has written. That may be difficult because it has so many words, some of them more than one syllable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-22-2004 11:03 AM AdminAsgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2004 1:15 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 8 by berberry, posted 04-22-2004 3:11 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 14 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-22-2004 4:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 4 of 85 (101849)
04-22-2004 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sylas
04-22-2004 7:19 AM


Bra-VO Sylas.
That deserves a round of applause and a jar of applesauce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sylas, posted 04-22-2004 7:19 AM Sylas has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 85 (101854)
04-22-2004 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
04-22-2004 12:23 PM


Re: A humble suggestion for the Queen
I am reminded of the definition of fanatic as someone who will not change their mind and cannot change the subject. It seems no matter what thread Des posts on she delivers the same message, usually irrelevant to the discussion (imho).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2004 12:23 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by berberry, posted 04-22-2004 3:15 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 12 by Denesha, posted 04-22-2004 4:01 PM RAZD has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 6 of 85 (101865)
04-22-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sylas
04-22-2004 7:19 AM


Sylas, I saw this fact about desdamona a long time ago. That's why I became so frustrated, knowing ahead of time that no reason, no evidence, no human logic could get her to stop rambling and shut up. Call me psychic.
Edited:
The sad part of all of this is she is probably still thinking that we all have been brainwashed by mainstream society, which is being manipulated by the anti-christ. I believe that she is still absolutely convinced that she is the only reasonable person here. I based this prediction on her past rantings about how society has been brainwashed and the coming of the anti-christ.
[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-22-2004]

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sylas, posted 04-22-2004 7:19 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 85 (101867)
04-22-2004 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sylas
04-22-2004 7:19 AM


I have recently started a new thread (Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?) which may be perfect for desdamona. I am really curious why she thinks that evolutionary sciences, which follows the same methodologies as other branches of science, fails to pass as good science. Perhaps this topic can clear up some of the misconceptions that desdamona has about science and evolutionary sciences in particular.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sylas, posted 04-22-2004 7:19 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 04-22-2004 3:48 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 85 (101872)
04-22-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
04-22-2004 12:23 PM


Re: A humble suggestion for the Queen
I agree completely, Ned. I posted similar thoughts last night here.
I don't see how there can still be any question whether this woman has any desire to learn something or to make any postitive contribution. When cornered, she will utter something about how she's trying to learn, but never more than two or three posts later she's right back to spouting her uninformed, bigoted and self-rightous nonsense. She's a fundamentalist drama queen. She has nothing of substance to contribute here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2004 12:23 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 85 (101874)
04-22-2004 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
04-22-2004 1:15 PM


Re: A humble suggestion for the Queen
RAZD writes:
quote:
I am reminded of the definition of fanatic as someone who will not change their mind and cannot change the subject.
I agree with the sentiment, but desdamona certainly IS capable of changing the subject. She does it all the time. In fact, she refuses to stick to any subject. I hope she will be gone soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2004 1:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2004 3:30 PM berberry has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 10 of 85 (101878)
04-22-2004 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by berberry
04-22-2004 3:15 PM


Re: A humble suggestion for the Queen
... cannot change their subject regardless of what {the subject} is supposed to be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by berberry, posted 04-22-2004 3:15 PM berberry has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 11 of 85 (101884)
04-22-2004 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Loudmouth
04-22-2004 2:38 PM


Loudmouth, haven't you learned by now that desdamona is incapable of staying on topic? She will probably start ranting about how the bible is 100% true and evolution is 100% false without giving any explanation.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Loudmouth, posted 04-22-2004 2:38 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Loudmouth, posted 04-22-2004 4:51 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 85 (101888)
04-22-2004 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
04-22-2004 1:15 PM


Re: A humble suggestion for the Queen
I think you are a bit hard with Des. You have not noticed that she
is smoothing her arguments regarding those of the beginning.
Avatar picture was changed too. She don't ask us to bend our knees each time now.
quote:
usually irrelevant to the discussion
Sometimes Brad McFall do that too. There is no conspiration against him. Perhaps Des need more time than ordinary members to realise the situation. Remember Joan of Arc.
Just a suggestion.
Denesha

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2004 1:15 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by coffee_addict, posted 04-22-2004 4:15 PM Denesha has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 13 of 85 (101890)
04-22-2004 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Denesha
04-22-2004 4:01 PM


Re: A humble suggestion for the Queen
Denesha writes:
Sometimes Brad McFall do that too. There is no conspiration against him. Perhaps Des need more time than ordinary members to realise the situation. Remember Joan of Arc.
For one thing, I was going to ask Brad to stop doing what he's doing. I hate random messages, unless they're there purely for humor only.
Regarding Joan of Arc, I just don't see desdamona having the human reasoning skills, the drive to see beyond her delusional mindset, and the courage to compare to such a historical figure. It's like comparing your local rapist with Abe Lincoln.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Denesha, posted 04-22-2004 4:01 PM Denesha has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 14 of 85 (101893)
04-22-2004 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
04-22-2004 12:23 PM


Re: A humble suggestion for the Queen
You know me, I don't like suspensions until it is the only option left.
What I am going to suggest to Des is that for now, she limit her postings to
A Little Rant for Desdamona in the FFA
Big Bang Problem in Big Bang and Cosmology
A Fatal Logical Flaw in Creationism in ID
She currently isn't in any active F&B threads, though I wouldn't be against giving her one outlet there also.
This is subject to change according to Des's acceptance of forum etiquette and Forum Guidelines.
1. Des must show that she is capable of following a topic of conversation. I realize that we are all guilty of going off topic on occasion, and I have no problem with that, but Des has a heavy history of not being able to follow the topic. She hasn't been here long enough to have accumulated such a history except by design. I ask all participants to help by not responding to off topic posts.
2. Des must totally understand the concept of citing sources and supporting claims. She needs to learn what a primary source is, what hearsay means and the difference between a claim and a belief.
3. Des needs to learn to write in a manner that does not leave her opponents shuddering when they think that she is home-school teacher.
Sylas's excellent post Style Guide for EvC should be one of the first pinned topics when that option becomes available to us.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2004 12:23 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Sylas, posted 04-22-2004 5:48 PM AdminAsgara has not replied
 Message 30 by nator, posted 04-22-2004 11:24 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 85 (101900)
04-22-2004 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by coffee_addict
04-22-2004 3:48 PM


quote:
Loudmouth, haven't you learned by now that desdamona is incapable of staying on topic? She will probably start ranting about how the bible is 100% true and evolution is 100% false without giving any explanation.
Which would be the point of the thread. She must defend what she calls good science in a side by side comparison with what she considers bad science. All of this sans Bible. She already claims that she knows what good science is, and I am assuming this is without reference to the Bible. The big question is does she judge the validity of a scientific theory by the methodology or the conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 04-22-2004 3:48 PM 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