Topic Proposal Issues

I understand your position completely. And while I'm quite confident that a discussion between the three of us over beers at anyone's house would likely not change anyone's mind, I guess that will have to wait and see.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Hiding off-topic content that also violates rule 10 of Forum Guidelines, have no idea who it's about anyway. --AdminEdited by Admin, : Hide content.

Please promote Bolder-dash's latest topic proposal.

Charles Grodin has an autobiography out about his journey through show business. I forget the title, but I am sure you can find it online.You really should read it.

To date, I have never found your more cryptic remarks worth the trouble of decoding.In plain English, do you want the topic opened for discussion or not?

Please don't, it seems pretty clear from about 3 posts that BD has his mind made up about what evolution says and evolutionists believe and we all know from bitter experience that no amount of discussion and evidence will change his mind. So while he says he isn't claiming that all evolutionists are liars he seems to be suggesting that any who do as Dawkins does, saying evolution isn't just about random accidents, are.So basically anyone who has a grasp of actual evolutionary theory, rather than BD's own strawman brand of evolution, is a liar.This isn't a topic for discussion, its just an invitation for BD and Dr. A to sling more shit at each other until BD takes the huff and complains about the lack of civility on one of the moderation threads. That has happened before on well formed discursive topic threads, I hate to think how much quicker it will happen on this one.TTFN,WK

You mean it is not clear that you have your mind made up about what evolution says?Its ok for you to say that my arguments are strawmen, but heaven forbid that anyone should challenge your argument, is that it?This is a debate forum WK, did you forget that part? If Dr. A starts slinging shit, and is allowed to sling shit, that is my problem. Maybe the problem is that he always slings slit, because that is all he does on this site.You want to have a debate forum where no one is allowed to challenge your evolution premises? Why don't you just answer the question and clear it up than WK, instead of acting like you are afraid to have your position challenged. It seems to me you only want to debate with people you agree with. I got news for you, that is not a debate.Its a fair point. Is it accurate to paint evolution as something other than an accident? I fully realize that with all the recent biological discoveries it is looking less and less like an accident, and that is why so many are reluctant to keep their chips in the accident side of the argument. But the essence of the Darwinian argument is accident, good ones work, and good ones don't. Are you trying to deny that?

Bolder-dash, I think we'd like to have a debate forum where you actually grapple with the scientific theory of evolution, not the secret theory of chance and accident you've obviously become convinced is what we "actually" believe but won't admit.There's no secret theory of evolution, Bolder. The theory that we've struggled in vain to communicate to you, the theory that for some reason you always ignore for not being as sexy, random, and anti-religious as the made-up "secret" theory, is no secret at all. We're right out in the open about it but, because you're a liar, you've become convinced that the rest of us must be, too.Do you really want to know what evolutionists believe about the theory of evolution? Just ask us. The theory we constantly labor to explain to you is the real thing. It's the actual theory, not some facade of a theory we maintain for public consumption. Evolution really is the scientific explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth by the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. That's it. That's what it really is!

Which of these descriptions fits the "mechanism" of natural selection that you are trying to think of?Maybe now I see the problem. I think you may be struggling a bit with what the word "mechanism" means.You actually believe that NS is a construct of some kind. A machine perhaps. Or a physiocochemical process.I think what might help is if you start think of a a physicochemical process as a physicochemical process, instead of thinking of Natural Selection as a phsicochemical process.You know, its not always appropriate to just exchange one word for another word and assume it is going to mean the same thing. That's just a tip for you. It works sometimes, but not always. Do you know what Natural Selection means?Maybe you can draw a picture of it? Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

2. the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished. Perhaps you should stop lying to people about what their opinions are, and take up lying about some subject where you're less likely to get caught. Of course he does. He's not a moron or a creationist. If you think that it is possible to "draw a picture" of natural selection, you really really need to get your hands on that biology textbook I keep telling you to read.Perhaps you could start a thread on natural selection and we could explain it to you. Oh, wait, you did that, and we defined it for you, and you still ended up not knowing what it meant.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Oh good, now we are finally getting something we can sink our teeth into and debate. First, we now know that an effect is produced (we of course know that it can't be a purpose, because evolution is purposeless, so it must be an effect).And that effect is that some organisms are living longer than others, while some are dying faster and reproducing less.So what is that agency or means by which these organisms are living longer and reproducing more, while some are living shorter or reproducing less?

No, that is the mechanism.The effect is adaptive evolution.Maybe you should just learn to live with the fact that you are not merely biologically illiterate, but also, so to speak, biologically dyslexic. Why don't you spend your time on something which is within your capacities?

Sorry, my bad! My comment seems to have had the effect of precipitating the shit slinging into this thread instead. Clearly this thread isn't the place for these discussions.TTFN,WK

The discussion has spilled over into this this thread because everyone wants to discuss Bolder-dash's issues with how evolution is defined, but I'm the only one getting to have any fun in Free For All while his proposal languishes there.Rather than continue this discussion here, could someone start a thread over in Coffee House? If something useful begins emerging from that thread then it can be moved later.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I just started Symphony by accident.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie