Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Criticizing neo-Darwinism
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 286 of 309 (593994)
12-01-2010 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Bolder-dash
12-01-2010 1:24 AM


Re: Nice
Bolder-dash writes:
If you like to be called an evolutionist, you can be called that, it is irrelevant to me.
Actually, I prefer to be called a mathematician. Strict usage would be that only evolutionary biologists are called "evolutionists". But creationists use the term broadly, so I guess we all are forced to use it broadly.
Bolder-dash writes:
At least you understand that even while wearing your name tag, you still are allowed to think and question (the true definition of the skeptic, not the definition that has been hijacked by atheists.)
I'm pretty sure that most of the people who have disagreed with me in this thread, also think for themselves and question. The main difference is that they want to use the term "neo-Darwinism" more broadly than I.
Bolder-dash writes:
The thing is, as soon as you start changing the paradigm, and loosen your grip on the classic neo-Darwinian model of randomness plus selection you allow all kinds of crows into your cellar that atheists adamantly do not want to let in-and that is why guys like Dawkins refuse to budge, and guys like PZ Myers are caught in a trap that they either don't realize or just don't want to admit.
I'd say that PZ Myers understand how it works quite well, and is not caught in any trap.
Bolder-dash writes:
Because without this critical component of random mutations, this throwing out of the word "synthesis" can't keep the crows out.
I'm not sure what kind of problem you have with random mutations. Like it or not, there are random mutations, and they are an important part of biological evolution.
Bolder-dash writes:
This is what honest scientists have to ask, and MacNeil and Moran are not the only ones.
I'm pretty sure that Moran and MacNeill are both athiests, and I'm equally sure that they would both disagree with just about everything you have written in this thread.
Bolder-dash writes:
And let's be honest here, you can sense the near panic levels of discussion most of the people on this board and others have when approaching this subject.
Get used to it. The evidence strongly supports evolution. The evidence does not support ID. Nobody is in panic about this, except perhaps the ID proponents.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 1:24 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 2:25 AM nwr has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 287 of 309 (593995)
12-01-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by nwr
11-30-2010 1:25 PM


Re: Nice
Given the general quality of your arguments, I should perhaps consider your post as damning with faint praise.
Loud praise would have been more damning still.
---
I haven't responded to your OP because after all you wrote it in 2006, and I should be wasting my time picking up on inaccuracies which you may have noted yourself in the course of the past four years.
Are there any points in it you'd like to discuss?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by nwr, posted 11-30-2010 1:25 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 288 of 309 (593996)
12-01-2010 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by nwr
12-01-2010 1:47 AM


Re: Nice
If you want to run from your own remarks now, that's your choice. But if, as you said, traditional neo-Darwinism seems implausible to you, what do you have left?
Its all well and good to say random mutations happen, and they are an important part. How important of a part are they? 20% of all the development of life as we see it? 30%? 10%? What's your preference? Now what do you want to do with the other 70%, 90%?
You are in the same place PZ Myers is in. If it can't account for all, what accounts for the rest? Synthesis? Genetic drift? Or are you just willing to throw a whole bag of ideas out there and hope some of them seem more plausible-without saying where they came from?
If you are a mathematician, do you want to give some percentages for what you believe in. If its not the selfish gene what is it? PZ Myers has a name, by virtue of his vitriol, and pig headed-ness. He doesn't have a theory for anything.
Do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by nwr, posted 12-01-2010 1:47 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by nwr, posted 12-01-2010 8:18 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 298 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-01-2010 2:03 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 289 of 309 (594000)
12-01-2010 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Bolder-dash
12-01-2010 1:24 AM


The inevitable and inevitably postponed end of evolutionary theory.
Wow, Do you think he almost wished he could figuratively grab those words and take them back after he wrote them
Well I know I didn't. NWR was using neo-Darwinism to refer principally to the mathematical formulations of Sewall, Fisher and Haldane which dealt with population genetics and preceded the elucidation of the structure of DNA by some decades. They didn't have any of our knowledge of modern molecular genetics and the specific nature of genetic mutation.
When he says that others use neo-darwinism more broadly he refers to the fact that neo-darwinism is commonly used synonymously with both the 'modern evolutionary synthesis' and to embrace the various evolutionary genetic disciplines which have risen in profile subsequently including evolutionary aspects of developmental biology.
Only a creationist would think that a scientific discipline which adjusts to fit reality was therefore flawed.
Do you think he is going to stick by those words, or will he try to run from them when confronted with what that means?
It isn't even clear from what you are saying here what you do think it means.
And did you notice how he was trying to be critical of Behe for adapting his meaning of IC, but he sees no such problem with evolutionists rewriting their theory practically daily.
This is a good contrast to make. Our understanding of evolutionary theory does change regularly as our knowledge base expands, and consequently things do need revision. Behe on the other hand keeps changing back and forth between what definition of IC he uses depending on what he wants to do. If he wants to weasel out of actually having to make an ID case in support of it he uses the weak version where IC systems can evolve, he just thinks it unlikely, if he is preaching to the faithful then it is the 'strong' version where an IC system can't evolve because by definition any change will render it 'non-functional' even if it still performs some other related function. PaulK recently linked to an article discussing this behaviour, here. I'm interested in whether nwr still thinks that IC is a good argument against gradual evolution.
It even sounded to me like Wounded King was basically just trying to say to you, "Hey we don't need to explain ourselves, we are experts and you are an idiot" and not much else-but he pulled up just short of that, I guess because you wear the right name tag.
You are mistaken, I didn't call him an idiot because that isn't something I tend to do directly, even to the most idiotic creationists. I doubt anyone reading this thread could fail to see how idiotic I thought many of the things nwr was saying were however. Specifically that the public perception of a scientific theory should have any sway in the scientific acceptance of that theory and that the existence of putatively IC systems was a problem for modern evolutionary theory/neo-darwinism.
It can explain everything because it means anything.
No it doesn't, this whole post comes across as if you have never heard of the modern synthesis and have no idea what it is. Certainly I would concede that in modern biological terms evolutionary theory now touches every aspect and I would refer you to Dobzhansky's seminal thoughts on the matter, PDF.
they are interested in selling a concept that gets harder and harder to sell every day.
Yeah, and no doubt the collapse of evolutionary theory is only about 5 years away, same as it has been for the last ~150 years.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 1:24 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 10:26 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(3)
Message 290 of 309 (594011)
12-01-2010 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Bolder-dash
12-01-2010 1:24 AM


A Statement from the Atheist Front
Bolder-dash writes:
What if the modern model of evolutionary theory completely lost the random mutation aspect at its core or the selfish gene? ... Every atheist on the planet needs that core intact or there is nothing left to hang onto.
This particular atheist isn't hanging onto anything--the TOE could be falsified today, and that would have no impact on my atheism.
Atheism flourished long before Darwin shared his insights. I became an atheist as a boy confronted with the moral horror show and just-so stories that comprised the religions I encountered, long before I learned about evolution.
Your faux astonishment that WK says the modern synthesis does not claim to explain the entire history of evolution shows clearly who "hangs on" to a collapsing intellectual position. WK's statement is appropriate for any scientific theory: we cannot know everything, and it is important to keep a firm grip on that tentativity.
Scientists are professionally and philosophically prepared to abandon or refine falsified hypotheses as new data dictates: that is part of the very definition of science. IC critics of evolution look for evidential ammo in data from scientists as well, because the IC camp can produce no data of its own.
You, on the other hand, appear to have no tentativity at all, merely certainties. Apparently, you live in a world of faith rather than a world of evidence. To you, refining a theory with new data and observations reveals its weakness; accusing others of dishonesty while mischaracterizing their position displays your position's strength.
I assure you that atheists around the world tonight sleep snug in their beds with nary a thought given to the state of the modern synthesis. Should the TOE be falsified, atheists (we really aren't the cling-to-old-ideas type) wouldn't start pouring into churches or collapsing in cognitive dissonant fugue.
We'd be looking at new data and theories, calmly and tentatively, depending on interest level. Amazingly, many atheists don't give any more thought to evolution than they do to calculus or physics; evolution didn't make them atheists, and a collapse of the modern synthesis wouldn't make them creationists. Most atheists who are interested would be fascinated, however, because the falsification of a major scientific theory moves us closer to a clear understanding of the world.
But it appears that, no matter what, you would still be the screamer on the soapbox, clinging to his certainties and accusations, waiting for scientists to discover something else you can misinterpret or mischaracterize.

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 1:24 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 10:39 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 291 of 309 (594017)
12-01-2010 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Bolder-dash
12-01-2010 2:25 AM


Re: Nice
Bolder-dash writes:
If you want to run from your own remarks now, that's your choice.
LOL. Presumably, you are misreading what I have said.
Bolder-dash writes:
How important of a part are they? 20% of all the development of life as we see it? 30%?
You can't quantify it that way.
It's like saying "The brain is part of what keeps you alive. What percentage part? Is it 20%?"
That makes no sense, because the brain is a necessary part. Similarly, the mutations are a necessary part of the evolutionary process.
Bolder-dash writes:
You are in the same place PZ Myers is in. If it can't account for all, what accounts for the rest?
This is a silly way of looking at things. It's no wonder that you are confused.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 2:25 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 10:32 AM nwr has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 292 of 309 (594028)
12-01-2010 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Wounded King
12-01-2010 4:00 AM


Sorry, but this is not one of your better posts. Parts are completely irrelevant to the discussion, and a lot of it is just nonsensical, and not really even coherent.
I will start with your opening remarks. You say that NWR was using the neo-Darwiniism to refer to the mathematics of Sewall, Fisher and Haldane. That is simply not correct based on any reasonable reading of his text. He stated in the opening and subsequent posts quite a number of reasons why the ND theory is not a very strong theory to explain novel features, and the complex development of life. To read into this that he is only speaking of some mathematical formulas is not only inaccurate but hard to understand where you are getting this interpretation. He stately clearly that the modern ND theory simply doesn't look strong. if he has some other definition of what he meant by the ND theory or a version of an alternate theory that is stronger, I don't see anywhere that he has mentioned that.
You are mistaken, I didn't call him an idiot because that isn't something I tend to do directly, even to the most idiotic creationists.
Here you have not even understood simple English curiously. Of course you didn't call him an idiot directly, which is exactly why I never said you called him that directly. I said you stopped short of that, and yet you even are repeating here that "I doubt anyone reading this thread could fail to see how idiotic I thought many of the things nwr was saying were however..." yes, this is precisely what I said!, so why did you waste time trying to refute what I said by confirming what I said? Nonsensical.
To continue, do you believe in only gradual evolution, because you are now asking NWR if he believes the IC can coexist with gradual evolution? or do you accept that evolution may or may not be gradual, as the recent modern synthesis is suggesting, in which case it makes me wonder why you asked NWR this question which you yourself don't even necessarily believe in.
Do you think he is going to stick by those words, or will he try to run from them when confronted with what that means?
It isn't even clear from what you are saying here what you do think it means.
Its not clear? I think its pretty dam clear, but you are struggling with sentences tonight for some reason. I will repeat exactly what it means. When someone says QUOTE: "Neo-darwinism can model a process of evolution and make predictions in line with that model, it has never claimed to be able to model or explain the entire evolutionary history of life on earth." the obvious question is what explains the rest of the evolutionary history of life on Earth for God's sake!
And frankly WK you have gone on and on in these boards claiming people just don't understand what the modern synthesis says, without ever trying to actually say what the modern synthesis does say! If people aren't getting what it says, then its because you are unable to adequately explain what it does say. That is either your fault because you can't explain it, or because no one can explain what it says because it is undefinable and is as rubber as a ducky.
Certainly I would concede that in modern biological terms evolutionary theory now touches every aspect and I would refer you to Dobzhansky's seminal thoughts on the matter
This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. It is not even complete English. Evolutionary theory touches every aspect of what? Of evolutionary theory? You need an object for your subject if you expect to be understood.
I also completely disagree with your attempts at explaining Behe's argument. What you have said is just false, but that's another topic.
Overall, just not a good post by you at all I feel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Wounded King, posted 12-01-2010 4:00 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Wounded King, posted 12-01-2010 1:15 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 293 of 309 (594030)
12-01-2010 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by nwr
12-01-2010 8:18 AM


Re: Nice
That's it? that's the best you are going to do?
Aren't you even going to attempt to explain that if neo-Darwinism is in adequate to explain the development of novel features and the like, what is adequate to explain it?
And if you are not even willing to quantify what role random mutations play in your mind, aren't you ate least going to explain what else you feel does play a role? Especially if it is somehow not included in your definition of the modern ND theory.
The gist of your reply is simply that I am confused? Ok.
As I said, go ahead and and believe what you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by nwr, posted 12-01-2010 8:18 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by nwr, posted 12-01-2010 11:35 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 294 of 309 (594033)
12-01-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Omnivorous
12-01-2010 7:14 AM


Re: A Statement from the Atheist Front
This particular atheist isn't hanging onto anything--the TOE could be falsified today, and that would have no impact on my atheism.
Its ok with me if you want to hang on to your beliefs even if the data said otherwise. But don't accuse me of being the one lacking an open mind.
Your faux astonishment that WK says the modern synthesis does not claim to explain the entire history of evolution shows clearly who "hangs on" to a collapsing intellectual position. WK's statement is appropriate for any scientific theory: we cannot know everything, and it is important to keep a firm grip on that tentativity.
So I will put you down as one who supports wholeheartedly the teachings in school of both the strengths and the weaknesses, and the gaps of knowledge within the Darwinian evolutionary theory; along with the premise that at this current time, the ND theory can not explain the entire history of evolution. Glad to have you on board!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Omnivorous, posted 12-01-2010 7:14 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Omnivorous, posted 12-03-2010 12:09 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 295 of 309 (594043)
12-01-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Bolder-dash
12-01-2010 10:32 AM


Re: Nice
Bolder-dash writes:
Aren't you even going to attempt to explain that if neo-Darwinism is in adequate to explain the development of novel features and the like, what is adequate to explain it?
If you really want more details, you can look here.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 10:32 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 296 of 309 (594046)
12-01-2010 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Bolder-dash
12-01-2010 1:24 AM


Re: Nice
Because without this critical component of random mutations, this throwing out of the word "synthesis" can't keep the crows out. What is the synthesis? No one knows. No one can define it.
It's not some kind of secret, Dash, it's just another example of the huge amount of science you've simply failed to pay any attention to.
The "synthesis" is nothing more than the synthesis of Darwin's original theory of common descent by modification and natural selection with the modern science of molecular genetics and what we know about random mutations.
That's the synthesis. It's not some secret code word, it's just the combination of Darwin's theory from the 1800's with modern discoveries about DNA.
If neo-Darwinism can't explain it, most atheists are smart enough to know that they have nowhere else to turn.
We have everywhere else to turn. We have the entire world of biology to turn to. It's creationists like you who have a one-trick pony and nothing else to ride.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 1:24 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 297 of 309 (594064)
12-01-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Bolder-dash
12-01-2010 10:26 AM


Mimsy Snarks
To read into this that he is only speaking of some mathematical formulas is not only inaccurate but hard to understand where you are getting this interpretation.
You know what, I agree with you, but subsequent discussions with nwr did tend to make it clear that this did seem to be what he was saying, you are the one who thinks his OP was clear and understandable. I have always thought that his attempts in this thread were fairly incoherent and based on a very idiosyncratic and unclear understanding of what neo-darwinism is.
Here you have not even understood simple English curiously. Of course you didn't call him an idiot directly, which is exactly why I never said you called him that directly. I said you stopped short of that ...
Sheesh, do I even have to explain your own posts to you?
You suggested I pulled up short of calling nwr an idiot ...
because you wear the right name tag.
I was pointing out that it isn't a case of name tags, because I don't call creationists or IDists idiots either.
To continue, do you believe in only gradual evolution, because you are now asking NWR if he believes the IC can coexist with gradual evolution? or do you accept that evolution may or may not be gradual, as the recent modern synthesis is suggesting, in which case it makes me wonder why you asked NWR this question which you yourself don't even necessarily believe in.
This is not as simple a question as you might believe. I believe that molecular evolutionary change is gradual and occurs principally in steps of one mutation, however molecular genetics has massively broadened the scale of what 1 mutation can mean. 1 mutational event might produce a whole genome duplication, or a chromosomal duplication, it might create a whole new functional ORF by a frame shift as is hypothesised in the case of one of the Nylonase enzymes, it might be the swapping of exons between genes creating a novel combination of functions, it might be a transposition event introducing a novel transcriptional start site upstream of a gene and substantially altering its expression. Moving from the genotype to the phenotype adds another level of complexity since there is no simple linear relationship between the size of phenotypic effect of any individual mutation of a particular type. A single base pair substitution may produce an embryonic lethal while a whole genome duplication has no apparent phenotypic effect.
In what way do you feel the modern sythesis is moving away from a gradualist theory?
the obvious question is what explains the rest of the evolutionary history of life on Earth for God's sake!
Lots of other things including contingency, endosymbiosis, genetic drift (including that resulting from large scale catastrophic events) and depending on your approach you might consider horizontal gene transfer or heritable epigenetic changes to be non-Darwinian mechanisms.
And frankly WK you have gone on and on in these boards claiming people just don't understand what the modern synthesis says, without ever trying to actually say what the modern synthesis does say!
No I haven't, I often say what various aspects of the modern synthesis say about specific topics, but as the name implies the modern synthesis is a synthesis of different disciplines. There is no simple formula for you to learn to understand the modern synthesis. If you understood the formulae of Fisher, Wright and Haldane you wouldn't understand the modern synthesis any more than someone who understood Einstein's theory of relativity would therefore understand modern quantum theory.
The modern synthesis is commonly used as a term describing the contribution of a wide panoply of biological sciences as they relate to evolution, these include molecular genetics, developmental biology, population genetics, bioinformatics, biochemistry, paleontology, comparative biology, anatomy, ..., in fact pretty much any field of biology has evolutionary aspects which contribute. There was an original 'modern synthesis' in the 40s, but that has continued to expand as more has been learnt from the various fields which contribute to our knowledge of evolution.
Evolutionary theory touches every aspect of what
Of modern biology, hence why I was speaking in modern biological terms, I admit this whould have been clearer if I had said 'in terms of modern biology'. Of course to understand it all you had to do was follow the link and read what Dobzhansky said, for anyone else who is both lazy and ignorant here is the precis "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."
I also completely disagree with your attempts at explaining Behe's argument. What you have said is just false, but that's another topic.
How convenient for you, since nwr used IC as the basis of one of his criticisms I would have thought it would be quite on topic, but have it your own way. Take your time though, it might take some doing to find any evidence that what I am saying is false since it is so patently true from things that Behe has said himself.
Overall, just not a good post by you at all I feel.
Consider me devastated, if Brad McFall turns up and tells me it was unintelligible as well I might just have to cry.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 10:26 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 298 of 309 (594067)
12-01-2010 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Bolder-dash
12-01-2010 2:25 AM


Re: Nice
Its all well and good to say random mutations happen, and they are an important part. How important of a part are they? 20% of all the development of life as we see it? ... If it can't account for all, what accounts for the rest? Synthesis? Genetic drift? ... If its not the selfish gene what is it?
Your sheer biological illiteracy is staggering.
It's like asking "How important is petrol to the running of a car? 20% of the motive force? If it can't account for it, what accounts for the rest? The blueprint of the engine? The exhaust pipe? If it is not combustion what is it?"
Reading creationists trying to talk about biology is often like listening to someone pretending to be knowledgable about sports by saying: "And then the referee did an endrun around the shortstop, so of course the quarterback awarded a slam-dunk". You've taken some words with meaning in biology and apparently just dumped them in a random pile.
And of course if you really wanted to know about biology you could always acquire a textbook and find out the meaning of the words you're employing and the way in which the various concepts relate to one another. As it is you give the curious impression of being obsessed with biology without being remotely interested in it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 2:25 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 299 of 309 (594315)
12-03-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Bolder-dash
12-01-2010 10:39 AM


Re: A Statement from the Atheist Front
Bolder-dash writes:
Omnivorous writes:
This particular atheist isn't hanging onto anything--the TOE could be falsified today, and that would have no impact on my atheism.
Its ok with me if you want to hang on to your beliefs even if the data said otherwise. But don't accuse me of being the one lacking an open mind.
I'm not accusing you of lacking an open mind--I'm observing that you lack a rational mind.
Understanding that the theory of evolution explains the history of life on earth has become the sine qua non of a well educated, rational person.
People converse with you for the same reason little boys provoke a drunk: "Poke him with a stick--he says the most amazing crap!"
So you curse and shout to draw attention to your arguments, confident of their power, but rational people look at your frenzied incoherence the same way they look at the shopping cart guy who talks to Allah.
Evolution deniers are blood and chicken feather-covered geeks at the modern intellectual feast: we have to talk to them, but we don't have to humor their appetites. Please complete your typical cycle here quickly--as soon as you achieve the suspension or banning martyrdom you desire so much, we can hose the place out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 10:39 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:39 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 300 of 309 (594327)
12-03-2010 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Omnivorous
12-03-2010 12:09 AM


Re: A Statement from the Atheist Front
Oh, so this is what intellectualism looks like?
Hmm...I'll take a pass then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Omnivorous, posted 12-03-2010 12:09 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2010 1:17 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 302 by Omnivorous, posted 12-03-2010 1:29 AM Bolder-dash 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