Denial of evolution III

[river-wind]

LOL...No, river-wind this is a post error. I added my response to Ophiolite to your response location. See edited post for clarification.

Ah! I'm glad; your response really confused and surprised me! I will delve into your fuller comments ASAP; I have a family matter I'm dealing with at the moment - I'll need to set aside some time to respond in full.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

We will be frank: you are a Christian theist.

Aren't all christians theists? or are there also the atheist kind?

 

[GeoffP]

There's Jewish theists. Also, Presbyterians. But no other kind of theist exists.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

You cheated. are you a scientist by chance?

 

[Saquist]

We will be frank: you are a Christian theist. Your answers will drive in the direction of that conclusion, all evidence to the contrary. Otherwise: prove me wrong.

I appreciate you candor.
Now allow me to be equally blunt. Your accusation hasn't been proven and I have no requirement or desire to entertain or correct what you are determined to believe.

Then phrase your question to me, and I will judge its merit.

The post is there. Take your time to review it but I am disinclined to help you play catch up after this diversion from the topic and what I suspect is hostile intent.

then why no reply to this post?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2683592&postcount=961

It is mainly a clarification of terms used, that concluded with your being in basic agreement with evolution, but only wanting to call it "accumulated variation" instead of the more generally used terms.

Objectivity does not dictate a response to your statements they were not interrogative.

Ah! I'm glad; your response really confused and surprised me! I will delve into your fuller comments ASAP; I have a family matter I'm dealing with at the moment - I'll need to set aside some time to respond in full.

LOL. sorry, sir! I'll try and be more careful with this juggling act.

 

[iceaura]

Thus I learn more from him and understand him better as a fellow human being. I don't have to undergo the arduous task of stripping his statements of the ad hominems, personal agendas and emotionalisms.

You have never learned anything from anyone here.

You are still repeating the same stuff you were stuck on years ago, and when cornered still responding to the more obvious exposures with fogs of gibberish as always.

This merely shows an understanding of mutations as a high cost in heredity
- - -
The probability of passing on the mutation drops the larger the population is alongside the reproductive rate. If that rate is high such as in insects and small mammals like rodents then those mutations have a much higher survival rate to becoming dominant.
- - - -

Thus you should know of my quote... but the combination of billions of organic systems working in concert to create a superior form is against probability. ... was a general statement of the accumulation of traits from abiogenesis to homosapien (simple to complex) on the unlikely hood from beginning of the Earth to current and untraceable lineage of coincidences that are required to reach human complexity. Specifically not just the progression of evolution through advanced forms of life but the creation of these organic systems to work in concert.

A certain allowance is appropriate when people are dealing a bit awkwardly with English, as a foreign language to them, but only if a minimum of good faith is in evidence.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Aren't all christians theists? or are there also the atheist kind?

Is that Simular To a Zen Bhuddist Extreamist?.


Peace.

 

[Ophiolite]

Saquist,
I would not engage in a discussion of standards in drafting without having some knowledge in the field. (An 'O' Level in Technical Drawing from 1963 hardly qualifies!) I certainly would not have the temerity to dismiss those standards in a cavalier fashion when I was ignorant of them and of how they had been derived.

The distinction between somatic and germ cells and the relvance for evolution of mutations in the latter and irrelevance of mutation in the former is one of the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. It's arguably the first thing you say after you have said common descent and natural selection.

Your opinions, expressed in the absence of such fundamental knowledge, are equivalent to an amateur historian questioning the importance of submarine warfare in World War II, then revealing they did not know the Russians took part in the war. It calls into question everything you have had to say on the subject, since it demonstrates with total clarity that you do not understand what evolution is about at the most basic, simple level.

You chide me implicitly for failing to teach you. I am not seeking to teach you. I suspect you are beyond hope. I seek to teach the casual lurker that anything you say may safely be disregarded based upon your own words, your own demonstrable, deep ignorance of the topic.

 

[Saquist]

Saquist,


You chide me implicitly for failing to teach you. I am not seeking to teach you.

Then I have no use for you.
The rest was irrelevant. (MoO) And I couldn't care less.

 

[GeoffP]

I appreciate you candor.
Now allow me to be equally blunt. Your accusation hasn't been proven and I have no requirement or desire to entertain or correct what you are determined to believe.

Saquist:

I checked the last round of debates between you and Ophiolite, BillyT and river-wind. Their responses to you are accurate, precise, and correct. Their frustration with you is evident, and for the obvious reason. Do you have a scientific response to them or not?

 

[Ophiolite]

I Your accusation hasn't been proven and I have no requirement or desire to entertain or correct what you are determined to believe.

And you still don't see it, do you?

 

[Billy T]

... Objectivity does not dictate a response to your statements they were not interrogative...

True, post 961 does not ask any question. It only demonstrates that you have no understanding of evolution or its terminology but actually accept as fact that the preá species evolved from the guinea pig species but only insist on calling it "accumulated variation”, not evolution.

 

[GeoffP]

How about we just ask for a thread close?

 

[Saquist]

True, post 961 does not ask any question. It only demonstrates that you have no understanding of evolution

That's a fallacy.
I'm not here to entertain your beliefs, sir. As Friday was fond of saying, "Just the facts, ma'am"

or its terminology

That's irrelevant. I understand exact definitions. You chose the terminology to use. Like Ophiolite if you want to talk over my head and then ridicule me to emphasize my ignorance...well...that's how you chose to spend your time. But it is still irrelevant and by definition meaningless to me.

but actually accept as fact that the preá species evolved from the guinea pig species but only insist on calling it "accumulated variation”, not evolution.

I never said "accumulated variation."

And you still don't see it, do you?

Senor Ophiolite, I see you earnestly desire my attention.

Saquist:

I checked the last round of debates between you and Ophiolite, BillyT and river-wind. Their responses to you are accurate, precise, and correct.

I love research. It's good for the mind.

[Their frustration with you is evident, and for the obvious reason. Do you have a scientific response to them or not?

GeoffP, Ophilolite's frustration is about the 20 ly from my mind, visible yet completely intangible. And surely you have better things to do than play the spokesman for your frat brothers. I remember exactly what you were supposed to be doing yet you seem to have forgotten and prefer to immerse yourself in the current exchange with the determination to "arbitrate" and judge but you won't find me very cooperative.

The discussion is evolving as it should. I have determined that River-wind speaks with no agenda and has evoked the fewest if any fallacies. Thus I listen to him intently. So I can learn the most from him. Honestly the rest of you are irrelevant. You're in the way, obstacles to be hurdled and avoided. Ophiolite has self excluded himself (as usual,) You're conjuring accusations, and BillyT has obscured his communications with fallacies and meta-messages. Clearly he doesn't wish to be understood. You've injected yourselves and I do you the courtesy of giving reply. You're here not because you're contributing anything useful but because this is your entertainment. I've already recognized and isolated your aggressive behaviors. Once again I'm not going to cooperate or encourage this slew of complexes. I'm going to contradict them either until you fall silent, stop using them or heaven forbid, for time indefinite.

 

[GeoffP]

I love research. It's good for the mind.

I appreciate that you appreciate such a position in isolation.

GeoffP, Ophilolite's frustration is about the 20 ly from my mind, visible yet completely intangible. And surely you have better things to do than play the spokesman for your frat brothers.

Wait until we do the kegger where we beat up on the religious nerds. "Pin the Tail on the Episcopalian Revanchionist" is possibly our favourite activity.

I remember exactly what you were supposed to be doing yet you seem to have forgotten and prefer to immerse yourself in the current exchange with the determination to "arbitrate" and judge but you won't find me very cooperative.

You misunderstand: it's not a determination, but a simple statement of fact. This issue requires it. I am objective, and I am here. The hurdles you imagine are inevitably fortuitous ones for your perspective; and now we are engaged in a battle of words, the more to avoid intelligent discussion, which I think you feel inimical to your argument.

You made no logical or scientific response to their last battery or replies. I believe this means you have surrendered the intellectual high ground. If not, why not respond to them on the grounds of their points, rather than deviate into a discussion of the sources of pique and hubris?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not here to entertain your beliefs, sir. .

Arrogance.

Like Ophiolite if you want to talk over my head and then ridicule me to emphasize my ignorance...well...that's how you chose to spend your time.

Let us be very clear about what is going on here.
1. You demonstrated profound ignorance of one of the fundamental aspects of biology and evolutionary theory.
2. This fundamental concept is likely taught in the first couple of biology lessons in high school.
3. There is nothing wrong with being profoundly ignorant and I did not ridicule you for that ignorance.
4. If I talked over your head that was ultimately your fault for choosing to engage in adult conversation when you have the education of a child.
5. I did ridicule you for that action: having the arrogance, or the stupidity (you choose which youprefer) to argue against evolution when you clearly don't understand the first thing about it.
6. I repeat my amazement: what kind of mentality can be so confident that it accuses others of faith based beliefs and unscientific or illogical thought, when said mentality lacks any kind of fundamental understanding.
7. It makes your native arrogance even more astounding.

Senor Ophiolite, I see you earnestly desire my attention.

I earnestly desire you to stop being a prick. I earnestly desire you to communicate with a degree of humility. I earnestly desire you to actually use that logical thinking you claim to be so proud of. I earnestly desire you to give Billy-T a straight answer. Oh yes, I really do so very earnestly desire that you admit to the lies, equivocation and avoidance that you have employed in that exchange. Quite despicable. Billy-T is much too much of a gentleman to call you on it directly. I have no such compunctions.

The discussion is evolving as it should. .

Yet more self righteous, self indulgent arrogance.


Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

 

[Saquist]

Arrogance.

To the contrary it was a truthful statement.

Let us be very clear about what is going on here.
1. You demonstrated profound ignorance of one of the fundamental aspects of biology and evolutionary theory.

If you say so.

2. This fundamental concept is likely taught in the first couple of biology lessons in high school.

It was not and saying that is only an symptom of your own frustrations.

3. There is nothing wrong with being profoundly ignorant and I did not ridicule you for that ignorance.

If you say so, sir.

4. If I talked over your head that was ultimately your fault for choosing to engage in adult conversation when you have the education of a child.

That's false.
If you're the adult then you should have the wider scope to alter your approach. Or dismiss discussion.

You have stubbornly held your ground. That is your right.
You have consistently provoked discussion.
The fault lies with you.

5. I did ridicule you for that action: having the arrogance, or the stupidity (you choose which youprefer) to argue against evolution when you clearly don't understand the first thing about it.

That's your interpretation and you're welcome to it but I can not find it valid considering the flaws in reasoning you made above.

6. I repeat my amazement: what kind of mentality can be so confident that it accuses others of faith based beliefs and unscientific or illogical thought, when said mentality lacks any kind of fundamental understanding.

This is redundant and irrelevant.

7. It makes your native arrogance even more astounding.

Your observations have been heard and dismissed. I dismiss then on the account of emotional interpretation in which they were presented, I also dismiss them on account of exaggeration and inaccuracy. These appeals to ridicule and appeals to emotions do not a proper argument make.

I earnestly desire you to stop being a prick.

You have no right to desire anything of me.

... communicate with a degree of humility.

I prefer mutual respect.

...use that logical thinking you claim to be so proud of.

You have rejected it in favor of emotional displays.

... to give Billy-T a straight answer.

He did not ask a question.

admit to the lies, equivocation and avoidance that you have employed in that exchange. Quite despicable.

You are welcome to your interpretations but your own behavior will not distinguish you in the annals of diplomacy.

Billy-T is much too much of a gentleman to call you on it directly. I have no such compunctions.

And I have no interest in them.

Yet more self righteous, self indulgent arrogance.

Far from it.

Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

I am not affiliated with any priesthood.

I appreciate that you appreciate such a position in isolation.

If that satisfies you to believe such.

Wait until we do the kegger where we beat up on the religious nerds. "Pin the Tail on the Episcopalian Revanchionist" is possibly our favourite activity.

I wouldn't doubt it.

You misunderstand: it's not a determination, but a simple statement of fact.

A statement yes, but a statement of belief and fallacy.

This issue requires it. I am objective,

You have presumed to dictate to me as to what I think. No, sir. You are no objective.

The hurdles you imagine are inevitably fortuitous ones for your perspective; and now we are engaged in a battle of words, the more to avoid intelligent discussion, which I think you feel inimical to your argument.

I don't have to avoid when you're not pursuing it.

You made no logical or scientific response to their last battery or replies.

LOGICAL RESPONSE? That implies there was a syllogism left incomplete. Yet BillyT clearly finishes his own thoughts and asked nothing of me. Your objectivity and your logic have precipitously failed you, sir.

I believe this means you have surrendered the intellectual high ground. If not, why not respond to them on the grounds of their points, rather than deviate into a discussion of the sources of pique and hubris?

You may believe what you wish. Your beliefs do not define my contrition. They will have no bearings on my thoughts or actions. My emotional state, as always, remains serene and undisturbed.

 

[GeoffP]

Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

Oi've got four drunken knights in the back, mister Slack Bladder.

 

[Saquist]

River-wind

I am extending an invitation to continue our discussion in visitor messages to avoid the circus. I have some candid questions for which to direct to you on accumulated mutations. I'm not opposed to this cantankerous display but I sense I can get more information in a more controlled setting. I leave the choice up to you, it does not matter to me.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

To the contrary it was a truthful statement.

The truth doesn't exist in reality.

If you say so.

He wrote it.

It was not and saying that is only an symptom of your own frustrations.

I wouldn't call frustrations a disease.

If you say so, sir.

He wrote it.

That's false.
If you're the adult then you should have the wider scope to alter your approach. Or dismiss discussion.

puerilistic denial of the smaller scope.

You have stubbornly held your ground. That is your right.

Not in many countries.

You have consistently provoked discussion.

That's what a forum is for.

The fault lies with you.

i think jesus said we all carry the fault.

That's your interpretation and you're welcome to it but I can not find it valid considering the flaws in reasoning you made above.

Is it now an interpretation or reasoning?

This is redundant and irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant then it is irrelevant that it is also redundant. Therefore this statement was redundant and irrelevant.

Your observations have been heard and dismissed. I dismiss then on the account of emotional interpretation in which they were presented, I also dismiss them on account of exaggeration and inaccuracy. These appeals to ridicule and appeals to emotions do not a proper argument make.

I'm going to call the grammar police on this last sentence.

You have no right to desire anything of me.

Unless he is a law enforcement officer and you fall within his jurisdiction.

I prefer mutual respect.

Mutual respect is a myth.

You have rejected it in favor of emotional displays.

Does mean the rejection was wrong.

He did not ask a question.

Questions are more important than answers.

You are welcome to your interpretations but your own behavior will not distinguish you in the annals of diplomacy.

Maybe he is nor pursuing a diplomatic career.

And I have no interest in them.

Me neither.

Far from it.

How far?

I am not affiliated with any priesthood.

Do you aspire priesthood?

If that satisfies you to believe such.

is his satisfaction important to you?

I wouldn't doubt it.

Bit of a theist attitude if you ask me.

A statement yes, but a statement of belief and fallacy.

So belief systems are automatically fallacies? That's interesting.

You have presumed to dictate to me as to what I think. No, sir. You are no objective.

A real scientist would first establish whether you can think.

I don't have to avoid when you're not pursuing it.

that sounds like avoidance.

LOGICAL RESPONSE? That implies there was a syllogism left incomplete. Yet BillyT clearly finishes his own thoughts and asked nothing of me. Your objectivity and your logic have precipitously failed you, sir.

Failed yes! failed to transfer to you!

You may believe what you wish. Your beliefs do not define my contrition. They will have no bearings on my thoughts or actions. My emotional state, as always, remains serene and undisturbed.

Are you a robot?