Thread for Jan... what would it take?

Silas,

Why did you post those links? Perhaps you should quote what you believe is relevant to this thread.

Oh, and if you don't like my... uhhh... 'nequitte', feel free to make a NEW thread to bitch in. But don't derail this one.
 
Jan responds:

1. What do you believe constitutes as a 'fact'? ”

Something which is known to be the case.

A "scientific fact" is an observation which has been comfirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true, although its truth is never final.

2. What evidence do you require to convince you that 'macroevolution' (ergo. common descent) is a fact? ”

Evidence that conforms to the above definitions.

Since there is plenty of evidence that meets your criteria, why are you still not convinced?
 
mountainhare said:
Silas,
Why did you post those links? Perhaps you should quote what you believe is relevant to this thread..
Click to expand...
Mountainhare please select the reply below which you find most satisfactory:

Option 1: Ease up a little Mountainhare. Although Jan can be very frustrating it is probably counterproductive to leap into an attack on everyone who may disagree with your methodology, but is actually supportive of your technical views and ultimate objectives.
A cursory examination of my own posts will reveal I do not suffer fools gladly, but Silas is no fool. Your attack on him is more in danger of derailing your thread than his calm appeal for a measure of politeness: an appeal that I would respectfully second.

Option 2:Mountainhare you dumb ass mother fucker, why did he post those links? Because in your self centred brain dead arrogance you claimed Silas did not know what he is talking about. It is abundantly clear that a) he does; b) that you are so wrapped up in your masturbatory fantasy of pinning Jan that you will shit on anyone who doesn't exactly follow your process for achieving this.
Now apologise to Silas or I'll so derail this and every other thread you start that you'll retire to a monastery within the year.
 
Ophiolite,

So now Silas and you are trying to lecture me on how to converse with Creationuts? If I want to be led around in circles by a Creationut who has me by the nose ring, I'll come to Silas for advice. If I want a Creationut to actually answer a question, I'll continue my method of operation. Silas doesn't like my current methods? Then he can go fuck himself, because I don't give a shit. I have tried his 'calm' approach time and time again with Creationuts, and have been rewarded with frustration after frustration, evasion after evasion.

Every time I have a discussion with a Creationut, my opinion of them drops lower and lower. If you ask them to clarify their flawed position, or if you shove a piece of evidence in their faces, they flee like rats from a sinking ship. Then they appear on another thread, squeaking the same song and acting as though their claims have never been adequately addressed. Why can't Creationists act with even a modicum of dignity or honesty? Why do they bitch and whine when scientists lose patience and display frustration and annoyance?

This thread is a classic example of my description above. When I put some very simple questions to Jan, he gives as vague an answer as possible, and then runs off.

And it's ironic that you imply that I 'ease off' the insults, which you think are 'counterproductive', when you do the damn same thing with other Creationuts. Quite simply, I give these people all the respect that they are due, which is none. Perhaps when they clarify their position, talk science instead of rhetoric, stop the evasiveness, and drop the holier-than-thou attitude, I might respond by dropping my 'abusive' and 'counter-productive' behaviour. If you don't want to be laughed at, then don't have such funny beliefs.

If Jan actually answers the fucking questions I posted here, then I might ease up on him. But until then... there is no way I'm allowing this rat to escape his leaky ship.

Once again:
Jan:

1. What do you believe constitutes as a 'fact'?

2. What evidence do you require to convince you that 'macroevolution' (ergo. common descent) is a fact?

3. What mechanism prevents small genetic changes ('microevolution') from accumulating to produce 'macroevolution' (a large change)?
Click to expand...
 
I am not asking you to ease up on Jan - in a competition to see who had been more insulting to her I think I would win over you by three obsecenities and an unsolicited invective. I am suggesting that it is not helpful to tell intelligent, thoughtful, educated posters such as Silas, who are on the same side of the debate as you and me, to "go fuck himself". It is uncalled for and weakens, on an emotional, not a logical level, the thrust of your argument.
 
mountainhare said:
1. What do you believe constitutes as a 'fact'?

2. What evidence do you require to convince you that 'macroevolution' (ergo. common descent) is a fact?

3. What mechanism prevents small genetic changes ('microevolution') from accumulating to produce 'macroevolution' (a large change)?
Click to expand...
if you don't mind, i would like to answer

1. there are no "facts" only theories

2. common descent as in what, evolution or abiogenesis?

3. there is nothing preventing evolution
 
Ophiolite said:
I am not asking you to ease up on Jan - in a competition to see who had been more insulting to her
Click to expand...
ha, i have both of you beat
i've been BANNED for insulting a poster
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top