pz

OK, it's like poopooing engineering without understanding algebra. Better?

Vanderzyden

In the first place, your analogy doesn't fit our discussion. Many engineers do not need to know how to weld in order to write software, develop chemical processes, or design a prothesis. Even mechanical engineers do not need to know how to weld in order to design a bridge or a building. It is advantageous, but rather unnecessary.

Second, the study of mutations does not seem to be basic genetics. It is an advanced, and nebulous, sub-topic.

Third, you act like its incredibly difficult to learn this stuff. I expect I will find that it is not. You know, I got the same puffy attitude concerning cardiovascular anatomy in this <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001540&p=6" target="_blank">thread</a>, and yet I have shown the "design critics" the silliness of their outrageous claims.

I shall review the material that scigirl and others have kindly provided and return here soon.

John

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Nat

"You know, I got the same puffy attitude concerning cardiovascular anatomy in this thread, and yet I have shown the "design critics" the silliness of their outrageous claims."

Not from my reading of the thread.

Do you realize that it is because of ridiculous chest beating like this (especially when it it is totally unwarranted) that you are considered little more than an arrogant prick around here - even by many of your fellow Christians?

By the way, basic study of mutations is really basic Genetics - your lack of knowledge on the subject is not necessarily a problem, but your adamant demands for others to teach you what you need to know instead of doing a Google search or checking out a high school level genetics text is. As proof of its basicness, I offer myself. I am but a lowly physicist that has taken a single biology class since high school, yet I have at least a basic understanding of what a mutation is.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Nat ]</p>

S2Focus

Probably for the same reason that I waste my time reading his posts -- I get to sample some "Jerry Springer" type entertainment while reassuring myself that I'd never actually stoop so low as to watch the Jerry Springer show.

(However, reading the responses to Vanderzyden's silliness is decidedly not a waste of time -- hats off to the knowledgeable folks here who are willing to post substantive replies to Vanderzyden's drivel. Vanderzyden may not be learning anything from these exchanges, but rest assured there are plenty of lay-people --like me -- who are.)

Anyway, I can't help but noticing that Vanderzyden is quite the "army of one". It's Vanderzyden against the world here. You'd think that if he were really scoring some serious points in these discussion threads, we'd be seeing some scientifically-literate creationists jump in and help Vanderzyden kick some serious evilutionist butt here.

So why is it that nobody seems to be willing to jump in and act as Vanderzyden's "wing-man"?

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: S2Focus ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Do you think I feel lonely? Do you think I care that I might be the only one of my kind here? Do you think I value the praise of men?

Think again.

I will tell you the reason why few creationists contribute here. It is because of the corrosive environment. Look at your last post here, and Nat's. The worst comes from folks like PZ (who is a moderator!). If even the moderators are so incredibly nasty, then few people with opposing beliefs will want to contribute. There is very little incentive to engage or maintain a discussion when there is so much ridicule, insults, and profanity. In my experience, the Evolution/Creation forum is by far the worst of all the Philosophical Forums. That is one reason why I took a break from it.

Here is something for you to think about. It is clear that many of the Darwinists here think that they have found the truth. However, the tone and content of their posts betray them. False confidence, high emotion, insults, impoliteness, failure to acknowledge the merits of opposing arguments, failure to make concession, an unhealthy emphasis on "education" and credentials, etc, etc. These are not the signs of those who are lovers of wisdom. These are not the indications that correlate to those who possess real knowledge. These are not the traits that we find in those who have critically examined their worldview.

I will tell you something, part of my motivation is quite selfish. As I have mentioned before, I am looking to test my beliefs. I want to find the truth. I will approach it more nearly when I seriously consider the views of those who would hold beliefs that are directly opposite of mine. Here at Infidels, I "bench test" what I have come to know. Furthermore, I learn the details about topics that I have only a basic understanding.


John

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Nat

"False confidence, high emotion, insults, impoliteness, failure to acknowledge the merits of opposing arguments, failure to make concession, an unhealthy emphasis on "education" and credentials, etc, etc."

Why is it that you are so capable of seeing failings in others, but are completely incapable of seeing them in yourself? I would apply everything above to you more than any one else in this forum.

BTW - you mentioned that my last post was rude. Did you happen to notice that it was a direct response to a ridiculously rude and arrogant statement made by you? I even quoted you directly, so it shouldn't be too hard to miss.

Introspection - it is a good trait, try it some time.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Nat ]</p>

pz

Except for that 'unhealthy emphasis on "education"' bit, perhaps. I wouldn't ever accuse Vanderzyden of putting a high value on education.

Nat

He was the one that was questioning Dr. Rick's credentials for so long on the other thread. He only said that they were irrelevant when he realized that Rick was actually a surgeon.

Vanderzyden

Don't worry, Nat. I am well aware of my numerous shortcomings.

Please, go ahead and indicate what is rude or arrogant about my statement. Oh, before you do, go back and read the "sub-optimal design" thread and consider the outrageous role of design critic that is played by the author of the OP and his supporters. Tell me if you don't see all kinds of insulting content directed at me. As I did in that thread, I challenge you to find one insult that I have written.


John

Blinn

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction- Vanderzyden is going to come back with a post along the lines of the following:

I'm sorry, folks, but none of replies so far have been substantive. It's the same ol' stuff. What I find most interesting is the lack of presented evidence for NATURAL POINT MUTATIONS. The links contain nothing but pure speculation. Without such evidence, the discussion is fruitless, and we might as well move on to other more important topics. Would someone please direct me to some good resources for this supposed phenomenon?"

Just a guess though.