Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vanderzyden · 10-26-2002, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nat:

...An inverted fetus would not just have problems leaving the womb, but would also have serious pressure issues. Of course, this does not happen, and fetuses can often have inverted positions in the womb without causing substantial changes in fetal blood pressure.

Your argument is weak.

You have not shown this to be the case with your two-sentence response.

If you wish to discuss the topic further, go back to the relevant thread and do it there.

John

Nat · 10-26-2002, 04:33 PM

"These are not insults. Please explain why they are insulting. It would seem that they are characterizations."

I agree they are not insulting - they are just characterizations.

Just as pointing out the demonstrated characterization that you are an arrogant prick is not an insult. It is, as you say, a characterization.

You arrogant prick.

Again, I ask you to at least try for a moment to be introspective. You might actually learn something.

Vanderzyden · 10-26-2002, 06:44 PM

Nice.

Did you learn your skills from PZ, perhaps?

You have reinforced what I have just been saying in this thread. I can see that there is nothing more to say to you.

John

Blinn · 10-26-2002, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


I think that you are partially correct, Z.

Here is my prediction. I will return with many questions about mutations in general. I will ask for strong evidence of observation outside of the laboratory. I will point out the contradictions that I have seen so far in this thread. etc, etc.

John

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

You would save yourself and many of us Infidels a lot of frustration if you came into this forum prepared to discuss evolutionary topics, i.e., a basic understanding of general biology is a prerequisite.

You don't (or didn't) understand the mechanisms of meiosis or various mutations. If you don't understand these things, then you don't understand evolutionary mechanisms.

And then you ask to be presented with explanations, when you could easily do a Google search to find widely available material. That's either (a) laziness, or (b) trolling. Why should we bother? You'd ought to be gratefully thanking scigirl and the others who use there precious time to try and educate you on subjects that you should have learned in high school.

Zetek

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]

pz · 10-26-2002, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zetek:


You would save yourself and many of us Infidels a lot of frustration if you came into this forum prepared to discuss evolutionary topics, i.e., a basic understanding of general biology is a prerequisite.

I think it's also reasonable to come in without that background, as long as one is prepared to learn and is not spouting off a lot of declarations about evolution that are based on one's ignorance.

RufusAtticus · 10-26-2002, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Actually it applies quite well, since mechanical engineers might not know how to weld, but they must understand the properties of welds. Now since I don't understand welds, how can I poopoo the engineering techniques that rely on them?

Quote:

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

Nope. Every student in my basic genetics course is expected to understand not only mutations, but the mechanisms that produce them.

Quote:

Third, you act like its incredibly difficult to learn this stuff. I expect I will find that it is not.

It is not hard to understand, but the fact that you yourself admit that you don't understand it clearly makes me wonder why you are so confident in poopooing evolution.

Nickle · 10-26-2002, 07:44 PM

Let's get back on subject here. Vanderzyden, you were about to respond to sci-girl's posts when we last let off. Let's get back to that, that way you can more effectively challenge your beliefs.

RufusAtticus · 10-26-2002, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
I will tell you the reason why few creationists contribute here. It is because of the corrosive environment.

Welcome to peer review.

Quote:

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.

If you have a complaint about a moderator, please post it in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=7" target="_blank">Complaints Fourm</a>.

Quote:

Here is something for you to think about. It is clear that many of the Darwinists here think that they have found the truth.

It amazing what a little education can do. How about you reserve your conclusions about "Darwinists" until after you learn some basic biology?

Quote:

failure to acknowledge the merits of opposing arguments

Assuming that any exist . . . .

Quote:

an unhealthy emphasis on "education" and credentials, etc, etc.

Why is it unhealthy to expect critics to know the subject material?

lpetrich · 10-26-2002, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

... I will tell you the reason why few creationists contribute here. It is because of the corrosive environment. ...

Vanderzyden, let me tell you something I've told you before.

You are not the Pope.

And even if you were, we would not kiss your feet. I certainly wouldn't.

So I suggest that you stop expecting us to metaphorically kiss your feet.

Vanderzyden · 10-26-2002, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zetek:


You don't (or didn't) understand the mechanisms of meiosis or various mutations. If you don't understand these things, then you don't understand evolutionary mechanisms.

Non-sequitur. That is, one does not follow from the other. First, there are no demonstrable "evolutionary mechanisms". Second, you don't need to understand cell division and mutations in great detail to know that precious little evidence exists to support the various theories which claim that some such mechanism(s) is in operation in nature.

John

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-26-2002, 04:33 PM	#72
Nat Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 100	"These are not insults. Please explain why they are insulting. It would seem that they are characterizations." I agree they are not insulting - they are just characterizations. Just as pointing out the demonstrated characterization that you are an arrogant prick is not an insult. It is, as you say, a characterization. You arrogant prick. Again, I ask you to at least try for a moment to be introspective. You might actually learn something.

10-26-2002, 06:44 PM	#73
Vanderzyden Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 694	Nice. Did you learn your skills from PZ, perhaps? You have reinforced what I have just been saying in this thread. I can see that there is nothing more to say to you. John

10-26-2002, 07:44 PM	#77
Nickle Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 385	Let's get back on subject here. Vanderzyden, you were about to respond to sci-girl's posts when we last let off. Let's get back to that, that way you can more effectively challenge your beliefs.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.