Vorkosigan

I'm still a newbie here, and I first thought this forum was different than the other atheist forums I've been to, in that ALL viewpoints are treated respectfully, even if they don't agree with yours. The comments that I have seen directed towards randman have been autrocious.

When randman first showed up here, he was treated with respect. He asked many questions and was directed to places where he could find answers. It because obvious that he was a troll interested only in making silly comments, and was then treated accordingly.

Despite this, while some posters indeed treat randman as a troll, some are still polite to him.

If you have questions, by all means post. There have been many fruitful discussions, like the Tricia thread mentioned above.

Vorkosigan
Moderator

DieToDeath

It has been said that mankind is two meals and twenty four hours away from barbarism. Randman evidently misses breakfast and lunch every day. It's not our fault.

Vorkosigan

I just thought I'd lay out some of the original randman threads for everyone's edification, but especially that of WalrusGumBoot. His first appearance was on March 5, as far as I can tell:

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000280" target="_blank">From here</a>:
"Hey, I used to read Pravda a little in Russian, and I always thought their propoganda was overly crude. The more I read of evolutionists like the Talkorigin site, and then compare the rebuttals, the more convinced I am that this is more propoganda than science."

As you can see, earlier in that thread, right after his first post, I warned everyone to be gentle (I believe I was a moderator then). In fact, I was the first person to respond, and no one can claim I was rude. Two other polite and well-documented posts followed, and then randman's claim that it was all propaganda. Then rbochermond with a polite question....then a very long post with a number of often-seen out-of-context quotes of evolutionists from randman...and then still more polite dealings with him. Read the whole thread, in which randman studiously ignored daggah because of his unassailable genetic evidence. still nobody insulted him.

The same day brought us <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000307&p=2" target="_blank">this thread</a>, where randman attempts to forge a weak link between evolution and nazism. While this idea was dismissed as the stupidity it is, randman himself was not attacked for advocating it.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000341&p=2" target="_blank">this too</a> Around the 6th randman intervened on a thread about one of AiG's dumber articles on the Flood. In that thread randman again refers to TalkOrigins as propaganda and extremely disingenuous, but is still not insulted by anyone. In this thread the randman style becomes very apparent as it wears on...numerous direct questions are asked, which randman avoids, while repeating again and again that evolutionary explanations are lies or overselling. <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000347&p=" target="_blank">In another thread</a>, also begun the 5th, randman writes "...but evolutionists beleive in a mysticism even more far-fetched from a scientific perpsective than the Easter Bunny."

You can review the evidence yourself. It's not difficult to read and see clearly that randman's style is to (1)not answer direct questions and (2)insist that everything evolutionary is a deliberate lie.

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000355" target="_blank">Randman's first post</a> is here, he says. The only abusive post in that thread is from Troll Hunter, and that one was on the 6th, by which time it had already become clear what kind of poster randman was. Despite randman's trollishness, the other posters were all restrained.

The whole randman problem was neatly summed up in this <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000365&p=2" target="_blank">classic post by Arrowman</a>:

• Ok, let's do some summing up here.
  - 7:24pm randman makes his initial request for info.
  - 8:18 pm LV provides 2 cladograms and a link to a source on Vertebrate Phylogeny - the total content of which would take several hours (but only several) to read, more to fully digest and understand.
  - 4 minutes later, randman denies LV has made a valid answer; asks LV to simplify the list before he begins his "research".
  - 8:36pm randman is referred to the Talk Origins FAQ on transitionals, and another on hominids. Probably an hour or so's reading there.
  - 8:57pm randman shifts the argument to quotes.
  - Over the next 20 minutes randman is referred to several sources which expose the dishonesty of the creationist quotes, none of which he reads. At 9:17pm randman repeats his assertion that the quotes are valid.
  - 9:18pm LV refers randman to another T.O. FAQ on hominids. Add another hour, maybe, to the reading list.
  - 9:49pm randman continues to defend the misquotes, apparently without having referred to any of the links provided.
  So, randman, in 2 1/2 hours you have been provided with half a dozen pieces of material which are relevant to the questions you have posed, and a sum total of let's say about 5 or 6 hours' reading. People have been very helpful to you.
  
  But throughout that time you have neither read nor promised to read any of the references provided; instead you have simply continued to shift the goalposts and asked people to summarise for you. For Chrissakes how far do you want the story of vertebrate evolution summarised down?!?! The guys have already brought it down to a few hours.
  
  Also, you have been referred to several sources which expose the invalidity of the quotes you have used. Again, you refuse to refer to that material.
  
  Do you think anyone here should take you seriously???

This thread also displayed classic randman behavior -- the refusal to admit that his quotes were wrong, the refusal to respond to direct questions, the refusal to deal with evidence brought forth and the continued repeating of already-refuted claims. The community has been extremely tolerant.

In short, your charge is unfounded.

Vorkosigan
moderator

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Baidarka

From -WalrusGumBoot "However, why couldn't God EVOLVE? We as humans have evolved intelligence and can do incredible things in science - all from the dust of the earth. Why can't a spiritual being evolve?"
Since we have invented all the Gods they have evolved as we have evolved them. Even within the same religion we can find differing conceptions of God created by the minds of different believers.

Gods are our creations. They Evolve.
Randman is right to define God as he wishes! Which of course makes his concept of God only relevant to those who share his concept.

randman

"I'm still straddling the creation/evolution fence, and I need some answers from BOTH sides of the fence to try to come to my own conclusions. But it seems like it is always the same: creationist presents their arguments and naturalists ridicules and belittles him. It's like some major ego trip that naturalists are on which makes them arrogant and downright rude."

I began being gracious, but quickly learned that this isn't what these type evolutionists are about. Thanks for your comments.

The truth is the data is not conclusive to support either evolution, or creationism, or ID in the sense to prove it, but the evolutionists have always maintained that evolution has been proven, even "for 150 years" regardless of the data. Basically, the reason they get so upset is that they rely in large measure on overstating thier case and thus cannot just rely on the facts when confronted. They want to silence their critics, and as you will quickly see, anyone that brings up something that makes evolutionary theory look weak, they will go crazy, and essentially scream and holler, and then if you start responding in kind, despite the fact there are 20 of them and 1 of you, they will accuse you of starting the whole mess, etc,...In short their tactics are disingenious because so is thier case.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

Hastur

WGB: If you're still interested, do precisely what Randman just said. Bring up a weakness in the ToE. (Theory of Evolution) Ask that it be explained.

Then do what Randman has always and will always refuse to do. Listen to the explanation. Read the material provided. If it's obtuse, you can come back here for clarification and we'll all do our best. The conversation will start and remain respectful as long as (unlike Randy-boy) you avoid making it clear you're a time-wasting, pointless troll with no purpose other than to annoy us with the same easily-refuted claptrap we've all seen a thousand times before.

Previous posters here have shown you why Randman has only reaped as he has sown. If you're honest with us and don't 'reap' you won't wind up 'sowing' as Randman has.

The balls' in your court, we're happy to help.

lpetrich

So randman is claiming that there is no convincing evidence for creationism or ID?

And I wonder if randman is willing to extend this skepticism to other fields, such as the shape and motions of the Earth, the chemical elements, genetics, etc.

Is he willing to consider the view that the Earth is flat and stationary?

Is he willing to ask why the Periodic Table of Elements has no place in it for earth, air, fire, or water?

Is he willing to consider:

The inheritance of acquired characters? (Lamarckism)
The environment directly shaping heredity? (Geoffroyism)
Internal forces driving evolution? (orthogenesis)

hezekiah jones

First of all no one has ever alleged that any of the above has been "proven." randman here, with his use of the term, is repeating the tedious creationist conflation of science with the rules of logic and mathematics. He is also implying that evolution, creationism, and intelligent design are all equally viable as scientific theories that explain both the diversity and similarity of life on earth, despite the fact that two of them appeal to supernatural intervention, a topic by definition entirely off limits to scientific inquiry.

Thus not only has randman demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the empirical observations that support evolution, his understanding of issues raised in the philosophy of science is practically non-existent.

randman is continually revealing his incredibly restrictive view of science, typical of creationist propagandists, that would allow scientists little more than the ability to point at things and name them. In other words randman's woefully myopic view of science disallows perfectly legitimate and reasonable (and testable) inferences from empirical observations.

Despite all this one might assume that randman would allow for the existence of electrons, for example. Even though electrons are not observed in the colloquial sense, experiments are devised that bridge the philosophical gap between theoretical and empirically demonstrable terms and entities.

Several times these broader issues have been brought to randman's attention yet he chooses to ignore them, often preferring instead to use his time here to quote Bible verses. In fact it remains unclear, as demonstrated by the above quotation, whether randman even knows the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

Pure assertion, entirely belied by the huge amount of information presented to randman over the course of his 400 posts. Conversely randman has yet to present a "fact" that poses a danger to evolution.

Utter nonsense, and another baseless charge that randman has made several times in the past. His posts have never once been deleted. In the cases in which randman had descended into desperate ranting and preaching, threads were moved to another more appropriate forum.

Most posters here, I would imagine, rather than "go crazy," would be delighted to have presented evidence that makes evolutionary theory look weak. I suspect such information would pose an interesting challenge to many regulars here. Unfortunately randman has presented little, if any.

By the same token it undoubtedly strains the patience of many of those same posters when the same ill-informed nonsense gleaned from Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati is presented over and over again, as if it is evidence of revolutionary new discoveries.

So, from my perspective at least, randman has little else to offer save repeating the same tired assertions ad nauseam. It is plain that randman's opposition to science as practiced is motivated entirely by politics, much like his colleagues in the "creation science" and "intelligent design" movements.

In short another typically and utterly baseless randmandian assertion.

scigirl

1) What facts? Aside from bible quotes and ad homs, I have failed to see one piece of scientific data emanating from ANY of your posts.

2) How does your theory about the evil evolutionist conspiracy fit with the characterization of many scientists as "dogma challengers" who would love to prove another scientist wrong?

3) Have you ever done science, or spent time in a laboratory? What makes YOU an expert on science, or how science works, or how scientists operate?

4) Have you ever ever read a journal such as science or nature, where it is obvious to anyone, even with an IQ of 70, that many scientists enjoy, and strive to prove theories wrong. In fact, it's how a lot of science works.

You have repeated these same claims over and over and over again: evolutionists (whatever that means) are suppressing the data, hiding evidence, etc etc. Do you have specific examples? Proof? Evidence? Or are you going to hide behind religion again, "These are my personal feeeeeeelings, I can't Prooooooove them."

Randman, you are a perfect proof that your claims are full of baloney. YOU are a critic, and instead of banning or deleting your posts, you are encouraged to debate us (and for some damn reason, we keep replying, instead of doing something useful, like picking dog hair out of the carpet). The fact is, you are wrong, and you don't like to be wrong. It's not a big evil atheist communist evilutionist conspiracy, it's science. The scientists are right about this one, and you are not. Get over it.

Put up or shut up.

scigirl

scigirl

randman,

Ok that last post was a little angry. Sorry if I came across as mean. It's just that. . . I'm a scientist, and people who come here and spout things like "evolutionists are suppressing the opposition" make me mad, because these people obviously have no idea how science works. At all.

Scientists rarely refer to themselves as "evolutionists." Yes there is a subset of biologists that study evolution. But the majority of scientists study something else. And - I think you are quite confused about the motives of these so-called 'evolutionists.' They don't sit around in white coats all day thinking, "Hmm, how are we going to prove those pesky creationists wrong after all?" Believe it or not randman, but most scientists are not out to destroy Christianity or disprove the bible or any of that nonsense many YECS come here whining about. No, they are trying to increase human knowledge of some system, often with the intent of improving the human condition as one of the goals. Curing cancer, making a better wheat species, finding ways to reduce pollution, preserving habitats and wildlife, making computers run more efficiently, etc. In addition, science is very competitive. Scientists, like businessmen, also worry about getting funded. Very few scientists are even aware of the 'evolution creation controversy,' since they just falsely assume that people are educated and understand science.

Another thing. Consider this: most evidence for evolution is collected by non-evolutionary biologists, for some other purpose. For instance, my lab studies the immune system. We are currently characterizing the components of a cell called the neutrophil, which is important in fighting off bacterial infections. One way to figure out how they work is to compare and contrast the proteins in different species. So, we have sequenced the cow, bison, rabbit, and human oxidase genes. Now we are trying to figure out how the differences in sequence translate into functional differences, in the hopes of someday creating cures for neutrophil disorders.

When we take these sequences we have collected and analyze them using a phylogenetic program, we find that the differences are exactly what evolutionary tree predict. I.E. Bison and cattle genes are more closely related to each other than they are to humans, and the amounts of differences between all the species correlate with what we know about human, rabbit, and cow evolutionary trees. But we don't care so much about that - we are trying to cure arthritis and mastitis. And we are trying to get grants.

Much of the data, especially the sequence data, that supports evolution, was collected in a similar fashion: by laboratories that were not trying to prove or disprove evolution, but that had a very vested interest in knowing the actual true sequences. See our lab could skew results so that our data "matches" evolution (actually we don't need to , but even if we did. . . ) but since our goal is to honestly understand how neutrophils work, than this would hurt us.

Do you understand this concept?? Please let me know if it is unclear. The basic message: A lot of evidence supporting evolution was collected for some other more noble purpose. There's no conspiracy, randman.

scigirl