Wyz_sub10

Honestly, for once I'd just like to see you answer a question with an answer instead of another question.

You are a very frustrating poster. Whether I agreed with your position or not, I'd have far more respect for you if you were to just answer the questions you claim you want to be asked.

If you do not have the courage to stand by your convictions and just respond to the questions asked in a straightforward way (or at least provide some relevant critique), then please do not waste everyone's time.

I had read many threads with you participating and it's always the same MO.

Please, just pick one of Oolon's "poor design" examples that you do not agree with, and tell us why it's good design.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Who WOULDN'T?

Oolon Colluphid

I'd like to see him get an MRSA infection... and then, as the vancomycin failed too, ask him why the antibiotics didn't work when they used to.

More evasion from vander. I strongly doubt he'd believe his own eyes if he dissected the salamander himself. If you doubt the salamander, how about the creatures Filo posted links about?

Vander, if (rather than when) you address the question, maybe I'll answer yours. I'm anticipating a long wait. In other words, I shall not be feeding the troll.

{edited for content - scigirl}

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

I don't want Vanderzyden to go away. I had long decided to ignore his posts. He represents the ill people we have in the society. No society is normal without abnormal people. In serious debates, children and insane people are ignored, NOT gagged.
So just ignore the pesky little twaddling twerp.

Camaban

look at it this way...

the more Vander posts, the more he looks like a fool, the weaker the creationist position(and credibility) becomes to any undecided lurkers, the more properly educated people we get, the less Cobb County deals we get.

if blatant idiots didn't defend creationism, it might still have some credibility (even if they few active supporters )

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Camaban ]</p>

Bialar Crais

WTF? "The pictures doesn't show the black spots"? There's a shitload of references detailing creatures that lives in a dark environment, who does not need eyes, but have vestigal/reduced eues (these phrases you got caught on basically means the same). Now, please prettyprettypleasewithsugahontop, explain why an intelligent designer would put reduced eyes on creatures who has no need of eyes?


No shit, Sherlock! But why did the designer put eye-parts on creatures that does not need them? Why not remove these vestigal eye parts as well?

Evolution explains it perfectly. Ancestor with eyes living in the light. A split, one part continues in light, othergoes to occupy a niche in dark caves. As years passes, and eyes are useless, any mutation reducing the eyes function will not be selected against. Result, species with parts of eyes.

Yah, all the threads you've ever participated in, you've weaseled your way out of answering any questions, or the need to backup any of your assertions.

Doubting Didymus

Kevin and Oolon.

I very much appreciate your combined work, but what is it doing as a thread? You seem concerned, or at least disappointed, that the thread has become an attempt to wrestle a response to the list out of vanderzyden. Exactly what did you expect from a thread? Even if no creationist ever wanted to make debate, the destiny of any thread is to eventually dissapear on page thirteen and then get shuffled off to the preevious posts forums.

Your work is too good for that, and it should be archived in the library or used to update the talkorigins version, as someone else pointed out.

As it stands, I am a just little bit glad to see vanderzyden back here. It takes a lot of time and effort, but it IS possible to wrestle some responses from him. This thread should not be closed.

As a matter of fact, it looks to be progressing in much the same way as scigirls chromosome fusion thread. First: demand a more detailed and specific overview of the topic. Second: dispute that the data is actually how we represent it Third: after being shown that the data is accurate, complain about rudeness and leave. Finally, pretend that you were not brutally beaten by postponing further discussion until 'corroborating evidence' is produced, no matter how often such evidence is put forth.

Vanderzyden himself will never budge, even to the point of suggesting that vestigial eyes do not exist, but were made up by Oolon colluphid. However, while this gives the impression that the discussion is going nowhere, just imagine the damage that vanderzydens dirty, evasive tactics are doing to creationistm/ID. Imagine the impression a casual onlooker would get from reading this thread.

If we all bash our heads against brick walls, eventually the walls must come down.

Camaban

and if the wall that's being banged against doesn't, the vibrations made will at least bring a few others down.

Clutch

I agree that VZ should not be gagged (though of course that is not what pz was proposing). He is too good a weapon against creationism.

Anyone reading any of the threads in which he has exercised his method comes away with a clear sense of the rational poverty of his position. Consider his argument on this very thread: There are too many counterexamples; therefore I cannot pick even one of them to refute.

You can't buy that sort of gorgeous demonstration of the desperation and lack of integrity that characterizes creationism. And VZ just blithely volunteers it!

As I said previously, someone like Vanderdodging will never be embarrassed by his own methods. But you can embarrass his position, whether he has the wit to realize it or not, just by letting him display its emptiness.

Vanderzyden

In a recent post, someone wrote that I should "stand by my convictions". What does that mean? What does anyone here know about my convictions?

Also, I see that several people are very frustrated. Well, I can't do anything about that. These folks should observe that no other opponents are responding to this list. Why is that? Perhaps those who are frustrated here would like to think that's because this list represents a strong case. Well, I think it has more to do with the horrible attitude that is on display. I can say this with confidence, since I have spent a significant amount of time in other forums. Here in the E/C forum, the (1) disposition and (2) willingness to dialogue of many of the participants (and some of the moderators!) are hardly attractive.

Another complaint is that I am "evading" this issue. But how can this be? Here I am. This is not my list. I am the recipient of this list. I didn't raise the issue. This is yet another one of those "challenges" with little or no explanatory power. Some would think this list represents "hard work", but I insist that it isn't suitable for publication, since it doesn't explain anything in detail. For convenience, I will again indicate my concerns. In particular, I direct them at Oolon.

Some problems I see:

-- The pictures (even the large one) do not show the small "black spots".

-- None of the content in any of the links specifically elaborates upon the presence of vestigial eyes

--Some of the links indicate "reduced eyes" instead of "black spots" or "vestigial eyes". Which is it?

Most importantly, it seems that these salamanders live in caves, where there is no light. Why is that? Why don't they live in the light? Perhaps it is because THEY DON'T NEED LIGHT.

One more thing: Is this link that you provided supposed to be a joke? Or was it a mistake?

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm</a>

Please address them. Otherwise, we may consider the matter closed.


Vanderzyden