Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 04-22-2002, 04:47 AM

Evidently I do, since his position is:

Quote:

Over the years, my discussions on the internet (as well as my own search for the truth) have gradually convinced me that evolution is true (when I first started, I didn't even accept that), common descent is true, and that humans did evolve from apes

(just for you Oolon!).

As I said, DNAunion basically only ever argues about the origin of life. Hey, who remembers what his first post was about though?

Quetzal · 04-22-2002, 06:13 AM

Yeah, leonarde. I did in fact ask DNAunion what was his take on evolution. He answered. I don't see anything in that post to argue about. Why would any "undergraduate in biology" want to refute something that didn't conflict with what they'd been taught? About the only bone of contention seems to be a philosophical difference of opinion - an argument I have no interest in. Outside of that, DNAunion hasn't posted anything controversial - IOW there's nothing to refute.

Now YOU, on the other hand, are really starting to become a pain, having totally hijacked this thread and posted nearly three complete pages of absolutely nothing. Would you mind terribly either posting something substantive, or taking your ball and bat and playing in another forum for awhile (may I suggest RRP or Humor)?

leonarde · 04-22-2002, 10:15 AM

Don't agree about the hijacking: Scientiae and DNA
started going at it about STAR TREK toward the bottom of PAGE ONE. Then at top of page 2 Kevin
took a gratuitous swipe at ARN and DNAunion. I tried to clarify both DNA's knowledge level and how he fit into ARN. I'm sorry if that proved disruptive but the topic was already "off" before I made it to the thread. To ME hijacking would include, say, accusing the person who did the original post of NOT being who he said he/she
was. I didn't do that or anything like that.
Cheers!

Principia · 04-22-2002, 06:29 PM

At <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000107" target="_blank">ARN:</a>

Quote:

Though I'm far from an out-and-out elitist, I was thinking that SOME of the difficulties with new members could be mitigated by having a two-tiered membership. What I mean is that for the first 80 or 100 posts there should be a sort of probationary membership in which the member was limited to IDurc and the basement. This would enable us to have a feeling-out process: is this person really interested in the topic of ID or not? It would also discourage "impulse-joining" for want of a better term: oooow a famous/controvertial figure is posting so I better register just so I can talk to him/her. The impulsive joiner may be as innocent as a lamb but the effect is still to water down longer term membership. This idea is far from perfect; it is not a substitute for moderators or for rules (the new ones are good!) or for the general civility that we strive for. Still I think it would help prevent the chaotic stuff that happened the week or two before March 15th.

*laugh* As if there weren't enough rules curtailing the influx of ideas at ARN already [1 thread a day? 3 posts tops, at the discretion of the moderators?]. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what IDists apparently would like to discuss: regulation and ccensorship of information and ideas. Or more formerly: politics. Why? All to maintain the appearance that ARN is comprised of 'mature' and 'scientific-minded' folks, bar none. Wow, these new rules would just make me to go over and make up 80-100 posts in their <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=12" target="_blank">infamous basement</a>.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

SC

Principia · 04-22-2002, 07:28 PM

More 'science' from ARNies. Apparently, Newton's laws of gravity are so completely inconsistent with Special Relativity, so that it is useful only for <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000106" target="_blank">"a small set of problems"</a>:

Quote:

ME=="Newton was Wrong about gravity.
Plain wrong. Period.
The equations subsequently formulated as explanations are NOT CORRECT.
They SEEMED to be correct only because of--
OUR limited understanding and knowledge and capabilities---AT That Time.
This is very Importand to grasp and absorb.
Newton was wrong!!
I have a theory which only works in my living room. Is this correct???? NO!
A more Accurate measurement dis=proves my theory.
Newton's metaphor of an apple being "pulled" to the ground and of the earth being "pulled" around the sun is also now not accepted.
Newton was WRONG again.
ALA the TOE---it is important that we realize that accepted meausrements and theories and equations can be COMPLETELY wrong, and still be accepted---but-Why are they defended NOW???==Julbon

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Quetzal · 04-22-2002, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Don't agree about the hijacking: Scientiae and DNA
started going at it about STAR TREK toward the bottom of PAGE ONE. Then at top of page 2 Kevin
took a gratuitous swipe at ARN and DNAunion. I tried to clarify both DNA's knowledge level and how he fit into ARN. I'm sorry if that proved disruptive but the topic was already "off" before I made it to the thread. To ME hijacking would include, say, accusing the person who did the original post of NOT being who he said he/she
was. I didn't do that or anything like that.
Cheers!

Well now, that depends. If you were to simply post an assertion like that, I'd probably agree with you. OTOH, if you felt you had some logical basis for calling into question that identity, and posted the reasons, then I'd say it was a legitimate post. Of course, if you spend three pages pushing the issue after it has been relatively satisfied, then that too would be a "hijack".

However, that doesn't change the fact that you have well and truly hijacked this thread. Whatever the initial off-topic post, the fact that you see fit to spend 3+ pages on non-substantive drivel qualifies.

Moderator: I recommend this thread either be closed (with apologies to Half-life whose quite legitimate question seems to have been completely buried), or move the thread to RRP. Thanks.

Oolon Colluphid · 04-23-2002, 02:16 AM

Quite right Morpho. I was wondering if it would ever get back near its nominal topic, but it's now too far gone.

Those who wish to continue this can do so in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=47&SUBMIT=Go" target="_blank">Rants, Raves, Preaching etc</a>.

TTFN, Oolon

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

04-22-2002, 06:13 AM	#82
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Yeah, leonarde. I did in fact ask DNAunion what was his take on evolution. He answered. I don't see anything in that post to argue about. Why would any "undergraduate in biology" want to refute something that didn't conflict with what they'd been taught? About the only bone of contention seems to be a philosophical difference of opinion - an argument I have no interest in. Outside of that, DNAunion hasn't posted anything controversial - IOW there's nothing to refute. Now YOU, on the other hand, are really starting to become a pain, having totally hijacked this thread and posted nearly three complete pages of absolutely nothing. Would you mind terribly either posting something substantive, or taking your ball and bat and playing in another forum for awhile (may I suggest RRP or Humor)?

04-22-2002, 10:15 AM	#83
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Don't agree about the hijacking: Scientiae and DNA started going at it about STAR TREK toward the bottom of PAGE ONE. Then at top of page 2 Kevin took a gratuitous swipe at ARN and DNAunion. I tried to clarify both DNA's knowledge level and how he fit into ARN. I'm sorry if that proved disruptive but the topic was already "off" before I made it to the thread. To ME hijacking would include, say, accusing the person who did the original post of NOT being who he said he/she was. I didn't do that or anything like that. Cheers!

04-23-2002, 02:16 AM	#87
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Quite right Morpho. I was wondering if it would ever get back near its nominal topic, but it's now too far gone. Those who wish to continue this can do so in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=47&SUBMIT=Go" target="_blank">Rants, Raves, Preaching etc</a>. TTFN, Oolon

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.