Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr Rick · 12-24-2002, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evolskeptic:
OK, pz, here’s your chance to recover some credibility and demonstrate your even-handedness

pz does not have a problem with credibility; you do. You came here flaming away with the very first words you posted and yet are still being allowed to post here. Your criticisms of the moderation are unwarranted, at best; we've tolerated your terrible behavour, and if the moderators had to respond to everyone that took offense from you with a warning, they would have to quit their day jobs.

Go ahead and stop posting if that's the excuse you want to get out of defending your inane and insulting posts.

Quote:

Seriously people, is it any wonder why so few educated creationists would choose to waste their precious time at a site that employs “moderators” like pz? I should think not.

We've have educated theists posting here; your insults and lame reasoning don't even compare.

Rick

Bubba · 12-24-2002, 12:08 PM

A note to the infidels here (and to xianseeker and Geotheo if they're reading). You will notice that Evolskeptic will not enguage in debate with Rufus. He knows that he doesn't have the evidence to compete.

I would love nothing better than open debate. I am offering this as a challenge and a word of encouragement.

However (sadly) I think another chance for debate is lost.

Bubba <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Clutch · 12-24-2002, 12:14 PM

evolskeptic, your willingness to post private communication does not license anyone else's so doing.

In any case, did you fail to notice that all posters (pangloss and myself included) who wrote about your demonstrated proclivities, had been publicly warned to keep things flame-free? Which has in fact happened, following the warning.

In short, your warnings were mainly given to you privately, as it respectful, and your critics were subjected to public, if blanket, moderation which was entirely effective in toning things down, modulo your subsequent and continuing outbursts.

Instead of working at the production of heat over light, why not devote your energies to explaining -- in the form of an actual valid argument -- what you think follows from the fact that Futuyama once gave the examples you listed?

Since you have seen fit to recycle long-refuted claims, I'll simply update my own observations, which you never engaged. It seems pretty clear that Futuyma is going out of his way to cite a special and important kind of example: adaptations observable over the time period that we've had Darwinian theory (and post-Darwinian; modern synthesis, and so forth) as an explanatory tool.

The theory, and the mechanisms it postulates, are understood to operate over very long time spans. It would not have been surprising if no examples of adaptation were observable in the short time that the theory's been around. So it's very interesting, and powerfully supportive, that there are such examples.

Why on earth would this show that evolutionary theory is committed to the necessity of "extreme" conditions for adaptation ever to take place?

[ December 25, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]

RufusAtticus · 12-24-2002, 06:01 PM

Evolskeptic,

If you have a problem with the way this board is run, please post it in our <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=7" target="_blank">Bugs, Problems, and Complaints</a> forum, with a link to the offending action and enough information about the situtation for the admins to judge its merit. From the rules you agreed to when you signed up:

Quote:

Note: Users may disagree with the decisions or actions of the moderators and/or administrators. However disagreements, criticism and the like are not to be aired within the discussion topics. They may be discussed in the Bugs, Problems, Complaints, Suggestions & Questions forum. Keep in mind that complaints that are not supported with evidence, such as quotes and links to their source topics, may not be taken seriously.

Thank you for your cooperation. Now about that challenge I issued. Will you take up the gaunlet?

~~RvFvS~~
PS: Have you read the Evomath thread?

pangloss · 12-24-2002, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evolskeptic:
Well, I guess my remarks about the "evil being palpable around here" are easily understood now. Of course this is to be expected when you are dealing with people who have no objective source of morality, and no fear of a Final Reckoning for their actions (yet).

I'll be back later with as many replies as are needed and/or possible. Till then, keep up the bad work.

P.S.: Thanks for all your suggestions how I might retrieve last night's work.

Ah, yes - the arrogance of stupidity...

Jobar · 12-24-2002, 07:15 PM

There have been theologians, particularly Catholic ones, who claimed that evil is in a way equal to stupidity. Lucifer, in all his schemes to undo or destroy the works of God, always in actuality accomplished exactly the aims and desires of God; the rage and malice of the devil inevitably aided the Ineffable Plan.

While I know that this idea has holes in it, still I'm struck by how evolskeptic acts it out in a skewed sort of mirror image. In his anger he comes here preaching against evolution, and as a result of his actions we all learn more of the subtle beauty and deep truth of evolutionary theory, and evolskeptic makes the creationist position look childish and stupid and blind. I've heard before that a good way to defend your position is to have someone attack it clumsily.

I find the irony so razor sharp that I'm tempted to thank him, despite his wilful ignorance and terrible manners.

Rufus, pz, Clutch, and all- <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

RufusAtticus · 12-24-2002, 08:05 PM

Jobar,

Thanx for your praise.

Evolskeptic,

My challenge is a chance for you to show up an evolutionary biologist. If your position is so valid, then surely you should be able to hold your own in a formal debate. Surely, with you knowing all the secerts of evolution that I have been indoctrinated to miss, then such a debate should be child's play. Will you accept my challenge and seize this oppurtunity to expose my folly?

~~RvFvS~~

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

lpetrich · 12-24-2002, 10:09 PM

As to the "struggle for existence", consider this <a href="http://www.cells.de/cellseng/medienarchiv/archiv/bp1c1562d/1562_a70.htm" target="_blank">page on Escherichia coli division</a>. Each E. coli bacterium has a mass of around 10^-12 g, but when one divides, it makes two bacteria, which in turn divide, making four bacteria, thus producing an exponential function of time.

Here is how massive the resulting bacteria will be at various times, if they could continue dividing unchecked:

1 gram: 13 hours
100 kg (typical human body mass): 19 hours
10^12 tons (mass of a big mountain): 33 hours
6*10^21 tons (mass of the Earth): 44 hours
333000 Earth masses (mass of the Sun): 50 hours

When the expansion front of bacteria reaches the speed of light, it will be nearly at the distance from the Earth to the Sun, and its total mass will be 10 billion solar masses, about 1/10 the mass of our Galaxy.

And it will reach that point in 61 hours, or 2.5 days.

But that surfeit of bacteria has not happened.

12-24-2002, 12:14 PM	#63
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	evolskeptic, your willingness to post private communication does not license anyone else's so doing. In any case, did you fail to notice that all posters (pangloss and myself included) who wrote about your demonstrated proclivities, had been publicly warned to keep things flame-free? Which has in fact happened, following the warning. In short, your warnings were mainly given to you privately, as it respectful, and your critics were subjected to public, if blanket, moderation which was entirely effective in toning things down, modulo your subsequent and continuing outbursts. Instead of working at the production of heat over light, why not devote your energies to explaining -- in the form of an actual valid argument -- what you think follows from the fact that Futuyama once gave the examples you listed? Since you have seen fit to recycle long-refuted claims, I'll simply update my own observations, which you never engaged. It seems pretty clear that Futuyma is going out of his way to cite a special and important kind of example: adaptations observable over the time period that we've had Darwinian theory (and post-Darwinian; modern synthesis, and so forth) as an explanatory tool. The theory, and the mechanisms it postulates, are understood to operate over very long time spans. It would not have been surprising if no examples of adaptation were observable in the short time that the theory's been around. So it's very interesting, and powerfully supportive, that there are such examples. Why on earth would this show that evolutionary theory is committed to the necessity of "extreme" conditions for adaptation ever to take place? [ December 25, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

12-24-2002, 08:05 PM	#67
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Jobar, Thanx for your praise. Evolskeptic, My challenge is a chance for you to show up an evolutionary biologist. If your position is so valid, then surely you should be able to hold your own in a formal debate. Surely, with you knowing all the secerts of evolution that I have been indoctrinated to miss, then such a debate should be child's play. Will you accept my challenge and seize this oppurtunity to expose my folly? ~~RvFvS~~ [ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

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

12-24-2002, 12:08 PM	#62
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	A note to the infidels here (and to xianseeker and Geotheo if they're reading). You will notice that Evolskeptic will not enguage in debate with Rufus. He knows that he doesn't have the evidence to compete. I would love nothing better than open debate. I am offering this as a challenge and a word of encouragement. However (sadly) I think another chance for debate is lost. Bubba <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

12-24-2002, 07:15 PM	#66
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	There have been theologians, particularly Catholic ones, who claimed that evil is in a way equal to stupidity. Lucifer, in all his schemes to undo or destroy the works of God, always in actuality accomplished exactly the aims and desires of God; the rage and malice of the devil inevitably aided the Ineffable Plan. While I know that this idea has holes in it, still I'm struck by how evolskeptic acts it out in a skewed sort of mirror image. In his anger he comes here preaching against evolution, and as a result of his actions we all learn more of the subtle beauty and deep truth of evolutionary theory, and evolskeptic makes the creationist position look childish and stupid and blind. I've heard before that a good way to defend your position is to have someone attack it clumsily. I find the irony so razor sharp that I'm tempted to thank him, despite his wilful ignorance and terrible manners. Rufus, pz, Clutch, and all- <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

12-24-2002, 10:09 PM	#68
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	As to the "struggle for existence", consider this <a href="http://www.cells.de/cellseng/medienarchiv/archiv/bp1c1562d/1562_a70.htm" target="_blank">page on Escherichia coli division</a>. Each E. coli bacterium has a mass of around 10^-12 g, but when one divides, it makes two bacteria, which in turn divide, making four bacteria, thus producing an exponential function of time. Here is how massive the resulting bacteria will be at various times, if they could continue dividing unchecked: 1 gram: 13 hours 100 kg (typical human body mass): 19 hours 10^12 tons (mass of a big mountain): 33 hours 6*10^21 tons (mass of the Earth): 44 hours 333000 Earth masses (mass of the Sun): 50 hours When the expansion front of bacteria reaches the speed of light, it will be nearly at the distance from the Earth to the Sun, and its total mass will be 10 billion solar masses, about 1/10 the mass of our Galaxy. And it will reach that point in 61 hours, or 2.5 days. But that surfeit of bacteria has not happened.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.