1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
And the guy accuses you of being 'disloyal'... WHERE? WHERE? And to WHAT? And 'subsversive' to what?
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
And which of xenu's 'investigatory' methods do you object to, exactly? WHICH? As for the 'accusatory methods' used to 'supress opposition', accusing someone of being a 'McCarthyite' here seems to be the very acme of irony.
Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select.
The overall goal of natural selection is better survivability, facilitating reprodcution, acheived by numbers, armour, intelligence, speed, sensory acuity, etc... "Goal" is probably a bad choice, as natural selection is not an entity or aiming at a target or destination.
Quote:
Aside from the leap at the end
What about the leap at the beginning: But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible. Saying "if the complexity of the cilium is irreducible..." and deriving a proof or further statements is fine, but stating it and abducing consequences is not.
Quote:
Platypuses are one of two poisionous mammels
Facts:
1. Platypuses are mammals.
2. Platypuses fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the platypus is to flip out and kill people.
Shrews are the other poisonous (and the only venomous) mammal, as their saliva contains neurotoxins. Polars bears are also toxic to predators ( ) due to the high concentration of vitamin A in their livers, but that doesn't really count.
What about the leap at the beginning: But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible. Saying "if the complexity of the cilium is irreducible..." and deriving a proof or further statements is fine, but stating it and abducing consequences is not.
3. The purpose of the platypus is to flip out and kill people.
Shrews are the other poisonous (and the only venomous) mammal, as their saliva contains neurotoxins. Polars bears are also toxic to predators ( ) due to the high concentration of vitamin A in their livers, but that doesn't really count.
The author had an argument for why the celium is irreducible. I choose to grant the claims that without a part of the celium, it doesnt function.... the rest follows.
As for the shrew, I was going to say that, but wasnt absolutely sure... and as for platypus' killing people...
i will end here lest i reveal my true reason for liking platypuses...
OK, it makes more sense if this is the middle of the argument regarding cilium. Were there any interesting points raised ? (apart from "with one component missing it will not function)"
The stupid "Fact 1 Platypuses are mammals" bit is lifted from realultimatepower, a (purposefully stupid) site dedicated to ninjas. One section starts with "Ninjas are mammals", etc. It is one of the slightly funny at first but quickly irritating Internet phenomena.
OK, it makes more sense if this is the middle of the argument regarding cilium. Were there any interesting points raised ? (apart from "with one component missing it will not function)"
The stupid "Fact 1 Platypuses are mammals" bit is lifted from realultimatepower, a (purposefully stupid) site dedicated to ninjas. One section starts with "Ninjas are mammals", etc. It is one of the slightly funny at first but quickly irritating Internet phenomena.
no, not really... its the first site that trumptman posted on page 7???
i choose a paragrahph that exemplified the logic, maybe i should have included more...
Xenu, please show some reasoning if you wish to convince.
You see through my religious agenda? Perhaps you a paranoid facist. I suppose you and Joseph McCarthy would get along well. Criticism=you are the enemy and believe as them. Yes you certainly show your tolerance for crititical thinking.
Gould and Dawkins do contribute information and I have not said it should not be shown or taught. I have just added that when their explanations use assumptions, imaginings, and simplifications where none exist, we ought to be willing to consider the explanations of others who are not taking squar peges and smashing them through round holes.
Likewise this is the second thread in as many days where a layperson tells an educator they don't understand the educational system.
Newtonian physics is taught in high school through the use of experiments. The students can see the margin of error there and when they ask about it, you can mention relativity and quantum mechanics give us a more true representation of the world.
What experiment do they do with evolution that shows the margin of error? Likewise when they do see the margin of error, what would we say to explain it. Where is the more sophisticated explanation?
You do nothing here but prove my point. Present evolution with no experiment, no discussion and no questioning however I guess that suits a McCarthyite just fine.
Nick
LOL. Push your button did I?
Your an educator? Now I'm worried (actually I'm not. I'm sure you are a very good educator, until you prove otherwise)
Evolution is presented with experimental evidence. When asked about errors, they are answered. Just like with the teaching of newtonian physics. This is what we observe. This is the theory. This is how we believe the evidence confirms the theory. This is the statistical model we propose for our analysis ...
Here is a hint for you. Ever heard of the term "metric"?
It's a way of representing "distance".
Every theory makes assumptions. From evolution to superstring theory. That's why they are called theories. The theory then requires experimental confirmation if it is to survive. Evolution has survived quite nicely.
The fact that you don't understand this is your problem.
Feel free to come up with a better theory, or a better metric.
Xenu claims I have a religious agenda when I have not mentioned nor advocated religion throughout this entire thread.
It's called reading between the lines.
Quote:
He uses this "religious agenda" to dismiss scientific evolutionary criticisms brought up by myself.
Nope, quite happy for evolutionary theory to be criticised. It is, and you pretend it's not.
Quote:
He then claims I know nothing about the educational system (sounds familiar it is a something you employed) when I have worked for ten years.
Nope, just that I doubt you understand how to teach science at high school.
Quote:
Definition for McCarthyism:
1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
That's nice.
Sounds very creationist.
Quote:
I stand by what I typed and as usual you stick your nose in without adding anything. Post some support of evolution or at least answer the question the title asks.
Nick
Read a book on evolution. Plenty of evidence.
Go to a museum. Plenty of evidence.
Go ask a teacher.
That you refuse to acknowledge the evidence simply strengthens my belief that you have a religious agenda.
A 10 page long AO discussion on creationism vs. Evolutionism without the mandatory "fat, stubborn, bad tempered, probably liberal, jew looking science teacher vs. the polite, young, good looking, blond, young student" cartoon?
A 10 page long AO discussion on creationism vs. Evolutionism without the mandatory "fat, stubborn, bad tempered, probably liberal, jew looking science teacher vs. the polite, young, good looking, blond, young student" cartoon?
Actually I'm waiting for fellowship to post the cartoon he learnt evolution from.
It's brilliant, but I don't think creationists really understand why.
Platypuses are one of two poisionous mammels, but i can never remember the other one....
the rest of this thread just sucks.
Platypuses are not a proof of evolution. it's a genetic manipulation performing by US to obtain a secret weapon : the result was lame (the playpuses are damn slow) and the animal was put in the garbage. He survive and now dwell on earth.
Comments
the rest of this thread just sucks.
Originally posted by alcimedes
Platypuses are one of two poisionous mammels, but i can never remember the other one....
the rest of this thread just sucks.
that makes me sad...
well not the platypuses (for some reason i have a favorite animal and they are it) but the rest of it
ah well, try to bring enlightenment from on high and what do you get?
Originally posted by trumptman
Definition for McCarthyism:
1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
And the guy accuses you of being 'disloyal'... WHERE? WHERE? And to WHAT? And 'subsversive' to what?
Originally posted by trumptman
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
And which of xenu's 'investigatory' methods do you object to, exactly? WHICH? As for the 'accusatory methods' used to 'supress opposition', accusing someone of being a 'McCarthyite' here seems to be the very acme of irony.
We should mandate criticism of theory.
Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select.
The overall goal of natural selection is better survivability, facilitating reprodcution, acheived by numbers, armour, intelligence, speed, sensory acuity, etc... "Goal" is probably a bad choice, as natural selection is not an entity or aiming at a target or destination.
Aside from the leap at the end
What about the leap at the beginning: But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible. Saying "if the complexity of the cilium is irreducible..." and deriving a proof or further statements is fine, but stating it and abducing consequences is not.
Platypuses are one of two poisionous mammels
Facts:
1. Platypuses are mammals.
2. Platypuses fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the platypus is to flip out and kill people.
Shrews are the other poisonous (and the only venomous) mammal, as their saliva contains neurotoxins. Polars bears are also toxic to predators (
Originally posted by bunge
We should not mandate criticism of evolution.
We should mandate criticism of theory.
We should mandate that people are taught the difference between pulling an explanation out of your ass theory and a scientific theory.
Originally posted by Stoo
What about the leap at the beginning: But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible. Saying "if the complexity of the cilium is irreducible..." and deriving a proof or further statements is fine, but stating it and abducing consequences is not.
3. The purpose of the platypus is to flip out and kill people.
Shrews are the other poisonous (and the only venomous) mammal, as their saliva contains neurotoxins. Polars bears are also toxic to predators (
The author had an argument for why the celium is irreducible. I choose to grant the claims that without a part of the celium, it doesnt function.... the rest follows.
As for the shrew, I was going to say that, but wasnt absolutely sure... and as for platypus' killing people...
i will end here lest i reveal my true reason for liking platypuses...
The stupid "Fact 1 Platypuses are mammals" bit is lifted from realultimatepower, a (purposefully stupid) site dedicated to ninjas. One section starts with "Ninjas are mammals", etc. It is one of the slightly funny at first but quickly irritating Internet phenomena.
Originally posted by Stoo
OK, it makes more sense if this is the middle of the argument regarding cilium. Were there any interesting points raised ? (apart from "with one component missing it will not function)"
The stupid "Fact 1 Platypuses are mammals" bit is lifted from realultimatepower, a (purposefully stupid) site dedicated to ninjas. One section starts with "Ninjas are mammals", etc. It is one of the slightly funny at first but quickly irritating Internet phenomena.
no, not really... its the first site that trumptman posted on page 7???
i choose a paragrahph that exemplified the logic, maybe i should have included more...
ah well
Originally posted by ena
Evolution is a total failure as a theory...
There is no roadmap that explicitly tells anyone how rocks turned into human beings.
Maybe George W. Bush should set out his 'road map' on this issue. It would make for an amusing read.
Originally posted by alcimedes
would this thread be considered a failed evolutionary step towards intelligent dialogue?
yeah.
and maybe now my call to the rafters will be heard, finally...
Originally posted by trumptman
This is the most ignorant post I have read yet.
Xenu, please show some reasoning if you wish to convince.
You see through my religious agenda? Perhaps you a paranoid facist. I suppose you and Joseph McCarthy would get along well. Criticism=you are the enemy and believe as them. Yes you certainly show your tolerance for crititical thinking.
Gould and Dawkins do contribute information and I have not said it should not be shown or taught. I have just added that when their explanations use assumptions, imaginings, and simplifications where none exist, we ought to be willing to consider the explanations of others who are not taking squar peges and smashing them through round holes.
Likewise this is the second thread in as many days where a layperson tells an educator they don't understand the educational system.
Newtonian physics is taught in high school through the use of experiments. The students can see the margin of error there and when they ask about it, you can mention relativity and quantum mechanics give us a more true representation of the world.
What experiment do they do with evolution that shows the margin of error? Likewise when they do see the margin of error, what would we say to explain it. Where is the more sophisticated explanation?
You do nothing here but prove my point. Present evolution with no experiment, no discussion and no questioning however I guess that suits a McCarthyite just fine.
Nick
LOL. Push your button did I?
Your an educator? Now I'm worried (actually I'm not. I'm sure you are a very good educator, until you prove otherwise)
Evolution is presented with experimental evidence. When asked about errors, they are answered. Just like with the teaching of newtonian physics. This is what we observe. This is the theory. This is how we believe the evidence confirms the theory. This is the statistical model we propose for our analysis ...
Here is a hint for you. Ever heard of the term "metric"?
It's a way of representing "distance".
Every theory makes assumptions. From evolution to superstring theory. That's why they are called theories. The theory then requires experimental confirmation if it is to survive. Evolution has survived quite nicely.
The fact that you don't understand this is your problem.
Feel free to come up with a better theory, or a better metric.
Originally posted by trumptman
Thank you oh wannabe moderator.
Xenu claims I have a religious agenda when I have not mentioned nor advocated religion throughout this entire thread.
It's called reading between the lines.
He uses this "religious agenda" to dismiss scientific evolutionary criticisms brought up by myself.
Nope, quite happy for evolutionary theory to be criticised. It is, and you pretend it's not.
Quote:
He then claims I know nothing about the educational system (sounds familiar it is a something you employed) when I have worked for ten years.
Nope, just that I doubt you understand how to teach science at high school.
Quote:
Definition for McCarthyism:
1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
That's nice.
Sounds very creationist.
Quote:
I stand by what I typed and as usual you stick your nose in without adding anything. Post some support of evolution or at least answer the question the title asks.
Nick
Read a book on evolution. Plenty of evidence.
Go to a museum. Plenty of evidence.
Go ask a teacher.
That you refuse to acknowledge the evidence simply strengthens my belief that you have a religious agenda.
A 10 page long AO discussion on creationism vs. Evolutionism without the mandatory "fat, stubborn, bad tempered, probably liberal, jew looking science teacher vs. the polite, young, good looking, blond, young student" cartoon?
Originally posted by Anders the White
WHAT?
A 10 page long AO discussion on creationism vs. Evolutionism without the mandatory "fat, stubborn, bad tempered, probably liberal, jew looking science teacher vs. the polite, young, good looking, blond, young student" cartoon?
Actually I'm waiting for fellowship to post the cartoon he learnt evolution from.
It's brilliant, but I don't think creationists really understand why.
Originally posted by BR
Bah you and your simple two line reply...beat me to it.
"God" is a theory.
"Darwinism" is a theory too.
The "God" theory implies that "Darwinism" could possibly be wrong.
But only one of those two theories is backed by strong facts.
(you know... bones ;-)
Originally posted by alcimedes
Platypuses are one of two poisionous mammels, but i can never remember the other one....
the rest of this thread just sucks.
Platypuses are not a proof of evolution. it's a genetic manipulation performing by US to obtain a secret weapon : the result was lame (the playpuses are damn slow) and the animal was put in the garbage. He survive and now dwell on earth.
For the second point you are right.
I want this thread to live forever and ever.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
How I love this thread and everything that obtains to it.
I want this thread to live forever and ever.
sweet jesus will people just stop replying....
i am of course (as i was in my poll) kidding...