cladking
Well-Known Member
Did I ever mention every experiment and observation supports my theory better than it does Darwin?
Pick up any biology textbook or magazine and you'll find myriad experiments if you don't believe me.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did I ever mention every experiment and observation supports my theory better than it does Darwin?
Hey! Give the guy a break. He has to find someone that he can beat in a debate occasionally.@cladking
Why do you frequently quote your own posts, and then post a reply, as if you were arguing with yourself?
Do you imagine that you win a lot of arguments with yourself?
Makes you wonder what motivates them to do that, doesn't it? It's like reality just isn't interesting enough for them or something.Pretty much mine too, but I am still amazed by it. And not just creationists, but attention seekers that create these fantastic and convoluted narratives weaving conspiracy theories and fictional ancient cultures, psuedoscience and a mish mash of misunderstanding into what appears to be a belief system.
By what magic do you know this?
You are fibbing again. Playing word game, conflating “magic” with “sciences”.
I'm convinced that sometimes I encounter people with delusional disorder that have created their own narratives of reality that they bring to life on the internet. Since the birth of the internet, conspiracy theories have become more widely available and we have seen the power of promoting conspiracy theories and keeping them alive. Over time, I have come to the conclusion that even valid objection to the claims of the deluded cause them to double down on their delusions and promote them even more strongly. I'm coming to think that the best way to deal with them is to present valid rejection of their baseless claims using reason, sound facts and theory and following that, just stop feeding them.Makes you wonder what motivates them to do that, doesn't it? It's like reality just isn't interesting enough for them or something.
If they did then they'd now be researching your theory.Did I ever mention every experiment and observation supports my theory better than it does Darwin?
Speculation. Fantastical speculation based on erroneous understanding.If they did then they'd now be researching your theory.
What is your theory? I'm still waiting for an explanation. Is your theory really a theory, or just speculation.
Darwin? What does Darwin have to do with current biological research?
What's this obsession with Darwin? I don't see medical researchers referring to Hippocrates or Galen. I don't see engineers citing Archimedes.
Why are evolution deniers always harping on "Darwinism?"
As message boards and forums fade in popularity, I've noticed what seems to be an increase of posters with mental health issues. I'm never really sure how to interact with such folks, so I usually just leave them alone.I'm convinced that sometimes I encounter people with delusional disorder that have created their own narratives of reality that they bring to life on the internet.
Yep, the backfire effect.Since the birth of the internet, conspiracy theories have become more widely available and we have seen the power of promoting conspiracy theories and keeping them alive. Over time, I have come to the conclusion that even valid objection to the claims of the deluded cause them to double down on their delusions and promote them even more strongly.
I only bother when I get the sense that either there are "lurkers" who might find what I post useful, or when the person is actually engaging and making decent arguments. If it's just a bunch of rambling nonsense, I figure there's little to be gained by challenging them.I'm coming to think that the best way to deal with them is to present valid rejection of their baseless claims using reason, sound facts and theory and following that, just stop feeding them.
When someone doesn't really understand the topic of discussion and has a rather dubious personal opinion, but seems open to discussion, I often will join in and maintain some presences. But there are some key criteria I have come to recognize as very indicative of those for which discussion is a waste of time.As message boards and forums fade in popularity, I've noticed what seems to be an increase of posters with mental health issues. I'm never really sure how to interact with such folks, so I usually just leave them alone.
In a couple of forums I used to belong to, after I left some of the people I had debated later opened up and shared that they were battling with things like schizophrenia, early stage dementia, bipolar disorder, etc.
I guess you never know in some cases.
Yep, the backfire effect.
I only bother when I get the sense that either there are "lurkers" who might find what I post useful, or when the person is actually engaging and making decent arguments. If it's just a bunch of rambling nonsense, I figure there's little to be gained by challenging them.
But I understand why others might decide otherwise.
What's this obsession with Darwin?
What is your theory?
Have you ever encountered a creationist who met all those criteria? I honestly can't recall a time where I have.When someone doesn't really understand the topic of discussion and has a rather dubious personal opinion, but seems open to discussion, I often will join in and maintain some presences. But there are some key criteria I have come to recognize as very indicative of those for which discussion is a waste of time.
Failure to use accepted technical terminology. Failure to define terms they do use. Claims of providing evidence when they do not. Reliance on mantras as a response to pretty much anything. Conspiracy theories over evidence. Running the gamut of logical fallacies. Empty claims with never any effort at support. Persistent abuse of these areas pretty much means that there will be no useful discussion come of any sort of engagement. Like the new intelligent design guy as an example. Not sure if you saw those threads, but the claims were ridiculous and nonsensical. Not worth much time in trying to have a reasonable discussion or debate.
Sometimes I will post my responses for the general population and any potential lurkers. Beyond that, if there seems no hope for a decent discussion, I have to overcome my urge to decimate and follow the more rational course of moving on.
LO
LOL! Yes it did.
Just stop the terribly ignorant naysaying and ask questions when you have no clue.
Not a creationist strictly. But yes, I have. At least two that I can think of.Have you ever encountered a creationist who met all those criteria? I honestly can't recall a time where I have.
Then of course, there are creationists that use the old playbook as if they are hosting never-before-seen claims and ideas that haven't long ago been explained away by evidence or refuted outright. The logical fallacy buffet is always on their menu.Have you ever encountered a creationist who met all those criteria? I honestly can't recall a time where I have.
Challenged by who?
Yes, we all know how you rely exclusively on Nobel's claims. I'm curious...have you ever read any of the criticisms of his ideas?
Well yeah, the possible number of random mutations is huge. No one is disputing that. So what's your point?
So we agree the Nazis were wrong in how they applied Darwinian concepts.
Because the process isn't random. Mutations are indeed random, but they are then passed through a non-random filter (selection) that generates non-random results.
That's BIO 100 stuff. You didn't know that?
I see nothing in there about EES being a majority view among biologists. Quote where the papers says that.
So what do you do with the fact that he believes evolution happens, life on earth shares a common evolutionary ancestry, and humans share an ancestry with other primates?
Is he still credible?
The fact remains, you linked to an article that you claimed showed non-random mutations. But the article said absolutely nothing about that, and the non-random claims were your own imposition. Please debate ethically.
You didn't answer the question. Who do you believe is the "designer"? God? Aliens? Time travelling geneticists?
I didn't comment on the credibility of the Royal Society. I noted that you've not shown any support for your claim that the EES is a majority view in biology. Pay better attention.
I think it would be more true to say that it is beyond the domain of science at this time. Unless we can use some form of inquiry (I believe we can) that isn't wholly dependent on reducing everything to its constituent parts then this initiation might always be beyond the domain of science.
Yes, I agree. But the problem is far more severe than your correct analysis. In addition to this foolish axiom there is also the simple fact that all knowledge is held as belief and models. All input is seen in terms of these beliefs. Anomalies are all around us but they are invisible to us. We interpret all of reality in terms of what we "know" so are blind to everything else including the paradoxes of existence.
But no, it was not misinterpretation it was definitely true interpretations of the Darwinian concepts as understood by Darwin himself and evident in his prediction in the “The Descent of Man” about the elimination of the so-called “savage races”.
I doubt that we are even close to ruling out "abiogenesis"
then people wonder that he found there is no God
One thing certain though, consciousness exists
We easily forget that organisms are dependent on genes which means consciousness and behavior are dependent on genes.