ID and Creation [split from] Evolution: The Facts

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

We also need to clarify claudistics

Freudian slip?

ETA:

You

love

me

so.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Freudian slip?

Worse! A a bad habit I just can't seem to break despite knowing better.

In my head I pronounce it "claw"distics, so I keep spelling it "Claude"istics. Grrrr. Cladistics.

[CFLarsen]

Write it 50 times, chisel and stone.

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

Just imagine where creation might have begun.

Let's say that in the beginning there was a positive side, and a negative side. Both sides were equal in scope. Both sides began to create.

The positive side is the side where truth is told and truth is kept.
The negative side is the side of deceit and lies.

Due to being truthful, the positive side created by using a step by step process, never stepping over anything because that would violate being truthful. And so the process is slow, but being truthful, being real, it allows the creation of an actual reality.

The negative side on the other hand, creates in a fictitious manner because truth is not within their game. But since truth need not be followed, a step by step form of creation also need not be. The rate of creation becomes staggering, but it is more of a spirit world due to it NOT being actually real, thanks to the absence of truths.

Eventually the positive side seems like almost nothing at all when compared to the vast negative side. The positive side becomes a thin slice of the big picture. The positive side is limited to what is called the present time. The positive reality moves across time such that the step by step creation can continue. The positive truthful side, evolves, hence evolution.

Humans eventually evolve on the positive side. Eventually they will outgrow beliefs and will be able to see truths directly. They will achieve true consciousness.

The negative side has no world.

The negative side decides to steal the positive sides world. They send a visitor prior to the time when mankind is no longer dependent upon beliefs. The visitor tells the people that they are all sinners and that the true evolution is a farce and that they are the offspring of sinners known as Adam and Eve.

The humans are still believers, and so they will believe anything. Now that they are happy to be sinners, they are beginning to become just like the negative deceitful ones. They are told that they must believe, and must continue to do so. This prevents the normal evolution because it prevents the normal rate of closing in on all truths that one experiences as one moves further away from dependance upon mere beliefs, because the people have chosen not to pursue truths but to remain as believers instead.

Truth falls behind, and deceit begins to rule. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, crime grows, sex and drugs go out of control, politicians lie to the public, etc. Once again, the negative deceitful side is winning the battle.

Soon the negative side will proceed with their plan. They wish to split this reality into two such that it is no longer composed of absolute truth, and so it becomes theirs.

One of the two sides is a world that is better than the old earth, and on the other side of the split reality is a world that is worse than the old earth. With the truth destroyed, by destroying its creator, these two worlds will continue to fly apart since there is no truth to pull them back together.

One world becomes a Heaven, and the other becomes a Hell. Those of the original earth who knew to much truth, must therefore be thrown onto the hell side such that they can not spread the truth. The liars, thieves, murderers, etc. will end up in the Heavens.

The negative side must therefore inform the humans that it is the good folk that end up in the heavens and the bad in the hell, such that they do not know of the truth and will therefore not know be ripped in two as truth becomes ripped in two.

As the negative side deceives all mankind, the negative side must inform them that the entire world will be deceived, and the foolish humans will think that this refers to a future event.

The positive side had planned to visit their world at the time when man was ready to receive vast truths. The negative side gave this visitor a name, the Anti-Christ.

And so man got it all wrong. The God was the Satan, the Satan was the God, the Christ was the Anti-Christ, and the Anti-Christ was the Christ.

Christ came to the world at an earlier date than he had planned, and did so in a desperate attempt to save the people. He was tossed to the side for he spoke in truths. Truths are beyond the limited scope of mere beliefs, and so to the believers, truths were seen as lies, for truths are beyond belief.


Well, I am off. I think I will go and create another reality, only this time I will use a different approach.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Sure, and as long as the critique is fair and balanced, I think that's a good thing.

Glad you're here, I was going to drop you a PM, because of your interest in the field.

OK, here five critiques of "evolutionary theory," as that phrase is most usually used.

I will very briefly summarize the points I am making. Please note that when I use the term "evolutionary theory" I do not mean the theory that organisms have evolved or are evolving. I use the term theory in the same way it is used elsewhere in science. Thus, we are dealing with evolutionary theory as a mechanistic interpretation of the processes of change as they apply within the biosphere and the predictions that can be derived from those interpretations.

My critiques are

1. Lack of foundation.
Evolutionary theory lacks a foundation in the more fundamental sciences. Excepting my own work, which is not mainstream, it is not possible to derive an evolutionary theory from physics or chemistry. This means that evolutionary theory simply sits in isolation and does not slot properly into the larger corpus of science.

2. Undefined terms
The theory evolution lacks defined terms. Some of the most basic terms used in evolutionary theory are undefined or have definitions that are subject to ongoing debate. For example, none of the following terms can be defined unequivocally in a way that applies to all situations – organism, species, gene, replicator and reproduction. What is more, there is a continuing tradition among theorists to "solve" problems by inventing yet more undefined terms, rather than thinking seriously about the entities that are really needed in the theory. Examples that come to mind are order, class, family, clade, meme and vehicle, but I am sure you could easily find many others.

3. Vacuity
Evolutionary theory fails to make predictions. It is very good at interpreting observations but it is very bad at predicting them. This is the old charge of vacuity and it remains largely valid. Evolutionary theory succeeds in predicting relationships between organisms but it largely fails to predict anything about the properties of individual organisms.

4. Arbitrary dividing lines
These are drawn all over biology but they also infest the theory of evolution itself. There are many such but there are two that particular annoy me. One is the issue of the "unit of selection" (AUD - another undefined term), linked to the declaration "all selection is based on the gene not the group (AUD) or the organism." That declaration is plainly ridiculous.
The second is "abiogenesis is separate from evolution." Really – why? Is this anything but a piece of indefensible tripe?

5. Social distortion and authoritarian, prior expectation
By this, I mean the manner in which evolutionary theory has become co-opted by a social debate that has no genuine bearing on the scientific issues. Science is not about the existence or non-existence of God. So far as evolutionary theory is concerned, one could have put God into the list of undefined terms in section 2. Criticism of evolutionary does not equal commitment to faith and neither does evolutionary theory prevent commitment to faith.
The scientific issue is the structure and utility of evolutionary theory. The social issue is how such criticisms can be presented and discussed without confronting mobbing and bullying from "evolutionists." In this context, I use the word "evolutionist" to mean the so-called scientists, who claim expertise and may even possess it, but who do not debate the scientific issues. Instead, they bring their social prejudices to the discussion and behave in ways that are very analogous to the worst excesses of the religious bigotry they claim to oppose.

Well, those are my opinions. If anyone wishes to discuss them, I am easy about their order but let's do just one at a time.

[cyborg]

John, until your ideas are mainstream I respectively submit that you accept that you either haven't made the proper case for them, they may be wrong but NOT that you are some sort of misunderstood genius.

As such you can take your 'novel' ideas elsewhere and leave this thread to what are known to be the facts of evolution.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by cyborg

John, until your ideas are mainstream I respectively submit that you accept that you either haven't made the proper case for them, they may be wrong but NOT that you are some sort of misunderstood genius.

As such you can take your 'novel' ideas elsewhere and leave this thread to what are known to be the facts of evolution.

I cannot see the point you are making here.

[cyborg]

The point is that new research cannot be considered to be a valid part of an 'Evolution: the Facts' thread by the very nature of the fact that new research is going to be contended.

I know you don't like that but that's tough.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by cyborg

The point is that new research cannot be considered to be a valid part of an 'Evolution: the Facts' thread by the very nature of the fact that new research is going to be contended.

I know you don't like that but that's tough.

Actually, I only mentioned my own work to the extent of excepting it. In the circumstances, I still fail to see your point.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Anacoluthon64

Here's a site that focusses specifically on Kent "Dr Dino" Hovind's drivel, a burden the Federal Bureau of Prisons currently has to bear. However, Hovind's so-called "arguments" are like litter in more ways than one: they are also frequently recycled.

This is the part I'd like to keep the smallest bit of the whole thing. On its own, a good strand on evolution should read like a short story, backed by facts and be bulletproof defence against IDiots. Because of that, I'd like them to have as small a presence as possible - half a page of the most-common, specious arguments they use, so I won't be focusing on any one IDiot.

Thanks for the link, though - obviously we're going to have to read some of this drivel to find out what they do .... um, I hesitate to use the word "think" there.... find out what they claim, sounds better.

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

... but then again, what Creationist ideas aren't blown away by reality.

Precisely.

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

OK, here five critiques of "evolutionary theory," as that phrase is most usually used.

Excellent - looks like some good stuff in there and it deserves discussion. I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread on your critiques here.

I see that there are a couple of stickies already up in here and I'm going to see if we can get this thread put up there and I don't want to lose sight of the OP. I imagine your critiques will be contentious to say the least!

I'll stay in it and make sure it's kept seemly - not like I'll be contributing much otherwise!

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm short on time and bandwidth, but I wanted to address JH's "critiques" in brief tonight. I'll have more time and bandwidth this weekend.

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

1. Lack of foundation.

Evolutionary theory is the foundation for the science of biology and related areas like zoology, geology and heavily influences other areas like medicine. I think it's bizarre to suggest that evolutionary theory has "no foundation" when it itself serves as a foundation for several other areas of science. Evolutionary theory is also interconnected with other areas of science like geology, ecology, meteorology, biochemistry and microbiology. To suggest otherwise is an exercise in willful blindness.

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

2. Undefined terms
The theory evolution lacks defined terms. Some of the most basic terms used in evolutionary theory are undefined or have definitions that are subject to ongoing debate. For example, none of the following terms can be defined unequivocally in a way that applies to all situations – organism, species, gene, replicator and reproduction.

Sheer insanity. Organism and reproduction are tightly defined. Gene and replicator are well defined. And species, while elastic, is defined sufficiently to serve its purpose in developing phylogenies.

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

3. Vacuity
Evolutionary theory fails to make predictions.

Ignorance. If one looks at the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution essays on Talk Origins, ever single one is predicated on a prediction made by evolutionary theory. The most obvious one, rooted in Darwin's own writings is that our closest evolutionary relatives would be found in Africa, and that we would not find evidence of human evolutionary relatives in the Americas. Guess what? Totally validated. Evolutionary theory, just like all good theories, is entirely predicated on predictions - or are you ignorant of how the Tiktaalik roscea fossils were discovered?

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

4. Arbitrary dividing lines
The second is "abiogenesis is separate from evolution." Really – why? Is this anything but a piece of indefensible tripe?

Obfuscation and blurring of lines. Evolutionary theory is about extant life so how that life came to be has nothing more to evolution than the astrophysics of how heavier atoms came to exist has anything do to with chemistry.

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

5. Social distortion and authoritarian, prior expectation
By this, I mean the manner in which evolutionary theory has become co-opted by a social debate that has no genuine bearing on the scientific issues.

This issue exists only in the minds of Creationists. Science is agnostic, be it chemistry, engineering, medicine or biology. Evolutionary theory is nothing more than the foundational theory behind biology, it's only Creationists who have tried to make it a social/political issue.

If these are your only objections to evolution, then they are based on your personal biases and not on the science. I'd rather discuss the science, but I find very few anti-evolution advocates who either want to or are capible of doing so.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Evolutionary theory is the foundation for the science of biology and related areas like zoology, geology and heavily influences other areas like medicine. I think it's bizarre to suggest that evolutionary theory has "no foundation" when it itself serves as a foundation for several other areas of science. Evolutionary theory is also interconnected with other areas of science like geology, ecology, meteorology, biochemistry and microbiology. To suggest otherwise is an exercise in willful blindness.

Evolution also has a strong foundation in physics.

"If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis that

All things are made of atoms-little particles that that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.

In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied." (Richard Fenman)

"A poet once said, "The whole universe is in a glass of wine." We will probably never know in what sense he said that, for poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we look in glass of wine closely enough we see the entire universe.

There are the things of physics: the twisting liquid which evaporates depending on the wind and weather, the reflections in the glass, and our imagination adds the atoms. The glass is a distillation of the earth's rocks, and in its composition we see the secrets of the universe's age, and the evolution of the stars. What strange array of chemicals are in the wine? How did they come to be? There are the ferments, the enzymes, the substrates, and the products. There in wine is found the great generalization: all life is fermentation. Nobody can discover the chemistry of wine without discovering the cause of much disease. How vivid is the claret, pressing its existence into the consciousness that watches it!

If in our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts - physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on - remember that nature does not know it! So let us put it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. Let us give one more final pleasure: drink it and forget it all!" (Richard Feynman)

When you understand physics you understand molecules and atoms. MInteractions between molecules and atoms are very much a major part of biology and evolution is dependant upon these interactions and variations in them.

[The Atheist]

Sorry guys, but can we take the answers to the critique to this thread.

Cheers.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by EHLO

The Primordial soup -> life step makes me cringe a little. Perhaps I missed something earlier in the thread but do you intend to tackle abiogenesis as well, or is there a more definitive way to start the evolution story?

Edited by jmercer:

Removed text

Like all those who support an alternate "hypothesis" such as "intelligent design"-- they flip the conversations to abiogenesis's gaps when the normal 5 "conundrums" are answered yet again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

No personal attacks; attack the argument, not the arguer. I have edited this post to remove the personalization of the comment.

Posted By:jmercer

[fishkr]

[fishkr]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I often share forums with creationists/ID supporters who are quite well-read. They usually admit to having read even Dawkins.

Lucky you. I live in a ski resort town in the middle of Idaho. People don't often read books here, they just "hear about them".

Good news is Idaho is a bright red state, where most people are anti-environment, pro-life, and pro war, so one is rarely more than a barstool away from winning an arguement.

m

[articulett]

Edited by chillzero:

Edited for civility - Attack the argument, not the arguer(s)

I call you an apologist and John Hewitt groupie... not a creationist. I wish you'd get my aspersions straight. Jeez.

Edited by chillzero:

Edited for civility - Attack the argument, not the arguer(s)

[articulett]

Originally Posted by articulett

Edited by chillzero:

Edited for civility - Attack the argument, not the arguer(s)

I call you an apologist and John Hewitt groupie... not a creationist. I wish you'd get my aspersions straight. Jeez.

Edited by chillzero:

Edited for civility - Attack the argument, not the arguer(s)

But... he inferred... and so I... aw... okay. I apologize TA. "kisses"

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by steenkh

But that is not evolution. The formation of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution. You may convey everything as one simple concept, but do not call it something which it is not.

It's the same error Creationists make.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by steenkh

But that is not evolution. The formation of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution. You may convey everything as one simple concept, but do not call it something which it is not.

No, it has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, but it clearly has everything to do with the evolution of conditions which enabled life to commence.

The word "evolution" does not apply solely to the ToE - it has uses from motor vehicles to metaphysics.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The word "evolution" does not apply solely to the ToE - it has uses from motor vehicles to metaphysics.

When you are debating with creationists - as I think is the issue here - it will only confuse matters if you use the word 'evolution' to denote anything else than the ToE.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The word "evolution" does not apply solely to the ToE - it has uses from motor vehicles to metaphysics.

Because motor vehicles "evolved"?

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Try this:
...
Let's credit the readers with enough understanding that they won't confuse the two. (I'll make sure I use "biological evolution" where appropriate. )

But that's precisely it: The possibly biggest misunderstanding about evolution is that it is just "change". That's where the Creationists' idea of "random" stems from.

If you include evolution to include such things as motor vehicles, then you are saying that the (ill-)famed Watch in the Desert is a valid argument. If you point to motor vehicles as an example of Evolution, then you are using a Creationist argument. Motor vehicles "evolved" because there was a creator: Namely humans.

It is the worst thing you can do, if you plan on creating a guide on "Evolution for Dummies". Anything you write in that guide will be shot down, and rightfully so.

But, if you want to be viewed as a Creationist, go right ahead and use that argument.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Seen it all, which is why I'm not bothered by what creationists think.

This should be a place for those with the desire to gain knowledge of the processes involved in getting us to 2007. Creationists are plain nuts and I see no reason why a knowledge base should be designed with them in mind. You can't cover all the nutcase ideas they come down with and I couldn't be bothered trying.

Truth be told, I'm beginning to think an "ID rebuttal" section's probably a bad idea. Stuff their strawmen, let 'em think what they like.

That will be seen as an inability to counter the strawmen.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The idea is facts presented in a stoopid-friendly manner.

Yeah, that will certainly attract a lot of people. "Hey, come read this! It is written so even stoopid people like you can understand it!"

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

But that's precisely it: The possibly biggest misunderstanding about evolution is that it is just "change".

Seriously, and this is not an ad hominem attack, but this is simply a case of your English letting you down. As was pointed out, the word "evolution" is NOT automatically related to ToE. Evolution is simply change. The Theory of Evolution refers to Biological Evolution, and as has been recently noted, the two are very different.

In the same way, cars have evolved and only an idiot would conflate the evolution of cars from steam-powered buggies to the Bugatti Veyron with IDiot arguments like the watch. Now, I know you're not that stupid and I'm not too worried that readers are either. Several varieties of Japanese cars even label their models "Evolution 3" and so on.

Maybe you spend too much time in skeptical circles, because the word "evolution" is very widely used in the English language and it holds no special connotations for people who aren't ID-phobic.

If you want to start an anti-ID thread, there's an entire forum available for your use.

This one certainly isn't the place for it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Seriously, and this is not an ad hominem attack, but this is simply a case of your English letting you down. As was pointed out, the word "evolution" is NOT automatically related to ToE. Evolution is simply change. The Theory of Evolution refers to Biological Evolution, and as has been recently noted, the two are very different.

In the same way, cars have evolved and only an idiot would conflate the evolution of cars from steam-powered buggies to the Bugatti Veyron with IDiot arguments like the watch. Now, I know you're not that stupid and I'm not too worried that readers are either. Several varieties of Japanese cars even label their models "Evolution 3" and so on.

Maybe you spend too much time in skeptical circles, because the word "evolution" is very widely used in the English language and it holds no special connotations for people who aren't ID-phobic.

If you want to start an anti-ID thread, there's an entire forum available for your use.

This one certainly isn't the place for it.

In your OP, you specifically talk only about biological evolution, and how to counter ID claims. So, it is very relevant to talk about anti-ID.

If you want to include the Watch-in-the-Desert type of arguments, then you are effectively destroying the goal of getting people to understand what biological evolution is.

You also exhibit a total lack of understanding what biological evolution is.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

So, it is very relevant to talk about anti-ID.

Tell you what then - you talk about that if it will make you happy. I'll just ignore it and go on my merry way.

Cheers

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

You also exhibit a total lack of understanding what biological evolution is.

My word, you really are after Randi's mio aren't you. Are you secretly a psychic?

Claus - if you want to obfuscate, irritate and evacuate, please find another thread to do it in. You're quite welcome to carry on posting in this one, but I shall be ignoring you totally from here on. There are quite a few highly knowledgeable scientists in the thread, so I'm quite sure my ignoring your input [?] won't be detrimental to the project.

Bye now!

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Tell you what then - you talk about that if it will make you happy. I'll just ignore it and go on my merry way.

You opened this thread, wanting to counter ID claims. But now, you don't want to talk about it?

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Claus - if you want to obfuscate, irritate and evacuate, please find another thread to do it in. You're quite welcome to carry on posting in this one, but I shall be ignoring you totally from here on. There are quite a few highly knowledgeable scientists in the thread, so I'm quite sure my ignoring your input [?] won't be detrimental to the project.

Those people have been feeding you input on Creationism and ID.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

You opened this thread, wanting to counter ID claims. But now, you don't want to talk about it?



Those people have been feeding you input on Creationism and ID.

I concur.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

You opened this thread, wanting to counter ID claims. But now, you don't want to talk about it?

If you'd been keeping up with the thread, I had explained how it had evolved as well and that I intended making it a factual resource rather than a rebuttal one. If that doesn't suit your agenda, I repeat that you're most welcome to start a thread doing just that.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Those people have been feeding you input on Creationism and ID.

Gosh, I hadn't even noticed - just how cunning are these people? I was referring to Dr Adequate, Paul C Anagnostopoulous and Taffer, please point out which creationist/ID arguments they have presented, so that I can avoid them in future.

Thanks for that - close shave!

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If you'd been keeping up with the thread, I had explained how it had evolved as well and that I intended making it a factual resource rather than a rebuttal one.

A resource about what?

[articulett]

TA thinks Hewitt a brilliant biologist though he knows very little biology, hates Dawkins, and can't summarize Hewitt (who can?) If it helps those who find him maddeningly impossible to talk to on the subject, you aren't alone.

In fact, I have hypothesized that he is a theist calling himself "the atheist" so he can be the boorish person he imagines atheists to be and give them a bad name. Because I don't recognize this personality amongst the non-theists I've met and hang with.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by six7s

For those, like me, who are rather confused...

That's what happens when you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Try either reading the entire thread.

Failing that, you maybe need to realise the difference between people working on a discussion thread on the internet and the real world.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's what happens when you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Try either reading the entire thread.

Failing that, you maybe need to realise the difference between people working on a discussion thread on the internet and the real world.

What a rude answer.

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by six7s

The level of 'scope creep' has reached a point where it would not be surprising if key (expert) stakeholders were considering withdrawal from the project - although the sunk costs are not insignificant, the likelihood of receiving a profitable return on their investment is rapidly diminishing

Concur. This thread should not be a "sticky," not because Atheist didn't mean well by starting it, but rather because it's already turned into a typical internet argument, rather than a reference for objective facts.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

What a rude answer.

To a rude and inaccurate statement.




Still waiting for the creationist arguments presented so far, as asked for above.

Thanks

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by kjkent1

Concur. This thread should not be a "sticky," not because Atheist didn't mean well by starting it, but rather because it's already turned into a typical internet argument, rather than a reference for objective facts.

Fancy that happening.

Given the work that Dr Adequate and others have already put in, I think it'd be a shame to let it drop.

This thread was always going to be the place to collate information rather than the final result, so it isn't too much of a problem - I'll just ignore the garbage and concentrate on the good stuff, of which there is plenty.

[Miss Anthrope]

Please remember to keep to the topic and refrain from making this personal. Argue the point, not against the poster. This thread is quickly becoming a candidate for a split to AAH.

Posted By:Miss Anthrope

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Still waiting for the creationist arguments presented so far, as asked for above.

Thanks

So, it is very relevant to talk about anti-ID.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Miss Anthrope

Please remember to keep to the topic and refrain from making this personal. Argue the point, not against the poster. This thread is quickly becoming a candidate for a split to AAH.

Posted By:Miss Anthrope

No, please leave it up here.

I'd really like it to stand as a monument to skepticism.

Not one of the people derailing the thread are anything less than 100% behind the ToE, yet their pettiness (and in arti's case, complete obsession) is ruining it.

C'est la vie.

I just feel a bit sorry for the good doc who's actually spent time writing and researching.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's what happens when you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.

YOU don't understand and, instead of thinking and sceptically assessing independent criticism, your knee-jerk response is to project your failure on to me simply because I am the latest person to question your agenda

Quote:

Try either reading the entire thread.

What makes you assume I haven't? Instead of shooting from the hip, try thinking about the real reason

To be honest, I haven't understood every post.

Some of the experts have described concepts that are beyond the comprehension of non-scientists like me, and you

Some of your posts are incomprehensible too - but, sadly, for an altogether different reason

Perhaps you are trying to convince yourself that I am part of some conspiracy to discredit you. This is not the case. You don't input from anyone else in that regard

Quote:

Failing that, you maybe need to realise the difference between people working on a discussion thread on the internet and the real world.

Maybe? Actually, no. You are again projecting your shortcomings; a failure to grasp what 'people (plural) working' means

My experience and understanding of both forum based Internet communities and the real world eludes you to a point you will never grasp, as long as you continue to employ bully-boy tactics to get your own way