I don't have the time to engage in lengthy debates but seeing as how it's just me and sometimes Linear here now to answer these kinds of posts, I feel as I did before -- that someone should be around to point out the most blatant misrepresentations of science.

CTD continues to criticise that which he does not understand, and that can be demonstrated with a couple of examples.



Most mutations are neutral. The harmful ones will not spread through the population because the organisms without the harmful mutation will continue to out-reproduce the others, and those with beneficial mutations will out-reproduce those. Most organisms with harmful mutations don't even reach the reproduction stage at all, which those who have been reading RAZD's posts will understand. Favourable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population, and unfavourable heritable traits become less common, due to the different reproductive rates of those organisms. Over time, this process may result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism. Natural selection 101. There are some exceptions, such as reproductive isolation and genetic drift.



Again, those who have carefully been reading the posts here containing real science will remember the numerous examples Russ2 gave of bacteria experiments which began with one single bacterium. Scientists actually have seen natural selection in action. You can read more here.

This is Russell2


Greetings!

Suggested reading for those unfamiliar with the dynamics of gene mutation would be to start with CCR5 delta 32. Its involvement as a mutation in the black death powerfully illustrates the role evolution plays in an organism's struggle for survival and how this can happen from generation to generation. Without mutations evolution is non-existent and life ceases to reproduce and proliferate; CCR5 delta 32 is the quintessential example in understanding how evolution permits life to continue and thrive or, in some cases, perish.

Regards,

Pantoufle

I deducted 90% of all mutations as a concession to this unverifiable claim. What more do you expect?

Now this is odd. I didn't know all mutations were linked to reproduction. Eugenecists don't know this either. They claim the unfit are outreproducing the fit at quite an alarming rate.

I don't think anyone knows all mutations are linked to reproduction because I don't think it's true, or even remotely plausible. I do know it runs contrary to observations, but I also know how little regard propagandists have for observation.

If they acknowledge his authority. That's a bit of an assumption, and a tad on the arrogant side also. If RAZD were such an authority, and such a wonderful fount of information on this topic, it is even more strange that he omitted the recessive nature of most mutations...

There's no link between mutation and reproductive rates, unless the mutation effects reproduction. This is all make-believe. This is what one produces when one has no facts and still intends to argue.

Those aren't exceptions. Folks should learn what terms mean; not simply employ words for show. But in order to have exceptions, one would first need to have an actual rule. The "rule" in this case is the assertion that possessing a bad mutation will somehow retard fertility or libido or whatever LL's imagining. This claim is just bogus. It's not even biology 101, there's just no mechanism linking mutation to reproductive rate.

When reproductive rates vary, they are almost always linked to population density. This in itself rules out Darwin's dream for most species because the intense intraspecies competition he acknowledged had to take place in time of famine in order to weed out the less fit does not actually occur in nature for most lifeforms.

This is a long-forgotten ingredient in the recipe for natural selection. Nowadays the selection god just magically detects the unfit, and even when there is no hardship available to kill them, gets the job done on the magic faith of the true believers alone. No longer is any real-world device required.

I notice several experiments there where artificial selection was employed, but none involving natural selection. It may have escaped the notice of the page's author, but natural selection does not take place in a controlled lab environment - by definition.

It is possible I overlooked something somewhere. I'm not perfect. If this is the case, I'd like to be informed of my mistake. Until I am, I don't intend to double check. My experience with such claims indicates that such an expenditure of my time would be fruitless.

Indeed, the author promises to provide artificial selection examples and call them "natural selection" right from the get-go.
This is also misleading, since single celled life has built in mechanisms which mix designated portions of the genes during reproduction. Clonal reproduction is a myth, and in many cases an outright lie because the source is informed. Only individual cells in multicellular life are designed to clone themselves, because they are components and because recombination has already taken place during and prior to reproduction. There are exceptions, which one fully expects.

Some will do not admit this fact. Some refuse to see it. Some are unaware. For such I must point out that even if it were not true, the fact that these experiments all hinge upon cloneness means they are absolutely irrelevant to multicellular life. You cannot produce such "beneficial" mutations in multicellular life experiments because the key element is the clone myth.

This myth is busted wide open by the fact that every last one of the "mutations" is repeatable, and therefore cannot be a random mutation. Rather it must be the result of some built-in mechanism. Random mutations don't repeat like clockwork. Events which repeat like clockwork are non-random events, as anyone with a lick of sense must acknowledge.

Have they not figured this out, or do they assume the truth-seeking sector of the public is too stupid?


An understanding of Recombination is required before one can even perform some classes of experiments, so it would be odd for anyone conducting them to accept the clone myth.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_protein if you're interested.

In anticipation of typical arguments targeting the gullible, I will point out that taking a Huskey and a Mexican Hairless to Siberia is not a test of natural selection. It is a contrived scenario to select the small dog. It is artificial selection. In Darwin's day they didn't see a need to confuse the two, but desperation has a way of muddying definitions sometimes.

Well, your own source says Welcome to the game.
Both links contradict what you say. It is my opinion that you are attempting to waste people's time. I cannot wish you luck in this endeavour unless I employ sarcasm.

I suppose you could be a victim of believing the things commonly said about creationists by the closed-minded, but I have a good idea this is not the case.
Now that's a fresh assertion! Others may comment thereupon, but I think it speaks for itself.

This is Russell2

Greetings,



What I've essentially said in my first post is let's take a look at this mutation and see how it's involved in the evolutionary process. What the links themselves go on to demonstrate is that a mutation (CCR5 delta 32) was introduced somewhere along the line which was successfully passed on to subsequent generations; in essence allowing the human species (at least upon the European continent) to survive. That some generations of people acquired the CCRD delta 32 mutation and were able to withstand the ravages of the bubonic plague is a testament to how the natural world around us operates: a change in genetic traits from generation to generation.

If it seems I was saying the opposite in my original post than I was either wording myself improperly or my post was simply misinterpreted.



To be frank, I do not know much of what is commonly said about creationists. It's not a well known school of thought in my corner of the globe and its movement is something I've only recently become acquainted with. Since I'm not very well versed in that area I'll refrain from agreeing or disagreeing with their philosophies until I've read up. However, my chief concern in this part of the thread is in discussing the influence mutations have on the evolutionary process.

That CCR5 delta 32 has acted as an instigator in helping humans to overcome the black death and proven benefitial for the survival of humans is irrefutable. That it took place in the form of genetic changes from generation to generation is also irrefutable. My claims are simply that this is part of the evolutionary process. I cannot imagine how else the above situation would be defined: a causal link between a mutation and its benefits being exploited by the successful population.

Regards,

Pantoufle

In a nutshell CTD, I was giving you the definition of natural selection, and your whole post amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity with attempts at distraction thrown in. Please explain, referring to the definition I gave and using specific examples, why you believe it is wrong, and why the research evidence from the link I posted does not in your opinion show natural selection. Include the cultures that were developed as clones from a single bacterium and which showed adaptations to their environment; the bacteria that had their lactose-digesting gene removed, which in subsequent generations were again able to digest lactose; and the bacteria which can digest nylon, a recently human-made substance.

To help me better understand your discussion could you please define the following terms?
1. Mutation
2. Harmful Mutation
3. Beneficial Mutation

What do you mean by "The mutations that aren't eliminated spread throughout the population"? Are you saying that harmful mutations will spread throughout the population?

You don't have to address all of his post. Since at least 3/4 of it is insult, misunderstanding, or off topic discussion, it is fairly simple to address the parts that really apply to the discussion at hand.

I hope he's ok though. He seems rather quiet lately.

I'll give you lots of stars for persistence before you get banned again LOL.

I noticed new people comeing to the board and..
(((( Smiles ))))
This is getting rather confusing???
Kind of strange..
I read recently that...
This is Russell2??
Now Amitel??
Pwcca who is Alia who is Pantoufle who is Reynard the Fox who is most definitely not Russell2 but thanks for the compliment.
Say what???

Yes.. There was insulting things said no doubt..
But it was "especially" against the owner of this board.
" By others " it seems, because I read of them..
I don't want to repeat them enough said yet..
I don't think Russ thinks its just funny or just a prank.
It doesn't look that way to me..
Why would anyone just do pranks???
Pranks outragous sarcasm or irony?
Is that allowed on this board???
Pranks are very confusing things to read through on this forum.
Though I've only read of the most recent events.
Like to go through al the video's though when I have the time to go through then all..
To see whats up??
But..
Is this just all a joke of some sort??
And you say " how in God's name "??
Do you believe in God??
With any respect or regard??
Is that directed towards Russ in someway to incite him??
I think sometimes people will get to the point where they
just don't agree with someone elses so called facts.
No matter the source of where one gets their information from.
There's that wall there and a person is allowed to disagree without haveing to insult or laugh at the owner of this board.
In a mean way as it's like tickling someone to death and saying what???
I was only tickling whats a little tickle??
It's only funny and thats why your laughing now.
I don't think Russ thinks it's funny.
I just read that CTD is the Mod now..
So it seems that people are just going to have to go that
extra mile and give him some respect.
Like they at least should for Russ too being his board.
Besides just plain disagreement.
I don't think intimidating the owner of this board or the mod now into submission...
Is going to work well on this board.
I just don't see it happening like that.
Do you???

Stay Well Ya All
Lynn

If CTD wants my respect then he's going to have to show some himself to all posters here. His recent posts to me are the usual blend of sarcasm, mockery and issue-dodging so I'm not holding my breath.

Please click on the link I provided to RAZD's last post and just make sure you understand what was said in reality. I think we are deviating from it increasingly with accusations of "mocking the owner." IMO, RAZD was simply stating what was true.

To clarify about Pwcca, he was the same person using all the aliases he listed. He is NOT Russell2. He got praise from various quarters for what he said as Alia, which perhaps ought to provoke some thought. To point out the obvious, he deliberately played her as a hate-spewing idiot who never substantiated a single thing she said with any evidence.

Stars are for ignorance remember, LOL. But in this case I thought they ought to go for the amazing reincarnating virtual poster.

Linda, the fact that a person who has presented themself as being on your side, comes on under names presenting himself falsey should be much more of an embarrassment and shame for you and your "team" than anybody else. Yet it seems you'd rather sit and have a laugh with them ....one wonders what you'd do if CTD or myself had been getting on here and doing the same?

Pwcca's Alia (alias) was accepted by us (most of the time) at face value. Unless at the time it is obvious, nobody is going to know each and everytime who exactly is doing what. I have no access to a person's IP address.

Now, it's not really a major achievement to fool people under another name. Anybody can come under names disguising or lying about their true identity and changing their name and possibly even the IP address and fool others....depending on their intention. If their intention is to have a laugh (or giggle) at others expense, then who is the sad fool in the end? The laugh is on them, since no self respecting, mature individual with half a brain would consider carrying on like this, any kind of "achievement" or of interest. But the limited and emotionally retarded individual probably will!

You mentioned praising Alia? I remember correcting this individual on here once or twice because of the extreme and unfair nature of their representation of God and His judgements of others, which was incorrect. I did not consider them full proof by any means, though I accepted their word on their belief, again at face value as I try to do with most, unless there is obvious deception. Some of it was extreme and incorrect, other parts were very strong and faithful. Hardly our fault if someone is on the end of that lying the entire time is it? Ikester also corrected Alia too for some of the extreme statements regarding moderation. I agree with points made, whether the person is presenting themself falsey or not, is not going to be automatically known by me or others. Someone on our side could do the same and come under a false name under false pretenses also. I just find it a bit pathetic. Is this the evolution mentality I wonder? Since you seem to find no issue in such behaviour Linda, one wonders how must be as a teacher?

Pwcca, just a note: ISP is internet service provider. IP is what you should be referring to. It's the internet protocol address.

Pwcca, clearly has created multiple accounts on here. Now whether he knows how to change his IP or not, I wouldn't know, I'm not the owner/moderator. He's obviously found this a pretty interesting use of his time.

Even deception of such a trivial nature like this is still a reflection of the person. Reminds me a bit of kids at school laughing with eachother at deceiving someone else (teachers included) They're usually pretty limited and pretty gutless, but they get off on the little stuff.

I can't honestly believe that anybody with a job or married would have the time or inclination to do this in my opinion. So I doubt Pwcca was telling the truth at all from the start.
Who knows? The individual is a liar either way .

Care to prove you're Alia Atreides? Change the avatar to Pwcca's and I'll believe your story.

He was Alia too????

It figures..
Ya.. I read a few of thoses posts.
I thought it was extremely odd..
Especially that picture too..
as it seemed too supernatural in design.
I wasen't sure I liked that..
It just didn't fit in that aspect for me..
Though a person can post any picture they like by their name except anything indecent.
I was wondering if that person was into astrology or something not astronomy which in my beliefs is a totally different thing.
The other not, as it's warned against By the God of Israel and of the world according to my beliefs...
Which I believe to be true, in the Old into the New Testament.
It was so totally out of my beliefs as I would not have posted that kind of picture but ..
I gave it the benefit of the doubt to what that truely meant,
to the virtual poster of now.
With no comment.
But Hummm...
But it was " very deceptive " and thats the thing.
The deception part and being fairly new here..
I don't know the past history totally on this board..
So you all have to work that part out.
I don't make the rules on this board but the mod does like on
other boards out there and even though when something may not
be seen as fair.
It's not just about what we see as fair it's about what is.
What else can you do???
There's a wall there and people are not going to see things exactly alike.
No way no how..
Some will agree some won't.
Some will agree with alittle bit but not that or this but..
It's their right to decide..
A person measures by their ruler and I'm not getting into the ruler thing now either..
But...
And this is a totally different subject..
If there are games being played on this forum..
It looks like that will no longer be allowed and it's not my call to make..
So I'm not going to make one in that context.
Who stays who goes ect ect...
But the only two people I've had any real conversation with
by quoteing & talking directly with on this forum..
Besides indirectly to the amazing reincarnating virtual poster..
Is Bex and Jeanie..
And it doesn't mean I totally agree with all comments made.
Only what I said I agreed with..
I just put in my two cents which ain't worth much.
Or maybe it is but it's not my call.
And maybe the stars should be changed into coins as it would
be an interesting new look..
Just kidding but seriously now..
You all whoever you all is..
Has got to get it together somehow realizing that not everybody is going to agree totally with someone else..
But any deception on purpose is not O.K. and I think thats what is being said here..
Deception pranks or..
Whatever goes beyond just disagreement..
Till it hits that fine line of going over it.
I'm not sure if I have that right but I think thats what it is weither one agree's with that or not.
And someone is always bound to agree with one person over another depending on the way one see's it.
But besides that..
This is overwhelming for me as I have not been here that long.
So I haven't viewed it all and even if I did..
It would be up to me to decided what I'm going to do with it anyway.
As nobody can " make " anybody believe or accept all things written as the truth or the facts anyway..
It's just not going to happen.
It would have to be left up to the person reading everything written..
They decide how they will process it and view it..
Weither one likes how they decide it or not.
But anything else then that..
I think thats where the mod says he's drawing the line.
So all anybody can do is do the best they can do and thats it.
And there sure is alot to view on this board.
No matter how anybody feels about it the mod makes the final call..
Not just on this board but other ones as well..
People pick out their favorite boards based on preference.
Thats just how it is.
And what they believe to be true after they have read all the information out there and sort it out and what they view in
life with their own eyes and everybody views something.
Even if they are viewing the same thing.
Just like they pick out their information in life..
Weither on the vaccinations, mercury, how to raise ones child..
The world is full of experts out there but the only people that truely matter is the one makeing that choice/decision.
For their life..
Based on viewing it all..
Then we decide that part in our life..
It's up to us..
Oh yes plus..
Rule 6..
On the other board all posts about moderating will be deleted.
So it seems that there has been alot of leeway given here already.

6. Postings made about the moderating will be deleted.

And rule 2..
2. No Flaming (personal attacks) or posts discussing personal attacks are allowed-treat others with respect and kindness.

Not sure how that works here but different board but again.
There going to work it out somehow..

Untill then..
We just have to wait and see..
And of course not everyone will be happy with it.
People never are..
Now I'm really tucker out..
But Stay Well.

Take Care
Lynn

No problem Pwcca

Plus Bex is great ((( Smiles )))

She deserves 5 stars or five coins whatever..
And thats why I agreed with her here in the past.
She's an asset to this board in alot of ways..
I'm surprised that she doesn't tire out faster..
But she has alot of spunk..
But this forum does need to be cleaned up and theses games
need to be stopped.
It is getting rather confusing and there has been alot of
leeway on this forum already.
And maybe thats the problem here..
Too lax but the cure is not up to me.
To define what the rules are.
But thats not going to be a fun or easy job either I see.
Probably a very tireing one for whoever it falls too..
Which it has changed from Ike to CDT now and with all his posting..
A a very tireing extra job indeed..
Not sure how thats going to be defined here.

Back now to the forum I enjoy the best..
Good Luck With It..

Lynn

Hi Lynn,

Thank you for your very kind comments, I am flattered!!! But uncertain I deserve quite the praise you've given. I personally find you someone to aspire to regarding your attitude to others, which, with my temperament? Probably couldn't hope to achieve, much-less sustain.

I'm no angel on here and I'll be the first to admit my emotions get the better of me. But I'd like to see things cracked down on too more and I think it's happening, but it's not pretty.

In my opinion Lynn, I believe that Russ and his authority and decisions on here should not be continually subjected to the challenge and defiance of ANY member/s. Those who do this, should at some point (surely?) be given a formal warning and if they continue? Possibly a banning maybe in order. This is my opinion.

I am really tired of seeing Russ have to go through the same explanations time and time again to defend his position and reputation and reasons for banning. We were there, we saw it, we witnessed it and know what happened. I think this is causing more problems and keeping the issue from ever being resolved or at least put to rest.

I do not envy the task of owning and/or moderating any forum, much-less this one! The cracking down on those individuals was Russ' decision and he had every right to do so in light of the personal mockery and slander, of his mental state/character/reputation - making almost a joke out of him on his own forum.

I believe that the decision has been made and explained more than necessary. Those who refuse to let the issue die down and continue to challenge and defy/ignore the explanations given for their bannings, in preference for misrepresenting the situation and reasons, should, in my opinion be eventually removed. Even snide and continued references to it should incur the same.

That is my opinion, but I am not the owner/moderator. I really believe this is causing alot of problems on here that should not have to be tolerated.

I totally agree with your statements. Things have been lax for too long. So cracking down at this time, may not look pretty for now, but let's hope for a better outcome.

God bless you!

Bex, we are not at war here and I don't like to think of myself or anyone else as being on a "side." I think Aves summed our purposes up here well. Me, I want to discuss ideas, and also make corrections where science is misrepresented.

I like Pwcca. I'm not making judgements about what he chooses to do. He's human, like you and me, and I like his personality. As for Alia, "she" got at least one private message from a regular poster, expressing agreement with her sentiments. Enough said I think.

If you or CTD wanted to troll? Go for it, it could be fun to see what you were saying. See how long it takes for you to get rumbled. I'm not saying that I advocate trolling as a general pastime, especially since most trolls tend to be rude or malicious, but sometimes creating an alternate persona and exploring a different point of view -- and helping others to do so -- isn't a bad thing. Drama and role-playing can be useful tools in life sometimes.

I don't want to be at war Linda. But it's hard not to respond in such a manner that winds up heading that way.

Since you're so readily unjudgemental when it comes to Pwcca and his "role-playing" (I call it deception) one assumes you'd not consider it an issue if a creationist had been playing the same games and fooling others by pretending to be 'sincere'? Call me strange, but I like to consider the poster I'm talking to as being somewhat honest in regards to their position!

Hmmmm, I wonder who the poster was that agreed with Alia? And what did they agree with? Consider that some of the comments were strong and biblical and certainly not all extreme and full of fanatical condemnation/death to sinners! So too hard for me to comment there. And I wouldn't like to judge their agreement, if I dont' know what they were agreeing about.

Well, I'm not sure Linda if I can be bothered to get under another name and start posting and trying to pass myself off as someone I'm not..... already this forum is pretty unstable. It's like being in the Alice in wonderland ward at times. I don't wish to get myself banned right now either.

As boring as it maybe, I'll stick with Bex for now To accept such an offer of trolling and fooling other people, is not my idea of "fun" so to speak and hardly fair on others.

Ohhh, ((( Smiles )))

I just don't think anybody should be setting anybody up like that.
"she" got at least one private message from a regular poster, expressing agreement with her sentiments.
Enough said I think.

As...
People will lose trust for others on the board if someone does something such as that.

I detect alot of frustration by lots of others here..
No matter how someone leans on the issues.
And of course people will lean one way or the other.
But pretending a person is somebody else is not a good thing to do.
I've never done anything such as that before myself.
If I ever did that..
I don't think people would ever trust me again.
No matter the reasons for it..
That would only lead to more distrust..
In the long run..
I don't think that would solve anything.
In the long run.

Lynn

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=41758#Post41758

Sorry to break so many hearts. Not!

But the attentive already knew... And I think enough has been said by those who praise those who practice such.

I agree with you Lynn. I believe it creates an increasing sense of mistrust on the forum between members and treats posters and the forum as a stage show. They may find it highly amusing, since it's "us" that have been taken for the ride.....but I wonder how they'd react if they had been on the end of it?

I'm sorry too that a poster private messaged "Alia" taking the person at face value and considering them sincere, when they were simply being taken in also.

No it doesn't solve anything, it just creates further chaos in my opinion.

I'd find it very interesting, actually, if a creationist tried to troll as an evolutionist. They'd have to have a reasonably good understanding of science in order to do so. If they were actually able to convince me for any length of time I'd take my hat off to them.

This is the internet, Bex, and you can't always take things at face value. I've never trolled in my life and I haven't misrepresented myself to you, but you don't really know me from Adam do you? Probably just a good rule of thumb to take things with a grain of salt.

I'd say any creationist with even a basic concept and understanding of the evolutionse language and tactics, would do fairly well

Of course, since Pwcca was doing the trolling, it's acceptable You're funny Linda!

No I don't know you from Adam Linda. Are you posing as an evolutionist? Somehow I doubt it. I consider your posts pretty sincere in that respect.

I do tend to take people, to a certain extent, at face value in order to enjoy any aspect of discussion. I can assure you these forums would lose all meaning for me if I didn't. I consider many at least pretty sincere as far as I've seen and picked up on. I tend to treat them as such until proven otherwise. Otherwise I'd never bother wasting my time and offering any help or asking for it. You gotta take those chances sometimes and it's worth making a fool out of yourself if one person winds up being sincere in their need for it.

If we treated everybody was such suspicion, we'd miss out helping those who are sincere.

I agree, you need to trust at some point that people are who they say they are, that they're being sincere, etc. But the internet being what it is, and so very impersonal, it does leave an open door for people to make new personas for themselves.

I didn't say I would disapprove of a creationist trying to pose as an evolutionist. I just doubt if they'd be very successful. If you've got some time on your hands at some point, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Yes, anybody can do and be anybody on the net, I agree. But I don't particularly wish to do so.

Well Linda, the apparent superiority of evolutionists in your post is rather difficult for me (and I'm sure others) to sit and swallow. Since some of the greatest scientists in the world have been creationists - it's absolutely ludicrous. Does your faith require you to belittle others in order to prop it and yourselves up?

I think a creationist, as I said, that was familiar/fluent in evolutionese and the evolution faith would do just as well as anybody. Maybe not myself, since Pwcca understands his own limitations in regards to this, so do I.

Tell me, since you're so certain of the evolution intellectual and scientific superiority over others - What do you think happens to an evolutionist who becomes a creationist (e.g. Roger Oakland for example) does their once superior intellect lessen? Do they go from understanding science to becoming a moron?

And if a creationist becomes an evolutionist, does this then make their IQ go up from dullard to genuis by any chance?

Again, you're arrogant quips Linda are hard to ignore. Since you continue to inject this into your posts to provoke, I am under the impression that you quite enjoy it.

lol, so you knew all along. Ahh, well I feel silly for not catching on myself! Thanks for that. I must have missed that post at the time and wished I had seen it then. I have had some absences from here and don't always catch up on each and every post as thoroughly as I think.

Well I don't think you were surprised to see such practices praised by those who seem willing to accept and even encourage such by those on their own team so to speak. Just a pat on the head and "let's overlook it"!

Bex, I think something needs to be said here. This forum has been filled recently with angry posts from you. I for one am getting tired of "it's not fair/you think you're so great/your side should be so embarrassed, you're all deceivers/blah blah". That seems to be all we're talking about, rather than actual creation and evolution.

As for the trolling thing, OK, put yourself in an evolutionist's shoes. You are countering claims from creationists such as "you believe rocks turned into humans" or "there are no transitional fossils." Could you really answer the way a person knowledgeable about science would, or would you be tempted to repeat the straw men that creationists so often do about these topics and say something like, "I know there are very few transitional fossils but evolution is TRUE!" Beep, you're rumbled mate. Anyway, I'll let you play with the fascinating possibilities here.

Linda, have a look at the posts from yourself, the behaviours recently and then figure out why my posts seem angry lately. You have displayed ongoing whingeing and whining continually, emotional posts with pot shots, yet when you were responded to, you can't handle it. Somehow, for reasons that escape me, you expect to throw out any kind of comment and then get off scot free. I'm not sure what you take me for? Have you somehow grown up with this mentality and gotten away with it?

Now you've resorted to typing up posts and slipping in a snide or provocative/patronising remark instead....so I'm really not sure how long you wish for this to continue? I'm happy for this to stop personally, but it's not easy when you keep it going by provoking....I'm waiting for you to discontinue. That would be a nice change and if you wish to get back to discussing topics on the forum, you're welcome to do so.

I have never made claims of extensive scientific knowledge, I don't pretend I do. But I give it a go from a layman's stance and I think everybody should be free to do so if/when they wish. There is no obligation for anybody, but when ones reputation/character and history on here are being maligned or deliberately and unfairly misrepresented? That tends to get me fired up.

Since the world is OUR world too, I think anybody can get on here and read and put a word in or two if they want! Now if you consider yourself an expert or highly knowledgeable on all or some aspects of science? That's great, but how about a touch of humility? Since it's obvious with the ongoing need to debate, that the science world certainly hasn't got it "wrapped up" and the question marks continue.

Now, I can admit I'd never wipe the floor with anybody (creationist/evolutionist) who had an extensive or greater knowledge of science and terminology than I do and there are plenty of both out there.

There are plenty of evolution/creation scientist debates. If it really was about creatonist scientists being inferior in knowledge, I very much doubt they would put themselves out there in public, on film and at times debating many more evolutionsts at once. What a risk that would be if they did not have the knowledge! One can view them online I think.

Now,why dont you simply go back to the appropriate threads/topics and stick to whatever you wish to discuss or share and if you're not satisfied with the answers or "non answers" that you claim you're getting (not getting), then feel free to leave and go to a forum where you are happier. Nobody is keeping you here Linda and ongoing dissatisfaction is really pointless and tiring.

If the quibble here is what I've said about the bannings then I know what's been officially said about them here and we'll have to agree to disagree. Just please remember that a difference of opinion is not necessarily the same as someone mocking or being dishonest or slanderous. It's a difference of opinion. Where factual information is in question, such as the definition of the theory of evolution, then clarifying the facts is not mocking or dishonest or slanderous either.

I will make an effort to be more polite to CTD. Being on his "side," as you put it, I don't suppose you see what it is like to try to debate with someone who often does not make it clear what they are actually saying, who rarely substantiates claims with evidence, who regularly uses distraction tactics and ad hominem in order to avoid talking about science. It's hard to write with respect to someone who writes to me in that style but in your eyes I'm sure it's simply deserved because you clearly think I'm "just as bad." I could give you specific examples but I think you'd simply tell me I was getting as good as I was giving. You are biased Bex, and I don't think you understand where those who disagree with you are coming from. This is not a criticism but an observation. Now CTD can fend for himself here. If you don't like something I've said to you, then please point it out specifically and we can talk about it.

Yet everything you state here, is what I see coming from you....so how on earth can any of this be resolved? Clearly it cannot. Differences of opinion are fine, but generalising/exaggerating on what had been said to you or stated when clearly it often hasn't, is concerning.

Don't forget that your own posts often contain
veiled insults or insinuations there also, which one could easily do the same with.

Since you have issues with CTD, as you're both opposed to eachother strongly. I suggest that you address the poster in question, rather than making generalisations. I've read his posts and seen you accuse him of calling you this or that. When he has not done so. Insinuations that one maybe being dishonest etc has been done by both parties. So you cannot really complain too much about that one.

Sorry Linda, but it seems you are blinded by your own biast instead. I don't think either party is ever going to agree. Too much differences for that to happen. Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

I'd like to see maybe things get back to some kind of normality on here. If that can't be done, I see no reason to continue posting.

Hummm... ((( Not Good At All )))

I've been reading the recent posts here and I just don't think this can be resolved the gulf is to deep..
And I know by me saying what I see straight out is not going to make others happy but no matter what I say..
someone is not going to be happy with it anyway..

But what I see going on here is bullying behavior and being highly patronizing to others on the board..
who don't agree with your data and the interpretion of.
There is no real conversation here only intimidation of others and I suspect that others have left the board/forum..
over the years because of it too.
Just being real tired of it as if someone may disagree with you or have information or a point of view on the subject.
that is counter to your facts, you bully them into submission and downgrade them with this endless circular debates.
You bait people into..
It's like threatening people into submission or into not voiceing any counter information or they will be subject to theses endless attacks..
Thats how others do feel on the board now, thats what I see.
Attacking others with what they say, as ignorant or not true science ect or worse..
into submission like you are trying to stiffle others on the board..
It's like a game of bait and attack.
And tuneing others out who respond to your promptings.
So why respond at all??

It all makes sense to me now..
Theses circular debates and how they work and what they are meant to do to anyone who questions the so called evidence
with other so called questions which is never ever good enough for you so you need to discredit others and put them down
till they just put tape over their mouth and go away..
Now I understand what thoses other scientists who question the evidence and have a different outlook on it and find fault
go through and what they are all talking about, because it's true..
Because I see it here.

This is it.. This is how it is for them..
You just proved their point..
There just bullied away into submission..
Over ruled like the Royal Society's director of education,
Michael Reiss was too, if questioning the so called facts or thinking about it differently..
And of course you see it one way and I see it another way but thats just how it goes, what it is.

This bullying behavior has got to stop.
I think Bex is right..
Sorry Linda, but it seems you are blinded by your own bias instead.
People are just tired of it and they really don't want to talk to you anymore in that kind of fashion, either.

And this was derogatory as well..
make it sound like I really do believe the earth is hollow and fairies live there.

Is there no end to it??
It just goes on and on forever?

I think enough already.
Thats takeing it alittle bit to far and insulting to others
who do believe in creationism.
Weither you agree with them or not.

It's the attitude thing thats the problem..
I know you probably do not see it that way..
But others do and I realize now your ammo is about going after people who speak out..
Really going after them with your kind of truth.
So I guess I'm next on your list to be attacked??
But what I have to share I would rather not share it with you.
Hardly worth the effort.
Sorry if this upsets you but I find this upsetting too.

Even though, stay well..
There's nothing here to enjoy.
Hardly worth the effort.
You got that right.
Lynn

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for post. I appreciate it. We needed a mod early on and on a continual basis before things were ever allowed to reach such a point. Russ is a busy guy, and has other things to think about other than keeping adults on a forum under some form of control.

I have confidence in the moderator and the owner. Hoping for a resolution or clean out.

Nobody is going to relent. But one thing is certain, no moderator/owner would tolerate any member disrespecting them and continually challenging/questioning them on their own forum, yet that has been done freely on here and it's an ongoing problem.

It's constant distraction/disruption/defiance.

Look after yourself Lynn!

God bless

Ever hear the saying "the devil is in the details"? Well, we have quite the annoying devil at work here, in the wording of your request.

Had you said "To waste your time, could you..." I should have immediately recognized that as an honest request.

But you didn't. You said "To help me better understand...". History shows that any and all efforts I have ever made to help you understand have failed. I should set quite the poor example if I fail to learn the lessons of history.

Alternatively, we can view the situation as experimental science. All experiments involving myself helping LinearAQ understand have had negative results.

It would be unscientific for me to proceed as if this were not the case. The hype about creationists is that we're an unscientific sort, but even so, one shouldn't expect me to go that far.


Like I said, had the request been worded "to waste time..." I would've taken it as honest. These terms have been used before many times. I doubt very much Linear is having trouble understanding them all of a sudden.

They will continue to do so, yes. Why do you even ask?

Subjective or no, I think we may need to consider some sort of rule about feigned stupidity. I question the wisdom of a no-limit policy on the practice. I should also find the arguments in favour either extremely interesting or funny; there is no third possibility. Naturally the rule wouldn't apply to newcomers, folks with only a handful of posts, unless they made claims about having obtained a level of education inconsistent with their posts.

But as long as there's no rule, I have a question for evolutionists: Is it accurate to say chickens come from eggs or is it an offensive lie?

*As a moderator, I'm duty-bound to refrain from stirring things up. It is a mistake to think that this makes me vulnerable to oh-so-typical evotactics. I have no duty to fall victim to junk tactics like this.*

My post has not been refuted. There has been no meaningful challenge to anything I said. Essentially it has been unopposed. Questions like this and appeals to magic and other utterly baseless assertions like LindaLou's do not constitute meaningful opposition, let alone refutation. There have been comments indicating "the ball is in my court"; but is it? How is my argument any less valid if I refuse to entertain questions of this caliber? How does the bare assertion that I "don't understand natural selection" impact things?

Indeed, one need not label what really happens 'natural selection' in order to discuss it as I have. One can just talk about what happens when mutations are passed from ancestor to offspring. Better that evogods be left out when discussing reality, IMO.

As LindaLou's argument is essentially that the evogod of selection can function no matter what happens in reality, I don't know that it merits an additional response. Oh, and that I'm ignorant if I doubt it - can't overlook that. But I don't have a handy counter argument to the latter, so maybe she wins?

Oops! I just thought of a counter argument: Darwin claimed otherwise. She knows this. At one point she was prepared to give up Darwinism for earth-spirit-guided neo-Lamarckism. I wonder if she's confusing the selection god with the earth spirit... Hard to judge confusion in others sometimes, especially without cooperation on their part. I will confess I am pretty ignorant about the earth spirit espoused by fringe elements of the neo-Lamarckist community. Now that there's less peer pressure, it might be a good time for her to start a thread and educate us about the earth spirit. I'd also like to know how this is categorized as something other than ID; I suspect it's just politics.

At any rate, my point is that not just any old response is sufficient to refute something. Refutation requires a little more. Folks are entitled to their own opinion, but the type who accepts such as refuting what I said isn't going to care what else I might add anyway. Not at all. The mind of such is a tightly closed one.

Lynn, since you are new to the forum, it might be helpful if you have a look through the threads here.



Specific example please.



I've been writing on the topics of natural selection and astronomy recently. I have discussed geography, radiometric dating, and human origins. I usually reply if I see scientific misinformation being presented as fact. You can have a look around the forum if you don't believe me.



Please give an example of "bullying" from me. Is it bullying to point out factual inaccuracies in a debate? Maybe you have something else in mind?

I provide evidence for what I say and I expect people I talk to here to do the same. It's a way of showing that there's a basis in reality for what you are saying. In most forums this is considered debate, not bullying.



I have never called anyone here ignorant. I have sometimes suggested that they learn about what they are criticising before they criticise it, but only after they have demonstrated their lack of understanding. Should I not be talking about "true science" as opposed to "false science"? Should we not clarify what these terms mean?



Quite, if all you have to add to the discussion is a post full of insults. I wouldn't write a post like this to you.



There are people here who are interested in my posts and who have expressed respect for what I have to say. I guess you must be just as frustrated with them. Come to think of it, from someone who posts in the Bible forum so often, this isn't a very Christian post as I understand the term. I am aware of the problems you have with your children and I sympathise -- but you must understand that coming here and writing posts like this is not going to evoke thank-yous from the people they are addressed to.



Pleased to hear it. When you feel like talking about some science, as opposed to insulting me, you're welcome back.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
(John 3:16)