|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 23, 2010 14:09:26 GMT 1
You simply do not get the point do you? Sceptcisim is the very essence of science; the dogmatic 'you are wrong and I am right' so prevalent on this board is the very antitthseis of science You really don't see the irony, do you? It is you who keep claiming that you are right and scientists or mathematicians are wrong, according to the dogma that it must be the case, if you don't understand it. Show me on article on this board where I have claimed to be RIGHT! I am far too sceptical, aware of my limitations to do so. It is others, such as yourself that insist they are right yet are utterly incapable of explaining to interested intelligent people why they are right If they said, I think that this is right and mathematical modelling indicates this might be that case' (as real physicists do), that would be aceptable But ego driven people like yourself insist that you are right as if you are high priests guarding the covenant of the Holy Grail Just look at your initial response to my questions in the OP Personal attack, sneering - and that is to questions for God's sake! That is arrogance, the ego-driven ignorance that I abhor ...I can detect blather at 100m The blather is all coming from yourself. Have you actually read any of the articles I pointed to that might help clear up your confusion about evolution? [/quote] My , you simply do not see! Have you read my posts? I posed those questions for a specific purpose. Not to make a fools of anyone, but just to illustrae a point, but [snip]you fell into the friendly 'trap' that I set and because of your [snip] reponse I am not inclined to be symapthetic to you
|
|
|
Post by yellowcat on Sept 23, 2010 14:39:11 GMT 1
You simply do not get the point do you? Sceptcisim is the very essence of science; the dogmatic 'you are wrong and I am right' so prevalent on this board is the very antitthseis of science You really don't see the irony, do you? It is you who keep claiming that you are right and scientists or mathematicians are wrong, according to the dogma that it must be the case, if you don't understand it. If you came here and said "I really don't understand this, can someone explain", rather than stuff like "Daft Analogy", "Silly Science", "Confused Science", "An Infinity Of Bollocks" or, for that matter "I simply refuse to genuflect to dogma", then you would have a point. As it is, it's a massive case of pot-kettle-black. The evidence indicates otherwise. ...I can detect blather at 100m The blather is all coming from yourself. Have you actually read any of the articles I pointed to that might help clear up your confusion about evolution? It is quite clear that naymissus is just a troll or WUM, simply posting to provoke rather than having any interest in nor any wish to bother to even try to understand the answers. I don't think it is really worth answering his questions in future, his bad attitude is the type of thing that disrupted the BBC boards and it looks like these boards are quickly going the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Joanne Byers on Sept 23, 2010 15:04:17 GMT 1
Words like T ROLL and L IAR etc are not tolerated on this board. If you use them your whole post will be deleted. So learn to get by without them, please.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 23, 2010 15:45:22 GMT 1
It is quite clear that naymissus is just a philosopher or WUM, simply posting to provoke rather than having any interest in nor any wish to bother to even try to understand the answers. I don't think it is really worth answering his questions in future, his bad attitude is the type of thing that disrupted the BBC boards and it looks like these boards are quickly going the same way. Thankyou Yellowcat, love you too, even if you are a loveable sily-billy
|
|
|
Post by yellowcat on Sept 23, 2010 18:54:52 GMT 1
I am fully aware that I am loveable and good natured, that is what my wife like about me. That and me being fabulously good in bed and my natural modesty.
|
|
|
Post by Joanne Byers on Sept 23, 2010 19:06:32 GMT 1
There! Love and affection have broken out, temporarily!
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 23, 2010 19:36:26 GMT 1
I am fully aware that I am loveable and good natured, that is what my wife like about me. That and me being fabulously good in bed and my natural modesty. I am consumed with jealousy! Leave her Yellowcat Your calling insights (lays) elsewhere!
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 3, 2010 20:58:17 GMT 1
Well, back to this topic briefly
Here are the original questions
If evolution is the accidental triumph of millions of genetic mutations then why do all fossil record show distinct changes, and not a series of gradual changes?
How can a sophisticated organ such as the eye have 'evolved' when there are so many interdependent functions that must have happened at the same time?
Why did land mammals 'evolve' in such a short space of time to become whales, for example?
And here are some comments upon those questions by a couple of people whose normal modus operandi is to scorn the questioner.
What your questions indicate is a near complete ignorance, an unwillingness to go find out and your usual dogmatic belief that if you don't understand it, it must be wrong. ………you could have asked something a little more intelligent Olmy
"How can a sophisticated organ such as the eye have 'evolved' when there are so many interdependent functions that must have happened at the same time?" is meaningless Yellowcat
Well Olmy and Yellowcat, the reason that I asked the questions was to see what the responses would be.
For these questions that you think unintelligent, displaying near complete ignorance, dogmatism, meaningless, were asked by Darwin himself of his work after he wrote (and rewrote many times) the Origin Of Species.
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 4, 2010 7:57:59 GMT 1
Yes, Darwin did ask questions about these things. Quite obviously, however, he didn't do so with your belligerent attitude and after having already established an anti-scientist agenda. Equally obviously, he didn't have the benefit of the next 150 years of evidence and theoretical work nor instant access to this information with the minimum of effort.
I'm sure Newton questioned why things seem to require a force to keep them moving, when he was formulating his first law of motion. However, if someone asked this question today, with your attitude and posting history, they would likely get asked why they didn't stay awake at school......
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 4, 2010 8:30:48 GMT 1
Yes, Darwin did ask questions about these things. Quite obviously, however, he didn't do so with your belligerent attitude and after having already established an anti-scientist agenda. Equally obviously, he didn't have the benefit of the next 150 years of evidence and theoretical work nor instant access to this information with the minimum of effort. I'm sure Newton questioned why things seem to require a force to keep them moving, when he was formulating his first law of motion. However, if someone asked this question today, with your attitude and posting history, they would likely get asked why they didn't stay awake at school...... ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 4, 2010 8:55:21 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 17:42:25 GMT 1
I hear the accusation "anti-science" a lot these days from certain quarters. Nay is not "anti-science" he is anti-humbug and anti-ideology.
Climate sceptics are also decried as "anti-science". Nothing could be further from the truth. Sceptics are very PRO-science. The thing is we recognise the scientific method when we see it and we see very little of it in the IPCC politico-climatology and peer-review worship purveyed by alarmist footsoldiers hereabouts.
|
|
|
Post by yellowcat on Oct 15, 2010 22:36:10 GMT 1
" Nay is not "anti-science" " "Climate sceptics are also decried as "anti-science". Nothing could be further from the truth. Sceptics are very PRO-science."
Ha Ha Ha you really should try stand up comedy.
|
|