|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1337
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:44 am Post subject: |
    |
|
This bullying approach to discourse is rude and as such will not be allowed to continue:
"It is not worth wasting one's time with people who are being illogical as you are."
Please keep in mind that religious spam is just as much spam as any other spam, and that the Fireside Forum is not a place for haranguing people.
Last edited by Kevin on Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Title of this topic was changed from --->>>
TOP SCIENTISTS SPREADING MIS-INFORMATION
to
"Creationist Perspective on Mitochondrial Eve"
without my authorization and completely as an arbitrary decision.
Why is this? If this is a free forum, users should be allowed to title their articles as they wish, not not be subject to having their articles title changed to what is more politically "correct".
Is this some type of forum censorship ?
Now, if you consider a statement to be rude, why is it rude?
If I feel someone is being illogical? Did not the same person say the statement I made is the most absurd thing they ever heard? This is the same in effect as saying what I said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
In fact, look at what Chris posted before I made this statement --->>
| Quote: | | This has to be among the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. I'm not sure you are sane |
So in effect he suggested I am insane.
So then why is every word being caught like this but his words were not caught?
Is every word we use on these forums being monitored in some way? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1337
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
So anything that does not fit into the status quo "evolutionary ideas" is immediately rejected an considered as "religious spam"?
Then this is truly not a forum for the expression of free ideas, but rather just as in the educational system, there is no true freedom to express alternate points of view, but rather is creating a climate of suppression and censorship, contrary to the foundations upon which this country was built. I see no need for this. Let others come into the discussion if they wish to do so, and let Chris continue as he pleases. Only there is no need for statements of the type "I am not so sure you are sane".
Now, as far as the capital title, I can agree as to why that could be the case. But what is considered a mis-leading title? Who is to consider what is mis-leading - is this a consensus? And how about topics such as "Lies and the Lying LiArs Who. . ."
Is this not just as much a misleading title? What would be considered to be a mis-leading title, under these definitions? And if one considers the title to be true, then others will consider it misleading? Then it becomes arbitrary, or a matter of personnal opinion, in my view.
In any event, will have a look at those forum rules and then am sorry if you feel offended in some way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1337
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2166
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If I saw him poked his head into our upper atmosphere and said hello I would certainly believe he exists. Until then I have no proof either way. |
This is what I actually said. If you are going to quote me please use the actual quote. This is just an example of how you twist things around.
I have been neither in favor or opposed to the possibility of God, all I have said is that science does not prove it one way or the other.
Any detailed discussion on a particular theory of evolution would require me to become an expert on that subject and I am not willing to spend the time to rebuff all these statements you pull up. This case was taken to court and properly heard and I trust the court to have made an unbiased decision based on empirical evidence. I also watched the documentary of the trial which seems to show it was properly conducted.
As for your original theory "TOP SCIENTISTS SPREADING MIS-INFORMATION"
I don't see any evidence that supports your claim. They are spreading there theories but that is their job.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: Re: Coexistence of science and spirit |
|
|
| Kevin wrote: | Please be aware that this is not a promising way to converse in these forums:
"See this is the thing with people like you..."
A core principle in the founding of these forums is an appreciation that science and spirit need to coexist in the contemporary human being.
The problem with creationism is that it is asserted in blind faith over demonstrable science. The assertion of creationism, in any of its various labelings, is not a path toward coexistence; it is an attempt at hegemony.
The various versions of the Bible are just books - pre-scientific books - created by human beings, no more, no less. Books can be very special and important, but any particular holiness they have is granted from us, not from somewhere "above". The various versions of the Bible have nothing to contribute to the scientific discussion of evolution - and little if anything to contribute to the practical discussion of how to make buildings.
Quoting a Bible is utterly meaningless with regard to the demonstrated facts of evolution as we know them. As are the word games, pseudo-science, and quasi-logic in many of the long posts and quotations above.
If you don't believe science knows its stuff - reliably and in stupendously fine detail - then how, as a down-to-earth practical matter, do you think your cell phone works?
_IF_, between faith and science, one _must_ be asserted in primacy, it needs to be science, because it is demonstrable, whereas faith is evanescent and largely undefinable. But the human mind is deeply, inherently emotional and spiritual as well as logical, and a gentle coexistence seems most likely to lead to the fullness of life. |
Creationism asserted in blind faith over demonstrable science?
This is not the case. Has anyone analyzed the evidence of Scientific Creationism being presented here?
Books created by human beings, no more no less? What about all the science being presented and with also a solid foundation in these books?
And what if some believe, or it can be proven that the Biblical account of creatiion can be scientifically proved? Then what for saying the Bible is not scientific?
Besides, really, in the entirety, I can see this Fireside forum is not only about making buildings, as the topics diverge to many multiple ideas including politics, archeology.
Demonstrated facts of evolution as we know them ? What would these be?
Further, why was this entire response inserted randomly in the middle of the thread, as an after fact, rather then being introduced at the end of the post? Would it be more convincing this way?
"But the human mind is deeply, inherently emotional and spiritual as well as logical, and a gentle coexistence seems most likely to lead to the fullness of life."
See, this is the point I am trying to make. This is exactly why we need to see things from both angles, so that we can see the fallacies of science and not assume it is error free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1185
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me. |
Sir Isaac Newton
I have to add that I find it amusing to read the offhand dismissal of science as "illogical theories", and that that message is transmitted through the complex electronics of computers and the internet.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
See this is the case - Richard has expressed his opinion such as Isaac Newton. Everyone is free to an opinion.
But is the information being presented being honestly analyzed? I propose that it is not, but rather conclusions are being drawn based on what one already believes.
""See this is the thing with people like you..."
So what is wrong with this type of statement? If I believe another person is representing a particular behavior representative of a group, then this is not the same as what is being done here, by classifying all the writers of books which refer to God as being anti-scientific? So in effect, this is doing the same.
| Quote: | | If I saw him poked his head into our upper atmosphere and said hello I would certainly believe he exists. Until then I have no proof either way. |
| Quote: | | This is what I actually said. If you are going to quote me please use the actual quote. This is just an example of how you twist things around. |
And I am not twisting anything Chris. I did not your original quote in front of me at the time, and was simply expressing the core ideas of what I felt you were saying. There is no twisting in this. It does not bother me if you wish to refer back to your original quote. See, this only demonstrates that an intense effort is being made to find some error in what I say, so as to dis-credit the entirety of what is being said. This is a reductionist attempt at dis-crediting something much bigger we do not understand, by nick-picking on small words and sentences.
| Quote: | | Any detailed discussion on a particular theory of evolution would require me to become an expert on that subject and I am not willing to spend the time to rebuff all these statements you pull up. This case was taken to court and properly heard and I trust the court to have made an unbiased decision based on empirical evidence. I also watched the documentary of the trial which seems to show it was properly conducted. |
This was not taken to court, nor can any court make an ultimate judgement on this matter. The only thing they did was to remove the right of free speech and the basic premises of "In God We Trust" stated on the constitution. Thus, the removal of the liberty we have as a Nation to believe that we trust in God, not in science.
Plus, why should all agree that my title was correct, or that I have evidence to support it?
Does the author of the tile Lies and the Lying LiArs Who. . . have evidence for this claim? Then allowing this title topic implies we are in agreement with the premise? This is preposterous to assume that every topic must bring a consensus of agreement, or the topic must be re-named or made more appropriate, to satisfy the status quo, or worse, the removal of freedom of choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1185
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done |
Isaac Newton
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1337
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Does the author of the tile Lies and the Lying LiArs Who. . . have evidence for this claim? |
Yes, BTW. Plenty. But, anyway, that's a rather different case, in the realm of politics, not science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Besides, one does not even need to be a scientist to understand some of the basic erros of science that I have pointed out. Just an open mind, not influenced by pre-conceived ideas is all that is needed to spot the errors of modern science.
Even looking at the posts of Ed, one does not need be a scientist to understand the basics of what is being proposed.
So then, politics and alternate views on politics is considered not controversial, and thus anyone can post any outrageous ideas as they please, but if one posts an idea on science, it must have a consensus? What about all the posts by Ed? Are these not science? Is there any consensus on what is being posted there? Can anyone prove those images from the sky in fact are of ancient civilizations? In any event, that is science and not politics.
Further, one sentence was picked out from what I said, making it look extreme, as the rest of the sentence is missing in the quote, as follows -->>
| Quote: | | "Rather, you simplify everything into silly reactionist phrases in an attempt to ridicule what is being presented. That is why I said at the beginning and repeat. It is not worth wasting one's time with people who are being illogical as you are. Rather, if you would consider the scientific evidence and information presented in a rational way, rather then with emotional catch phrase responses, then some progress could be made and a discussion would be worthwhile. Further, I do not feel an individual such as yourself can represent in one all opposing camps of alternate views. Thus, arguing with one individual is not productive. If others should wish to join in the discussion, I will consent to proceed. Otherwise it becomes a game of personal accusations which demonstrate an un-willingness to analyze the evidence being presented in an objective way. Plenty of evidence has been presented to demonstrate the fallacies of evolution, and you have not responded to a single of them in a scientific way. Rather, you have resorted to retoric and ridiculing statements that sound nice but demonstrate a complete refusal to really look into what is being presented." |
Notice what came after the sentence "people who are being illogical.." ... then "some progress could be made and a discussion would be worthwhile". So in no way was I being abusive in my opinion, rude or telling this member I did not want to speak with him. I immediately expounded on the idea meaningful conversation could be achieved, if the individuals should consider even the basic premises of what is being presented in terms of science, analyzing it from a basic high school level of science.
I find this quote by Isaac Newton to be most relevant of all, as posted by Richard:
| Quote: | "Quote:
Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done
Isaac Newton |
This is the type of interaction on the part of other members which is most useful, and even those of great men such as Isaac Newton. See, then even Newton did not consider ideas of Scientific Creationism to be religious spam or ideas anti-science. And just a little digging will reveal how even Einstein himself believed in the possibility of God, among most likely hundreds of other great scientists in history.
See the problem comes when we generalize, or when we judge this thread based on our pre-conceived ideas of science, or based on what science is telling us. We then fail to realize it all makes sense, and it is only here to help us analyze the facts from an objective point of view, rather then the skewed point of view as is being presented by those biased in favor of evolution and who are anti God or any notion that books on God can be scientific. It would be interesting if someone were to come along and demonstrate how the Biblical account of creation in fact is science, and illustrates in perfect scientific model how the universe "evolved" from the initial primordial soup to the modern man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone willing to take up the challenge to analyze objectively the evidence being presented?
Or is everyone afraid of being "purged from the system" if your thoughts to not agree with the Evolutiomania? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WorldDesigner
Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting.
In my view, the strongest argument of why Evolution is moot can be found in the Krishna Science, found here at this link -
http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/3_Genetic_Drift.html
Evolutionists suggest that genetic drift, through the mutation process, increases genetic variability. It reverses the decrease of variability in a population’s gene pool, caused by the selective pressure of speciation. Genetic drift is thought to even reverse the increase of entropy, expected in closed systems. However, the problem of this hypothesis is the lack of evidence, namely, that new genes do arise from genetic drift to such an extent that the increase of entropy is reversed.
IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE HUMANS COULD EVOLVE FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR?
Now, let us make a small genetic calculation to determine whether it was really possible for us human beings to evolve from a common ancestor.
| Quote: | | Man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides, representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations (Britten, 2002). So if man evolved from a chimp-like creature, then during that process there were at least 20 million mutations fixed within the human lineage (40 million divided by 2), yet natural selection could only have selected for 1,000 of those. All the rest would have had to have been fixed by random drift - creating millions of nearly-neutral deleterious mutations. This would not just have made us inferior to our chimp-like ancestors - it would surely have killed us. (Stanford, 2005). |
GENETIC DRIFT PRODUCES MORE HARMFUL THEN GOOD EFFECTS
| Quote: | | In conclusion, we can see that genetic drift produces more harmful effects than beneficial; it degenerates the species more than it evolves. This situation is just like the wheel that is horizontally rotating backward and the ants on it going in opposite direction. In other words, although the ants are going forward they are actually moving more backward. Similarly, the devolution is always greater than the tiny micro-evolutionary adaptation to the new environments or the limited bodily changes of the species. |
SMALL AMOUNT OF INFORMATION CANNOT TRANSFORM APE TO HUMAN
| Quote: | | ...........Within reasonable evolutionary timeframes, we can only select for an extremely limited number of unlinked nucleotides. In the last 6 million years, selection could maximally fix 1,000 unlinked beneficial mutations – creating less new information than is on this page of text. There is no way that such a small amount of information could transform an ape into a human. (Stanford, 2005) |
THE ULTIMATE PROOF THAT EVOLUTION IS A MYTH
| Quote: | | So, as it was above mentioned, many thousands of harmful mutations should have been also fixed, via genetic drift what logically leads us to conclude that human species degenerated due to deleterious fixations greatly outnumbering beneficial fixations. Thus evolution is a myth and design followed by devolution is a fact. Or in the words of Neil A. Campbell: “a random change (genetic drift) is not likely to improve the genome (genetic code) any more than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance.”[2] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
