How to control the people : Keep them stupid and uninformed

[ch33zw1z]

They aren't there.

My 10 year old just read those wiki's with me, and can't believe there are people in the world like you.

 

[buckshot24]

My 10 year old just read those wiki's with me, and can't believe there are people in the world like you.

Brainwashing em huh? The answer isn't in those links.

 

[cytg111]

I dont know, if this "third way" indeed promotes the scientific method and no magic dude in the sky business, then by all means explore away. I just dont understand why you would have to coin it "the third way" if it wasnt catering to the creationists.. Whats wrong with the current crop of evolutionary studies, not good enough for these "three way dudes" ?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Brainwashing em huh? The answer isn't in those links.

I'm sorry that's your opinion. Science is tough for you. It's easier to believe.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm sorry that's your opinion. Science is tough for you. It's easier to believe.

That answer is still not in those links. Do you have to accept the "modern synthesis" to be "adhering to science"?

 

[ch33zw1z]

That answer is still not in those links. Do you have to accept the "modern synthesis" to be "adhering to science"?

So you don't science all day?

 

[buckshot24]

So you don't science all day?

Your 10 year old give you that line? Answer isn't there.

 

[Moonbeam]

I do love you Moonie! I think you've misunderstood me though about the "third way" I mentioned earlier. I do not advocate for that position its just indicative of the unsatisfactoriness the "Modern Synthesis" in the eyes of a lot of scientists. Modern discoveries isn't being kind to the old view.

I think as a person who has xperienced the loss of all I held sacred only to wind up at peace within myself, I am prepared to accept that my views on evolution may be wrong. I can also believe I do not know what truth may lay behind your posts. I can only make sense of things to the degree that I can without ever really knowing how accurate that is. I can say that my self worth doesn't seem to depend on my beliefs about evolution so I don't feel an emotional need to defend it. I do so out of a sense that I buy it and find it rational. I believe similarly that the theory is in no real trouble. All that can change if something makes me change my mind.

 

[buckshot24]

I dont know, if this "third way" indeed promotes the scientific method and no magic dude in the sky business, then by all means explore away. I just dont understand why you would have to coin it "the third way" if it wasnt catering to the creationists.. Whats wrong with the current crop of evolutionary studies, not good enough for these "three way dudes" ?

Just because I referenced it doesn't mean it supports anything I believe.

 

[MrDudeMan]

After reading through this thread, one thing is apparent: I have no clue what b24 believes or why. In the face of observable, measurable, and repeatable evidence, no opposing positions have been rendered or explained. I don't have a dog in this fight at the moment, so I thought I'd verbalize what others already have in an attempt to get b24 to write something of actual substance instead of "good job" or "you don't understand anything."

buckshot24, I know you saw this and skipped over it, so I'm putting it in your field of vision again. Can you spend a few minutes writing a post to explain your position that doesn't have a ton of ad hominem and deflection? I'm honestly curious what your position is, but I have no clue what it is after reading this thread. You seem to be unwilling to say anything other than quick, dismissive one-liners with no additional information. I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish in this thread.

 

[cytg111]

buckshot24, I know you saw this and skipped over it, so I'm putting it in your field of vision again. Can you spend a few minutes writing a post to explain your position that doesn't have a ton of ad hominem and deflection? I'm honestly curious what your position is, but I have no clue what it is after reading this thread. You seem to be unwilling to say anything other than quick, dismissive one-liners with no additional information. I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish in this thread.

Thanks, was just getting around to the same conclusion... its simply trolling.

 

[buckshot24]

Here is a list of people who Bowfinger thinks are just scheming to sell books.

http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people

 

[ch33zw1z]

Your 10 year old give you that line? Answer isn't there.

Maybe he did. He's definitely more able minded than yourself.

The answer is indeed there. It's something you'll have to think about and come to terms with. The fact that you can't or won't is your own problem.

 

[ch33zw1z]

buckshot24, I know you saw this and skipped over it, so I'm putting it in your field of vision again. Can you spend a few minutes writing a post to explain your position that doesn't have a ton of ad hominem and deflection? I'm honestly curious what your position is, but I have no clue what it is after reading this thread. You seem to be unwilling to say anything other than quick, dismissive one-liners with no additional information. I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish in this thread.

Quoted for more airtime. Good luck with the explanation. He/she is yet to provide one for numerous things.

 

[buckshot24]

buckshot24, I know you saw this and skipped over it, so I'm putting it in your field of vision again. Can you spend a few minutes writing a post to explain your position that doesn't have a ton of ad hominem and deflection? I'm honestly curious what your position is, but I have no clue what it is after reading this thread. You seem to be unwilling to say anything other than quick, dismissive one-liners with no additional information. I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish in this thread.

My position is that the "Modern Synthesis" or Neo-Darwinian evolution is utter nonsense. It has a mechanism that has never been demonstrated to produce the results it must have produced. You must believe that it has these capabilities.

Moonbeam made a point about believing in 4.54 billion year old earth will push the probability to 100% because there would be enough time to randomly generate, and naturally select, all of the biodiversity we find on earth. The only reason I brought up probability was because of this assertion. I demonstrated the limits of 4 billion years given some back of the envelope calculations. Others have glommed on to this probability point I made and made it into something it never was. Most of the smoke has been because of this misconception.

 

[buckshot24]

Maybe he did. He's definitely more able minded than yourself.

The answer is indeed there. It's something you'll have to think about and come to terms with. The fact that you can't or won't is your own problem.

It is not there.

 

[Bowfinger]

Here is a list of people who Bowfinger thinks are just scheming to sell books.

http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people

Or, they've been suckered by a guy who want to sell books. But who cares? You've yet to explain why the so-called third way is of any importance. Until you do, I think we can label it "BS24 Duhversion Exhibit #9,395" and dismiss it as noise.

 

[MrDudeMan]

My position is that the "Modern Synthesis" or Neo-Darwinian evolution is utter nonsense. It has a mechanism that has never been demonstrated to produce the results it must have produced. You must believe that it has these capabilities.

Moonbeam made a point about believing in 4.54 billion year old earth will push the probability to 100% because there would be enough time to randomly generate, and naturally select, all of the biodiversity we find on earth. The only reason I brought up probability was because of this assertion. I demonstrated the limits of 4 billion years given some back of the envelope calculations. Others have glommed on to this probability point I made and made it into something it never was. Most of the smoke has been because of this misconception.

I saw all of that, but I don't understand how you think you successfully refuted it because you changed your model whenever the parameters changed. You claimed success regardless of the opposing view by changing the constraints to be whatever wouldn't work or wouldn't work well enough to be sensible.

To summarize, you're saying you don't think single or multi-cellular life can speciate?

 

[ch33zw1z]

It is not there.

Willful ignorance is ugly on anyone. If you can't deduce or won't deduce your answer from those links, then you didn't pay attention during science class, or it consisted of pictures of jesus riding dinosaurs, which would make sense....prepackaged and easy, with centuries of refinement.

 

[buckshot24]

Willful ignorance is ugly on anyone. If you can't deduce or won't deduce your answer from those links, then you didn't pay attention during science class, or it consisted of pictures of jesus riding dinosaurs, which would make sense....prepackaged and easy, with centuries of refinement.

Show me in those links. I don't see it.

 

[Bowfinger]

buckshot24, I know you saw this and skipped over it, so I'm putting it in your field of vision again. Can you spend a few minutes writing a post to explain your position that doesn't have a ton of ad hominem and deflection? I'm honestly curious what your position is, but I have no clue what it is after reading this thread. You seem to be unwilling to say anything other than quick, dismissive one-liners with no additional information. I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish in this thread.

Good luck with that, and welcome to P&N. Our troll du jour is Buckshot24, but check back tomorrow. He may tag in a teammate.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Moonbeam made a point about believing in 4.54 billion year old earth will push the probability to 100% because there would be enough time to randomly generate, and naturally select, all of the biodiversity we find on earth. The only reason I brought up probability was because of this assertion. I demonstrated the limits of 4 billion years given some back of the envelope calculations....

And the point you keep evading is Moonbeam was right. Your "back of the envelope calculations" were off by a good 15 to 20 orders of magnitude. When you start with good numbers, your hypothetical becomes virtually certain. MB was right, you were wrong, move on.

 

[buckshot24]

I saw all of that, but I don't understand how you think you successfully refuted it because you changed your model whenever the parameters changed. You claimed success regardless of the opposing view by changing the constraints to be whatever wouldn't work or wouldn't work well enough to be sensible.

To summarize, you're saying you don't think single or multi-cellular life can speciate?

The "model" isn't important. I didn't refute anything Moonbeam said, he never gave me any probabilities to compare. I was trying to show limitations, not refute his point.

Speciation is an observable fact. I reject mutation and selection as being able to eventually produce sexual reproduction, crebs cycles and echolocation.

 

[buckshot24]

And the point you keep evading is Moonbeam was right. Your "back of the envelope calculations" were off by a good 15 to 20 orders of magnitude. When you start with good numbers, your hypothetical becomes virtually certain. MB was right, you were wrong, move on.

The actual numbers are irrelevant to the point that you keep dishonestly missing. You're doing it on purpose now.

 

[Bowfinger]

The actual numbers are irrelevant to the point that you keep dishonestly missing. You're doing it on purpose now.

ibid