デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2015, 04:38 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2015 04:56 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(07-08-2015 04:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 03:56 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The modern term for "evolutionist" is "biologist". Period.

Of course this is trivially easy to show that it is wrong. Not everyone who believes in evolution is a biologist. Professor Davies for instance.


(07-08-2015 04:17 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  They could just as easily have used the word "scientist" or "physicist" to describe Davies, since that's what he is, and that implies that he accepts the theory of evolution, like at least 99.9% of all scientists. "Evolutionist" is, as Metazoa Zeke pointed out, a stupid word that is only used by creationists.

Not everyone who believes in evolution is a scientist or physicist. I suspect that out of the set of all the people who believe in evolution, scientists are a very small minority.

And if you are discussing evolution and tossing out quotes, a quote has a very high probability of coming from a scientist or physicist who holds the minority position. Why would two scientist who hold the same position debate it?

All you evolutionists are getting your panties in wad over nothing.

I forgive you for saying my panties are in a wad.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
07-08-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(06-08-2015 12:25 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-08-2015 11:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  1. "How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?"

The question I ponder is "How did the evolutionary system responsible for my existence originate?"

Evolution is a collection of processes(replication and selection) acting upon matter and/or information. It is not a stand alone thing but rather a combination of things and processes forming a complex whole. It is really better, in my opinion, to think and discuss evolution in terms of it being a system.

So I ask, how did this evolutionary system(the one responsible for creating us) form? How do any evolutionary systems form?

I forgive you.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 04:39 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2015 04:57 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(06-08-2015 01:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(02-08-2015 11:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As a former (evolutionary) field biologist, I can tell you from experience that anytime someone refers to biologists as "evolutionists", you can pretty much ignore anything else they say.

Demonize your opponent

(02-08-2015 11:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  And if you choose to keep reading/listening, stand by for brain damage as you are barraged by such nonsense as above, where they make statements that presuppose the answer and/or skews the actual basis of science so badly that you'd have to expend most of your energy explaining what's wrong with the question before you can even start to answer what they were trying to ask.

Instill fear in those on the sideline.

(02-08-2015 11:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  In almost every case, they'll ask a twenty word question that requires two thousand words to properly answer, giving the Creationist a rhetorical advantage at two orders of magnitude, in making it appear to an unknowing audience member that there's 1) a Controversy on the subject, when there's no such thing except in the minds of Creationists, and 2) that Creationists' answers are simple and direct, while ours are complex and thus convoluted.

Make an excuse not answer the question

(02-08-2015 11:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Thus, it is not only unworthy of a response, it may damage your brain and your spirit to engage such idiots.

Rationalization and Summary


Anyways, you have just employed the tactics I sometimes see fundamentalists employ. People who "liked" your post should be ashamed because if you break it down, your post was complete garbage.

I forgive you for calling RocketSurgeon complete fundamentalist garbage.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 04:40 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2015 04:58 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(07-08-2015 12:31 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 02:38 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Sounds like you didn't read the OP very closely. Metazoa Zeke is an atheist and a supporter of the theory of evolution. He was presenting anti-evolution statements in order to argue against them. He was in no way supporting those statements. He and Rocket Surgeon are on the same side.

I admit I didn't. I just read the thread title. When I opened the thread and saw the wall of text I just read the the questions. I hate walls of text. Whats funny is I thought to myself, "This guy has pretty high rep for a theist....something is not right here".

Anyways, I do think my criticism of Rocketsurgery is still valid. However I don't think he was being out of line like I previously thought. You guys were just having an atheist circle jerk so his behavior is kinda expected.

I forgive you for saying we were having a circle jerk.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 04:40 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2015 05:00 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(07-08-2015 02:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 09:37 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Anyone who has been on this forum for any length of time knows I will engage any legitimate question on the subject, and with glee.

I pointed out that if someone is using a term like "evolutionist", they're likely just parroting propaganda from "wedge tactic" Creationist websites, designed to misrepresent evolutionary biology and force people defending it into useless arguments over strawmen. Some of those strawman arguments are so idiotic, I consider them "brain-damaging" (which is, obviously to everyone except you, a joke).

It is pointless to argue with someone who has no interest in learning what biology actually says, and I recommend to all that they avoid anyone who starts with skewed phraseology like "evolutionist", as it indicates their biases in advace, which time and literally thousands of such discussions have taught me are pointless because they are rarely honest, let alone educated enough on the subject to understand the arguments they are making, much less my replies to the questions they "machine-gun" in my direction.

The fact that you read this as "demonization" is a little sad, to me. Poke around the board a little bit and see if I "avoid" anything. Indeed, I think most here would agree that I give enormous leeway and "benefit of the doubt" to anyone I think may be asking legitimate questions or wanting to have a serious discussion on the issue. If you think it is my obligation to extend that grace to those who come here with dishonest intent, evidenced in advance by easily-recognizable propaganda and terms of derision for 150+ years of hard-earned scientific knowledge and methodology in my field of expertise, then you can just focus really hard at your screen in an attempt to determine how much of a fuck I give about your opinion about such obligations:

The word "Evolutionist" has been around since 1855-1860. It refers to someone who believes in evolution. I am an evolutionist. You are an evolutionist.

You claimed that people who use the word evolutionist should be ignored or else you will get brain damage. Claims like this are obviously demonization and fear mongering. I don't even have to argue that they are because it would be like arguing the color of a white board is white.

I forgive you for implying RocketSurgeon is an ignorant fearmongerer.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 04:41 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(07-08-2015 11:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 09:18 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  The world is stupid. Would you call someone who accepts gravity a gravitist?

The word isn't stupid. Your opinion is that the word is stupid. I don't share that opinion. For me, "evolutionist" carries the connotation that it refers to a person who is an advocate for the theory of evolution and who is an opponent to other theories or ideas which explain the biodiversity we see today.

Yes, I could see people who believe in some theory/idea which competes with gravity calling advocates of gravity "gravitist". Why? "Gravitist" is one word while "Advocate of the theory of Gravity" is 6 words. Gravitist is more efficient. I would prefer they use it actually.

Would you be upset if people called you an "advocate of the theory of evolution"? In my opinion people who are upset when they see the term "evolutionist" are simply looking for reasons to get upset.

I forgive you.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 04:41 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2015 05:01 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(07-08-2015 01:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 12:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The point is that there is nothing special or uncommon about accepting or advocating the theory of evolution. It's not something that needs to be pointed out. It is the default position in the modern world.

If you are having conversation about the validity of evolution, when tossing out quotes from people, it is convenient to know who is an advocate and who is an opponent of evolution. Evaluate the following two statements. Do they convey the same message to you?

Dr Bob, a creationist says, "evolution is an incomplete theory".
Dr Bob, an evolutionist says, "evolution is an incomplete theory"

I forgive you for taking the name of Bob in vain.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 04:42 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2015 05:02 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(07-08-2015 03:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 01:07 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  An equivalent example would be:

Ned, a Satanist, says "X".
Jim, not a Satanist, says "X".

"Not a Satanist" is redundant, as is "evolutionist", since it essentially means "not a creationist". Satanists and creationists are the outliers. There is no need to explicitly point out the 99.9% who don't fit into those fringe categories.

"How did life originate? Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”

If you know this is about a debate on the validity of evolution and you know nothing about Paul Davies, is it clear what side of the argument is he on? Inserting the term "evolutionist" leaves no doubt. No need to assume facts as you are suggesting.

Again, it really looks like you guys are looking for a reason to be butthurt. "Oh!!! he dropped the "E" bomb so everyone should ignore him otherwise they will get brain damage by the fallout".

Its not that big of a deal really. If I knew you guys were circle jerking I wouldn't have even brought it up. I thought the OP was posing these questions for actual discussion.

I forgive you for saying we were circle jerking.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 04:43 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2015 05:03 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(07-08-2015 04:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 03:56 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The modern term for "evolutionist" is "biologist". Period.

Of course this is trivially easy to show that it is wrong. Not everyone who believes in evolution is a biologist. Professor Davies for instance.


(07-08-2015 04:17 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  They could just as easily have used the word "scientist" or "physicist" to describe Davies, since that's what he is, and that implies that he accepts the theory of evolution, like at least 99.9% of all scientists. "Evolutionist" is, as Metazoa Zeke pointed out, a stupid word that is only used by creationists.

Not everyone who believes in evolution is a scientist or physicist. I suspect that out of the set of all the people who believe in evolution, scientists are a very small minority.

And if you are discussing evolution and tossing out quotes, a quote has a very high probability of coming from a scientist or physicist who holds the minority position. Why would two scientist who hold the same position debate it?

All you evolutionists are getting your panties in wad over nothing. I am proud to be an evolutionist.....err..ummm I mean a biologist My diploma is around here somewhere....maybe. You guys go back to circle jerking each other while I find it.

I forgive you for saying our panties are in a wad while we are circle jerking.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(07-08-2015 04:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 04:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Of course this is trivially easy to show that it is wrong. Not everyone who believes in evolution is a biologist. Professor Davies for instance.



Not everyone who believes in evolution is a scientist or physicist. I suspect that out of the set of all the people who believe in evolution, scientists are a very small minority.

And if you are discussing evolution and tossing out quotes, a quote has a very high probability of coming from a scientist or physicist who holds the minority position. Why would two scientist who hold the same position debate it?

All you evolutionists are getting your panties in wad over nothing. I am proud to be an evolutionist.....err..ummm I mean a biologist My diploma is around here somewhere....maybe. You guys go back to circle jerking each other while I find it.

I forgive you for saying our panties are in a wad while we are circle jerking.

I'd say he doesn't deserve your forgiveness, Girly, but then again, I guess that's just what makes you such a good saviour.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: