Science! Ask you question here. Biscuits NOT included and answers not guaranteed.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

Jernal wrote: »

To be fair, I recall him making a few attempts to rebuke papers in the Origin of Specious Nonsense and BCP thread.

'Attempts' is being generous. The best he could do was a more wordy version of "I don't agree, and I'm going to repeat the same ludicrous claim again as if that's a proper rebuttal!"

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

I said this before... I think a Q&A type thing with oldrnwiser would be more beneficial than dealing with a back peddling, goal post shifting creationist.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

[-0-] wrote: »

I said this before... I think a Q&A type thing with oldrnwiser would be more beneficial than dealing with a back peddling, goal post shifting creationist.

That might be worth a looksee. There are a bunch of fora here that tried some variant of a regular "In the Spotlight" series, where a regular poster pretty much did an AMA for the rest. Might be an idea to recruit a few folks across a few disciplines like physics, biology, history, philosophy or whatever and get posters to lob in a few questions at them.

Sort of like the "J C threads" ... without J C ........... thus increasing the "quality" of "complex and specific information" therein ...... by "orders of magnitude"!!!! :mad::eek::):P:eek::eek:

Obliq

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Sarky wrote: »

Sort of like the "J C threads" ... without J C ........... thus increasing the "quality" of "complex and specific information" therein ...... by "orders of magnitude"!!!! :mad::eek::):P:eek::eek:

Without JC? Hmm. Then it would be entirely up to the likes of me to provide "the stupid", which inspires you learned folk to respond in a style that a 6 yr old could understand......






Aaarrrghh! Just had horrible flash back to maths class and hanging my head in the shame of not getting the concept after the fourth explanation

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Obliq wrote: »

Without JC? Hmm. Then it would be entirely up to the likes of me to provide "the stupid", which inspires you learned folk to respond in a style that a 6 yr old could understand......






Aaarrrghh! Just had horrible flash back to maths class and hanging my head in the shame of not getting the concept after the fourth explanation

I don't even get that

Ah s*&@ that makes me the stupidester one

Obliq

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

bumper234 wrote: »

I don't even get that

Ah s*&@ that makes me the stupidester one

I don't know mate, I'm fairly handy with the old DOH!!Pretty sure that the questions will get a little too clever for me in a thread like that, never mind the answers

The good thing about creationists is that the rest of us ordinary mortals can sit back and look knowledgeable. Have we thought this through? I say keep JC.

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Obliq wrote: »

I don't know mate, I'm fairly handy with the old DOH!!Pretty sure that the questions will get a little too clever for me in a thread like that, never mind the answers

The good thing about creationists is that the rest of us ordinary mortals can sit back and look knowledgeable. Have we thought this through? I say keep JC.

Yeah there are times when i am just like WTF???? But then it forces me to go off and research and read so i can keep up

Obliq

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Yes, it's like reading my Dad's Scientific American magazines. I'd get the first paragraph of an article ...and then need to have a science degree for the rest. It is of course very inspiring to read stuff I don't understand, but I'm thinking it's about time I actually went and learned something:)

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

Obliq wrote: »

The good thing about creationists is that the rest of us ordinary mortals can sit back and look knowledgeable. Have we thought this through? I say keep JC.

I dunno, I think we tend to assume (wrongly, I suspect) that J C is telling the truth about being a scientist, and that he maybe understands the basics. We end up disappointed in him every time, but all the other posters here are capable of retaining information and, more importantly, asking questions that aren't steeped in creationist idiocy and aren't hiding an agenda.

I imagine oldrnwisr et al. would be more than willing to entertain questions like that, and explain things in simple terms. I'd enjoy it far more than reading through J C's mounds of repetitive lies and taking him to task on it, knowing that he's not going to listen anyway, I'll say that right now.

oldrnwisr

Sarky wrote: »

I imagine oldrnwisr et al. would be more than willing to entertain questions like that, and explain things in simple terms. I'd enjoy it far more than reading through J C's mounds of repetitive lies and taking him to task on it, knowing that he's not going to listen anyway, I'll say that right now.

+1

I'd much rather deal with questions from posters who have a genuine interest in finding out the answer.

It's very frustrating to have to repeatedly engage with a poster who constantly distorts facts, repeats the same old long-debunked claims and doesn't acknowledge any points contrary to his/her viewpoint. I don't engage with JC because I think that at some point he'll learn but rather as DrDoom points out:

Doctor DooM wrote: »

... because you're not really providing an answer for the person asking the question, but for other people who might be watching, or are teetering on the edge of their beliefs.

Obliq

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Grand so, cheers! I suppose there is a world of difference between encountering "the stupid" and "the deliberately stupid"...

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

Obliq wrote: »

I suppose there is a world of difference between encountering "the stupid" and "the deliberately stupid"...

I wouldn't use those terms. More "lacking or unaware of specific knowledge but willing to learn" and "YOU KEEP YER KNOWLEDGE AWAY FROM ME! JEEBUBS SAYS ITS EVIL! I DON'T WANT TO BE EDUMACATED!!!!! :eek::eek::eek::):p:):eek:"

lazygal

Even if God flooded the Earth? How does He destroy THUNDERBIRD 4?

Sarky wrote: »

That might be worth a looksee. There are a bunch of fora here that tried some variant of a regular "In the Spotlight" series, where a regular poster pretty much did an AMA for the rest. Might be an idea to recruit a few folks across a few disciplines like physics, biology, history, philosophy or whatever and get posters to lob in a few questions at them.

Sort of like the "J C threads" ... without J C ........... thus increasing the "quality" of "complex and specific information" therein ...... by "orders of magnitude"!!!! :mad::eek::):P:eek::eek:

That...is...a...great...idea!! Praise Jesus for...inspiring... you! *smiley*

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Sarky wrote: »

That might be worth a looksee. There are a bunch of fora here that tried some variant of a regular "In the Spotlight" series, where a regular poster pretty much did an AMA for the rest. Might be an idea to recruit a few folks across a few disciplines like physics, biology, history, philosophy or whatever and get posters to lob in a few questions at them.

Sort of like the "J C threads" ... without J C ........... thus increasing the "quality" of "complex and specific information" therein ...... by "orders of magnitude"!!!! :mad::eek::):P:eek::eek:

Loving this idea but serious question for the mods, would JC and the rest of the God Squad be restricted to either not posting in these threads or at least kept on a short leash for want of a better word? I would love to read these threads and maybe post a couple of questions but i wouldn't want to read through pages of creationist noise drowning out the good stuff.

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Grand so, cheers! I suppose there is a world of difference between encountering "the stupid" and "the deliberately stupid"...

I prefer the term 'wilfully ignorant'.

Bannasidhe

bumper234 wrote: »

Loving this idea but serious question for the mods, would JC and the rest of the God Squad be restricted to either not posting in these threads or at least kept on a short leash for want of a better word? I would love to read these threads and maybe post a couple of questions but i wouldn't want to read through pages of creationist noise drowning out the good stuff.

Anyone else find it ironic that there are pleas in t'udder forum for atheists be be kept restricted or on a short lease when topics close to their hearts are being discussed which as far as I know have been refused - yet here we have the same thing being proposed here.

Not a go at all at you bumper - just I think we can't have our biscuits and eat them.

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Anyone else find it ironic that there are pleas in t'udder forum for atheists be be kept restricted or on a short lease when topics close to their hearts are being discussed which as far as I know have been refused - yet here we have the same thing being proposed here.

Not a go at all at you bumper - just I think we can't have our biscuits and eat them.

Lol sorry i hadn't read T'udder forum (too noisy for me ) but is cool i understand, hopefully it won't get too bad and if they do get rowdy we can ask oldernwiser to have words with em

robindch

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

bumper234 wrote: »

Loving this idea but serious question for the mods, would JC and the rest of the God Squad be restricted to either not posting in these threads or at least kept on a short leash for want of a better word? I would love to read these threads and maybe post a couple of questions but i wouldn't want to read through pages of creationist noise drowning out the good stuff.

In the past, JC and other creationists have been asked to stay within the confines of the specious nonsense thread.

That way, creationists are free to post whatever claptrap they like, but not free to disrupt more interesting and more productive conversations elsewhere. That rule hasn't been enforced on this thread, but it can certainly be resurrected if any poster becomes disruptive.

MrPudding

OMG! Spoiler!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Anyone else find it ironic that there are pleas in t'udder forum for atheists be be kept restricted or on a short lease when topics close to their hearts are being discussed which as far as I know have been refused - yet here we have the same thing being proposed here.

Not a go at all at you bumper - just I think we can't have our biscuits and eat them.

There is an important difference though. Christian only threads, for example, go against the spirit and rules of boards. JC's behaviour realistically could be easily classified as trolling or soap boxing. It has been said many times in the past that the only reason be is still able to post in A&A at all is because he does more damage to the religious position than we ever could.

So, if we were to have one of these threads, as suggested, JC could be kept out of it my simply applying the already existing rules of the forum, which are kind of suspended due to his value and good deeds for atheism.

MrP

Obliq

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

I love that this ^^ is true, and JC still keeps going on and on regardless of how much damage he is doing to the Christian faith Very amusing. Not so funny for those trying to get him to address facts though....I can hardly read it sometimes. Too excruciating.

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

MrPudding wrote: »

There is an important difference though. Christian only threads, for example, go against the spirit and rules of boards. JC's behaviour realistically could be easily classified as trolling or soap boxing. It has been said many times in the past that the only reason be is still able to post in A&A at all is because he does more damage to the religious position than we ever could.

So, if we were to have one of these threads, as suggested, JC could be kept out of it my simply applying the already existing rules of the forum, which are kind of suspended due to his value and good deeds for atheism.

MrP

Lol

When you put it like that then i think he should be encouraged to post more

Bannasidhe

bumper234 wrote: »

Lol sorry i hadn't read T'udder forum (too noisy for me ) but is cool i understand, hopefully it won't get too bad and if they do get rowdy we can ask oldernwiser to have words with em

I don't venture in there too often myself as it makes me go :eek: but sometimes some of the responses from those who identify themselves as atheists can be boiled down to 'Ha! Sky Fairy believers. Spaghetti Monster FTW!!!' 'Your holy book is a bigot therefore you are a bigot' or 'Blah blah blah - you believe God did it ha ha eejit!' - which lets face it is just rude an adds nothing to any debate.

Some atheists don't exactly cover themselves is glory over there- others engage in genuine debate.

I would like to see genuine debate and discussion from all sides.

I like the give 'em enough rope philosophy that tends to be employed in these here parts.

Now I do understand where oldrnwisr is coming from and how bloody frustrating it can be to try and have a discussion with someone who is claiming enough expertise in a subject to spout forth reams of nonsense but in reality displays zero understanding of the methodologies employed by those who study that subject or the checks and balances that are in place.

Been there recently in another forum with a Holocaust denier who, imho, if asked "describe what is meant by the phrase 'the discipline of history'" would have failed - I gave up trying to explain tbh as it became obvious that that particular poster could not accept the rules pertaining to historical research as if they did their whole basis for denying the Holocaust fell apart.

Bannasidhe

MrPudding wrote: »

There is an important difference though. Christian only threads, for example, go against the spirit and rules of boards. JC's behaviour realistically could be easily classified as trolling or soap boxing. It has been said many times in the past that the only reason be is still able to post in A&A at all is because he does more damage to the religious position than we ever could.

So, if we were to have one of these threads, as suggested, JC could be kept out of it my simply applying the already existing rules of the forum, which are kind of suspended due to his value and good deeds for atheism.

MrP

Not being a scientisty type I don't often get the opportunity to engage in sciencey discussions - I find some of JC's posts (the ones I make it through which I admit is not all) to be good starting points because they

a) make me go 'wft........are you serious...:eek:' = access memory of crap 'learned' in school and reassess.

b) someone, usually oldrnwisr but others too, will respond with awesome information that I otherwise would never ever get to see.

c) JC and his fellow travellers allows us unsciency types to post 'stupid' questions without feeling 'stupid'.

d) Have read some of the posts here from Theists to OH who has subsequently shifted her position from Roman Catholic (á la Carte in term of observance but total insistence on being a believer like many Irish Catholics) to Theist (I believe there is a God - but not the one Xians believe in) to now beginning to sound more and more agnostic and mumbling about 'maybe not so much 'god' as such but some form of energy and I don't think it gives a flying about humanity...'

Delirium

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

I've a question for the science nerds!

Is the mutution process something that is constantly happening or something that's is activated by external pressures?

EdgarFriendly

koth wrote: »

I've a question for the science nerds!

Is the mutution process something that is constantly happening or something that's is activated by external pressures?

Mutations are almost guaranteed. It's external pressures, which allow for natural selection to filter mutations.

Imagine two mutations - One which leads to a more robust body, and another which leads to greater height. Different environments might favour each mutations. So if two populations of the same species migrate to two different areas, over time - natural selection will show a visual change between the two.

robindch

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

koth wrote: »

Is the mutution process something that is constantly happening or something that's is activated by external pressures?

DNA mutates constantly for a variety of reasons including the action of radiation, ultraviolet light and certain chemicals upon existing DNA and on account of transcription errors during the replication of DNA.

If you increase the amount of, say, ultra-violet light in your environment by staying out in the sun longer without suncream, then the DNA in your skin cell's will suffer greater mutational damage, potentially leading to something like skin cancer (which, if memory serves, can be caused by cells failing to die at the right time).

So, the answer is both - yes, it happens all the time at a relatively low rate, but can be increased by environmental action too.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

The transcription errors are further reduced in many multicellular organisms by a series of DNA repair genes.

robindch

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Beer - oiling evolution's altruistic wheels:

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/cf3e13e4f103

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Hitchens vs Dumbski, for anyone interested.

Brian Shanahan

[-0-] wrote: »

Hitchens vs Dumbski, for anyone interested.

With all the recent talk of Dumbski and his CSFI, I reacquainted myself with his character (or lack thereof) and rediscovered two salient points:
1) He was slated to appear as an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial on the side of the creatards, but recused himself at virtually the last minute. So moral & intellectual cowardice are two main characteristics.
2) After Judge John E. Jones published his ruling, Dumbski's response was to post a video of the judge with simulated fart noises as the acompanying sound (fart noises apparently made by Dumbski). I found an edited version of the video here, after legal representation from the learned judge, still pretty nasty (and putting words in Judge Jones' mout e.g. "We will enter an order permanently enjoining defendants from from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparaging the scientific theory of evolution" wording which never appeared in his ruling, though the last "quote" shows how wacky Dumbski's thoughts on thought are) So now we can add malicious name-caller to that list.

Not the kind of person I'd be trumpeting if I were trying to gain acceptance for my point of view.