BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 04:36 PM

Let's give Bill D an "A for Effort" in trying to bring this hot mess of a thread around. "Darwin's Witnesses" seems to be a boorish examination of science, punctuated by several arguments between people who largely seem to agree with each other. Except Pete, and we all expected that.

Boggles the mind.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 02:38 PM

for those who don't know the details of the Galapagos finches theories

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 01:42 PM

Waiting for a reliable opinion- from the finches of the Galapagos Islands.



(Hmmm- all of the usual are here)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 01:10 PM

(back from nursing a cold and shoveling MORE snow)

"Can a mutation be evidence of potential evolution?"

Yes.. it can.

"mu·ta·tion
/myo͞oˈtāSHən/
noun
noun: mutation; plural noun: mutations
1.
the action or process of mutating.
"the mutation of ethnic politics into nationalist politics"synonyms:        alteration, change, variation, modification, transformation, metamorphosis, transmutation; More
humoroustransmogrification
"cells that have undergone mutation"

2.
the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.synonyms:        alteration, change, variation, modification, transformation, metamorphosis, transmutation;
------------------------------------

Now a "variant form" may be tiny, such as small coloration differences which allow some individuals better blending to escape predation.. (there's an entire study of some moths)... or it may be large, such as extra fingers & toes, which may or MAY NOT be useful.

We tend to use 'mutation' to refer to the larger, more visible changes that happen suddenly, but the whole problem of the debate between Snail & Troubador about "show me some evolution" is that most of it is in small increments and is hard to pin down in its detailed steps. Those moths, and fruit flies...and the famous finches are examples which are **evidence** of an evolutionary process, because significant changes can be observed in a short period of time. In paleontology we have only a minuscule number of most lines of research, with a lot of guesswork & prediction involved as to where the missing pieces fit.

Now... one can debate precise linguistic use of the word 'evolution', but it does little to establish anything 'scientific' about the process itself. Sometimes it is useful to stop and examine whether much of the debate IS only about how a word is used.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 01:06 PM

"True" is an absolute and a binary state. Things are either true or they are not.

Bollocks. The IRA is a group of freedom fighters. The IRA is a bunch of terrorists. Both true. Both false.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 12:26 PM

I doubt Steve could be castigated by reference to a foreign dictionary. He is English and speaks English.




That's another pint Co Messiah.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 12:03 PM

Question, born of ignorance: Can a mutation be evidence of potential evolution? If a kitten is born with eight toes on one foot, say, and in due time is allowed to breed, might a line of cats emerge that all have eight toes?

mutation
biology : a change in the genes of a plant or animal that causes physical characteristics that are different from what is normal

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 12:03 PM

As ever, Pete has only quoted a part of the abstract of the Nature paper, which is part of an ongoing dialogue within the scientific community about how we avoid the very pitfalls of peer review Pete accuses all scientists of. The full abstract is here:

Nature. 2014 Feb 6;506(7486):93-6. doi: 10.1038/nature12786. Epub 2013 Dec 4.
Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review.
Park IU1, Peacey MW2, Munafò MR3.
Author information

Abstract
The objective of science is to advance knowledge, primarily in two interlinked ways: circulating ideas, and defending or criticizing the ideas of others. Peer review acts as the gatekeeper to these mechanisms. Given the increasing concern surrounding the reproducibility of much published research, it is critical to understand whether peer review is intrinsically susceptible to failure, or whether other extrinsic factors are responsible that distort scientists' decisions. Here we show that even when scientists are motivated to promote the truth, their behaviour may be influenced, and even dominated, by information gleaned from their peers' behaviour, rather than by their personal dispositions. This phenomenon, known as herding, subjects the scientific community to an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that, under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting. We further demonstrate that exercising some subjectivity in reviewer decisions, which serves to curb the herding process, can be beneficial for the scientific community in processing available information to estimate truth more accurately. By examining the impact of different models of reviewer decisions on the dynamic process of publication, and thereby on eventual aggregation of knowledge, we provide a new perspective on the ongoing discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 11:11 AM

His context was different to ours as we no longer have that mountain to climb

You mean we should judge him by the standards of his time?

Come on Steve, show me some evolution happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:12 AM

This is really simple, mollusc. Evolution is true. It happens. It's here and always has been. Now nothing I've said there is bad science because it isn't even science at all. The five digits on my hand are not science. The science might come in explaining how the muscles receive nerve impulses, etc., to make the fingers work in a coordinated way. Plenty of good science there. Explaining my hand, its evolution, its structure and how it works is the science. The truth that there is a befingered hand on one end of my arm is not the science. Darwin was competing with a lot of people who should have known better (proto-petes who had no evidence at all) in order to get his description of evolution accepted, but idiots denying the self-evident in no way diminishes truth. His context was different to ours as we no longer have that mountain to climb (because we know now that evolution is true) and you're just being disingenuous. He revealed evolution to us in a coherent way but he did not invent it. It was as true then as it is now, as it was before he happened along. Humanity can't alter that truth one jot. But we can try to explain it. All the science in evolution comes within the theory, the attempt at the explanation of evolution. There's a robin sitting on my spade handle which I can see through the window. That's true (I'm not interested in proving it to anyone, however). But I have not touched on science in the slightest in that sentence. But let's argue about how its wings and eyes worked in order to get it there.

And who cares about playing into the hands of creationist idiots? Not me. Don't give a monkey's. I give a monkey's only about playing into the hands of serious people. Come and join us, Snail.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 09:11 AM

Thank's for your reply, Troubadour. Can I take it you no longer think that I am looking for evidence that evolution doesn't happen?

that he [Steve Shaw] and I cannot show that evolution happens.

No, I'm asking you to show me evolution happening with, I admit, the unspoken challenge that you cannot do so. Your post seems to admit as much. Perhaps I should remind you of Steve's position on this -

Evolution happens (only dimwits such as pete with his third-hand received unwisdom would demur). It is a phenomenon that definitely occurs and only an imbecile would deny it. Therefore evolution is true. But, you see, a phenomenon that self-evidently occurs is not science. My left hand self-evidently possesses five digits. It is not science to say that my left hand has five digits. It is not science to say that the bleedin' obvious occurs.
This thread - 14 Feb 14 - 08:19 PM

He seems to think that evolution is there for all to see. When you say "This mixture contains X% of substance Y" it is clearly not self-evident and probably involves a great deal of science.

In "The Descent of Man", Darwin, referring back to "The Origin of Species" says "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change". His first aim, building on the work of others, was to establish the concept of evolution before moving on to the theory of evolution and the mechanisms for it including natural selection. Why would he do that if it was "bleedin' obvious"?

the weight of evidence for evolution.

Wrong way round. Nobody came up with the concept of evolution and then went out looking for evidence for it. The evidence was there in abundance in the form of the many and varied forms of life around us and in the fossil record. The challenge was to come up with an explanation. The old one was separate creation; the new one was evolution. The concept of evolution is a human construct not an observable natural phenomenon. It is a theory. Unfortunately "The Theory of Evolution" has been bagged for "The Origin of Species".

In fact, YOU give much greater support to Creationism by asserting that he is wrong

But he IS wrong. Do you want me to suppress that fact for the sake of defeating pete? Do you go along with Jack the Tar when he says " I'm trying to make up examples and analogies that are easy to understand without a scientific background."? Sorry, can't do it. I have said from the start that you can't defeat creationism with bad science. Getting the science right is what matters most. If pete doesn't understand it, what a pity, never mind. At least other people will be able to see that he hasn't' a clue what he's talking about.

I'll wait to see whether Steve can show me some evolution but, judging by his recent posts, we're unlikely to get anything coherent out of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 07:27 PM

It's too bad that it wasn't jts who posted the "Freedom From Religion con" Thread. It would have given Steve Shaw another good opportunity to snort "Now what idiocy are you spouting, Whacko" without looking to see what the thread was actually about.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 07:12 PM

"did I say ...I don't believe in speciation....well I suppose I may have mistakenly misused the wrong word, but as you are claiming that, I leave that to you to substantiate........just in case it might be YOU who is confused!"

I'm confused by your mangled prose, pete! "I may have mistakenly misused the wrong word ..." Now there's a phrase to conjure with! Is 'speciation' the "wrong" word that you've mistakenly misused? In which case, perhaps you've mistakenly misused the RIGHT word. And if, indeed, that is the case, what alternative to the word 'speciation' were you thinking of? How did the two beetles, of the same species, that you claim were on the Ark, change into all of the thousands of (non-interbreeding) species of beetle that we see today?

Science may well "go wrong" occasionally - but that doesn't mean that the Bible is right!

"evolutionary dogma don't change till it has to, ..." Ugghhh! Current evolutionary models change when enough evidence accumulates to justify changing them. That's how science is done, pete! When will you ever grasp that elementary concept?

Yep! The "deep time position is non negotiable". Go read up on it in something other than a red-neck creationist website. Remember, if you challenge the techniques behind dating measurements, you're not just taking on evolutionary biology but you're taking on some of the fundamental concepts of modern science - and you and your red-neck friends are just not up to it, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Actual
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:54 PM

"evolutionary dogma don't change till it has to"
Exactly how science works!

"and the deep time position is non negotiable"
Wrong. Entirely negotiable, and will change if it has to!
I have given you what I would need to see to make me negotiate. You have pointedly avoided telling me what you would need to see to make the biblical position negotiable. So the two are not equivalent at all are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:24 PM

yes, shimrod...still here, and a previous post didn't appear.
did I say ...I don't believe in speciation....well I suppose I may have mistakenly misused the wrong word, but as you are claiming that, I leave that to you to substantiate........just in case it might be YOU who is confused!

of course you can name the constituents of a substance, troubadour.-it is observational science. what happened in distant past is not. it leaves evidence that is interpreted according to the presuppositions of the researcher.
this may be a strong religious position, such as most of you,[and more obviously-creationists] or the secondary influence.
in a recent study of peer review ,the phenomenom known as ..herding..is described
which "subjects the scientific community to an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that , under certain conditions, science may not be self correcting"
nature.com,4 dec13.
how science goes wrong, economist.com 19 oct 13.
for one with such superior qualifications it seems that you are not able to identify the meaning of my words. sure science may correct in light of new data, but my point is that evolutionary dogma don't change till it has to, and the deep time position is non negotiable, just as much as the biblical creationist position.
and when creationists say dating is wrong , examples of diverse datings are given. that is not irrational but reasoned objection, but still evolutionists trot out the tired idea that eons of time are proven despite evidence to the contrary from testable, repeatable, observable science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 03:16 PM

Evolution comes in many forms.

For instance, Jack the Sailor telling his detractors to fuck off.

Now, you wouldn't have read that a few weeks ago.

The test of evolution is the straight line of time. If he carries on telling people to fuck off, it is evolution. If he reverts to insisting on rules, it was a passing fashion. After all, once a finch has a beak, he can't start wearing his Granddads....

The only real link between science and superstition I can think of is that of placebo effect. Statistically, if a hundred people with galloping lurgy prayed for a cure, up to 20% of them would start feeling better.

Evidence for Jesus?

Err..   No. Just a phenomenon used extensively in double blind trials of new drugs.

I think therefore I am.
I don't think, therefore I'm Spam.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 12:09 PM

No no no Dogma Shaw!

You are the one applying the word "true."

I am saying that a scientist would say that there is plenty of evidence to support the theory of Evolution. Because scientists keep their minds open and let the evidence speak for its self.

Religious Zealots are the ones who stomp on the floor and insist they know what is "true."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 11:45 AM

"True" is an absolute and a binary state. Things are either true or they are not.

OK then, as you appear to disagree with me that I can say "evolution is true", in the light of this quote from you you clearly think that evolution is not true. Binary state, remember, Wacko. No in-betweens, no cavils, no qualifications, no fence-sitting. It's either true or it isn't, according to you. So - is it true or is it not true? Scary, innit, Wackers! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 11:39 AM

(Sigh. Does this man NEVER listen?)

Wacko, darling, go back over my posts why don't you and count the number of times I've said that "evolution is true" is not a scientific statement. Poor chap - you wasted all that time on that post - because you don't understand plain English!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 09:14 AM

O pshaw!

"stating that he and I cannot show that evolution happens."

Don't be so thick Troubie! Snail stating nothing of the kind.

Here is a teaser for you. How can you both claim that evolution is "true" and claim that you are being an open minded adherent to scientific principals? You say that the Turkish building caused the following. The scientists have accepted that they were wrong and accommodated the new knowledge into an enhanced explanation of social evolution.

Is it totally impossible that new evidence may be found that affects the theory of the evolution of life in the same way.

"True" is an absolute and a binary state. Things are either true or they are not. Good science is not. Science has lots of gray areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 08:29 AM

Careful, Wackerissimo, you'll be doing yourself a mischief! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:12 AM

With apologies for the thread drift involved, the purpose of which will become apparent:

At Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey, the oldest man made construction known has been uncovered and is challenging the previously held belief that communal building and religion did not arise until man settled and began to farm crops and livestock. Parts of the construction date as far back as 14,000 years, while the latest is more than 10,000, over 1000 years before the earliest known farming and domestication.

http://socialevolutionforum.com/2013/05/17/complex-societies-before-agriculture-gobekli-tepe/

The reason for posting this is to provide an example to Pete, of the difference between religion and science.

The scientists have accepted that they were wrong and accommodated the new knowledge into an enhanced explanation of social evolution.

Creationists cannot admit the existence of anything 12,000 years ago or more, so can only fall back on the tired "scientists have got the dating wrong", "we don't believe it", or any one of a dozen irrational responses.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 05:37 AM

"I was responding to what Troubador said in the quote at the beginning of my post. Makes perfect sense if you think about it. You have shown a similar failure to understand the point in the past. I thought it might help you to read it. Still no response from Troubador."

Be careful what you wish for Snail!

You accuse Steve of giving moral support to Starry Pete by saying evolution is true.

In fact, YOU give much greater support to Creationism by asserting that he is wrong and stating that he and I cannot show that evolution happens.

This is a classic strawman fallacy and ignores completely the weight of evidence for evolution.

I was an analytical chemist, and spent half my working life in experiments involving identifying substances, from which I could list the constituents of virtually any mixture or amalgam.

I could say with absolute certainty "This mixture contains X% of substance Y", but I couldn't see, or show anyone else the substance.

So for anybody to refuse to believe the result without seeing the substance in a test tube would be arrant bloody nonsense.

Same goes for your nit picking attitude to Steve's comments and your demand to be shown something which happens over millennia.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 04:37 AM

In terms of the age of the universe, these still are biblical times.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 04:34 AM

Ah! There you are, pete! I thought that you'd left us - especially after your most recent outburst. Seen any beetles speciating recently? But you don't believe in speciation, do you? ... But ... you do now ... but only when you say it happens ... in biblical time (?) ... Oh, I'm so confused!!

But, I suspect, not even the teensiest, weensiest bit as confused as you!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:24 AM

Of course, when it all boils down, some here are trying to convince us of either the reality or the concept of an imaginary friend borne of man's fertile imagination.

So you can never get to the bottom of a debate when non realistic ideas insist on intellectual respect.

At least Hillsborough and the promised land (Wembley) are kickable assets and the demigods and deities therein walk the earth amongst mortals.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 12:54 AM

Abuse the English language?

Let me put is in language you might be capable of understanding.

You are simply too fucking stupid to understand anything but curse words and fucking moronic insults.

You are too fucking brain dead to remember your own posts.

Process that you braying jackass.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 08:01 PM

probably because he has to convince himself its true, when he cant do anymore than assertions that its true.

Does this mean anything I ought to be aware of?

An intelligently designed monkey no doubt. With a Berlin Wall in its brain like yours to separate your poop flinging from your illogical lectures.

Or this?

I might well be a bit of a rude bastard at times but I'm not rude enough to post unchecked gibberish such as is contained in these two posts. The English language is a beautiful and elegant thing. Those who would abuse it so radically as to have me doing unnecessary mental processing can bugger off. I'm too old, fer chrissake.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 07:50 PM

"As for playing into pete's hands, I don't give a monkey's flying fart."

An intelligently designed monkey no doubt. With a Berlin Wall in its brain like yours to separate your poop flinging from your illogical lectures.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 07:47 PM

Eeeee, bugger me, I am verily surrounded by twats!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 06:57 PM

probably because he has to convince himself its true, when he cant do anymore than assertions that its true.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 06:03 PM

Steve Shaw
I have no clue as to why Snail spouted all that,

I was responding to what Troubador said in the quote at the beginning of my post. Makes perfect sense if you think about it. You have shown a similar failure to understand the point in the past. I thought it might help you to read it. Still no response from Troubador.

though I'll admit that blue is quite pretty.

If you'd followed the link in the first place, I wouldn't have needed to do it. (Just done it again. Works fine.)

Suffice to say (again) that "evolution is true" is not a scientific statement. All the scientific statements to do with evolution are embraced within the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution in anatomy, morphology, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, ontogeny and the fossil record is overwhelming.

Strange that you are so at odds with the current thinking in the Dawkins camp. Perhaps you should have a look at that link that you refused to follow because it came from Jack. Here it is again to save you from searching for it - Why evolution is true

But evolution as a phenomenon is undeniable.

I've asked you (and Troubador) several times to show me some that is as evident as your (or my) left hand but still no response.

I find a certain elegance in being able to say that evolution is true.

...and others find delight in saying things like "and God said Let there be Light". Much joy may it bring you.

As for playing into pete's hands, I don't give a monkey's flying fart.

If you really don't care that you are giving pete moral support, I wonder why you have put so much effort into arguing against him.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 12:17 PM

Ah well, you see. The colonies haven't worked sport out, any of it really. They don't understand football or cricket, and have made rounders a national sport.

I have no idea what Jack is talking about regarding televisions?   I try to get to a match if I can. Otherwise, with mates and a pint and then, as a last resort, watch it at home. Not quite the same thing mind. Mrs Musket says she isn't watching it, then comes and watches it anyway, then has you explaining offside for the millionth time.

Troubadour and Shimrod might have valid points to make when it comes to silly types of religion, but when it comes to the real religion of footy they have the credibility of pete.

Up the Owls!



ps. Shimrod. You are welcome to Jack. Just watch out if you allow him out in public though... He tends to shout Fuck Off when excited.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 12:02 PM

I have no clue as to why Snail spouted all that, though I'll admit that blue is quite pretty. Maybe he thinks he's been saying it until he's blue in the face. I haven't the energy to keep repeating myself and I have nothing new to add to this cloth-eared clot's silly attacks. Suffice to say (again) that "evolution is true" is not a scientific statement. All the scientific statements to do with evolution are embraced within the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution in anatomy, morphology, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, ontogeny and the fossil record is overwhelming. All those areas are used to explain evolution. That's the theory thereof. But evolution as a phenomenon is undeniable. I find a certain elegance in being able to say that evolution is true. As for playing into pete's hands, I don't give a monkey's flying fart. I only worry about serious people. All the rest is fun. Eh, Wackers!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:51 AM

Musket, we are surrounded by philistines here. I have just followed Liverpool stuffing Man U at The Theatre Of Nightmares 3-0 and my very heart singeth with joy (as would anyone's who justifiably hates Man U). Let us not be divided on this one as we have many a deluded detractor hereabouts. I hereby undertake not to take the piss out of Sheff Wed ever again.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:43 AM

Jack, you may have just found your new calling! Slight snag about ... errr ... paying you "handsomely". I could take you on, on a trial basis, for a couple of months ... if that's OK? Just until I've got the treasury sorted out ...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:28 AM

To hear English people talk it's like they all live in dorms above the pubs.

No one lives in dorms above pubs. There is no such thing. The only time the terms dorms would be used is in a public school. If you want to make a point about English culture try learning something about it.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:18 AM

"Here, think how many pubs are only still open because of the footy? It's true. Sky sell their pub licence on that very point. That said, I prefer a quiet pub myself. Snag is, quiet means unviable. My local has a best end and a tap room with screens. Monday night, I am in the tap room watching the match. Friday night, Mrs Musket and I are in the best room, talking with friends."

Don't you people have TV's of your own? Don't you people have houses? To hear English people talk it's like they all live in dorms above the pubs.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:14 AM

"
Keith: Dave, would you equate the terms "a disgrace" and "thick cunt" in normal discourse?"

Perhaps a mystery is solved?
Perhaps this is what is meant by "snooty" in the rules? If you use the insult ""a disgrace" you are being snooty, unkind, argumentative and impolite. If you use the insult "thick cunt" you are being unkind, argumentative and impolite.

That would be something to ponder if I still bothered to ponder such things.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:08 AM

>>I warn you, when I become dictator of the world (any day now!)the first thing I'm going to do is ban football and then I'm going to have every manager, player and fan ruthlessly hunted down and brought to justice!!<<

If you were to make me viceroy and pay me handsomely. I would institute a system where anyone who yelled at that screen especially denigrating a player or team would be put into a queue to play against those "stupid" players in a match of football skills where only the victors leave the field alive. In this way our benevolent dictatorship could both keep the peace in the pubs and ensure a pay per view revenue stream which would out strip the lottery by a wide margin.   

I'll update my C.V. just in case. Do you have a twitter feed to coordinate your ascension? #Itsforyourowngood?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 10:27 AM

Keith: Dave, would you equate the terms "a disgrace" and "thick cunt" in normal discourse?
Which would you expect to hear on reasoned intelligent discussions such as BBC1 Question Time and R4 Any Questions?

Of course I would not. The latter offends some peoples sensibilities. Not mine I hasten to add. However, they are both directed at a person and therefore both personal insults. The fact that the former has an air of respectability can therefore make it more damaging than the latter. But that is what I thought I said the first time round so why ask?

As to reasoned intelligent discussions on question time and R4. Well, it depends if there any of the abundance of thick cunts or disgraces that inhabit the shady realms of politics are present. Being on the BBC is no guarantee of intellect.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 09:42 AM

"Here, think how many pubs are only still open because of the footy? It's true. Sky sell their pub licence on that very point. That said, I prefer a quiet pub myself. Snag is, quiet means unviable. My local has a best end and a tap room with screens. Monday night, I am in the tap room watching the match. Friday night, Mrs Musket and I are in the best room, talking with friends."

And that, my friend, is the beginning of the end of live music, which has kept pubs viable FAR longer than 22 idiots have chased a bag of air up and down a field which would be better used to grow barley or hops.

I am with Shimrod!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 09:09 AM

Ok. That's Shimrod up against the wall come the glorious...

Oh.. Thanks to the prophet Murdoch, we already are in the promised land. The revolution isn't necessary.

It's blasphemy talk that, Shimrod. You have to put up with it because it is the true path and if we shove it down your throat enough, you will eventually come to realise that. Religion is as religion does.

All this heresy about 6,000 years or 13 billion, whatever.

The world started making sense, and therefore truly starting existing in 1867.

If anyone has hang ups over the word Atheist, Shimrod has described himself thus rather eloquently.

Here, think how many pubs are only still open because of the footy? It's true. Sky sell their pub licence on that very point. That said, I prefer a quiet pub myself. Snag is, quiet means unviable. My local has a best end and a tap room with screens. Monday night, I am in the tap room watching the match. Friday night, Mrs Musket and I are in the best room, talking with friends.

Sorted.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 08:05 AM

"What price reality when I can worship once a week and occasionally mid week too."

Musket, you are free to "worship" every second, as far as I am concerned. Snag is that, as Christianity once was, football now is all-pervasive. Every time I switch on the radio or telly, there's some boring git droning on about football. I open my daily paper and the first thing I have to do is drag out the massive 'Sports' section and heave it into the recycling bin. And I can't even go for a quiet drink nowadays because every pub has a wide-screen telly, and there's a f**king football match on somewhere, every f**cking micro-second, and the pub is full of idiots shouting at the screen!
I warn you, when I become dictator of the world (any day now!)the first thing I'm going to do is ban football and then I'm going to have every manager, player and fan ruthlessly hunted down and brought to justice!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 07:28 AM

Sorry you're having technical difficulties, Steve and apologies to others for cluttering up the thread with a copy of a post that is already easily available. No trouble for me as it was easy to find by following the link. Perhaps it will stimulate Troubador, who it was directed at in the first place, to respond. (I have taken the opportunity to make a small editorial correction.)


Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail - PM
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM

Oh dear, there's too much to keep up with and I really do have other things to do like playing tunes.

Troubadour
Surely, it is up to YOU TWO to furnish EVIDENCE that evolution DOESN'T happen.

You are relatively new to this epic battle so perhaps you don't realise my position. I do not have the intention or the desire or the means to produce any evidence that evolution doesn't happen. I have studied evolution and genetics at university level and find them utterly fascinating. They offer the best explanation we have for the myriad forms of life on Earth and almost certainly the best explanation we will ever have. I have absolutely no problem with any of that. What I do have a problem with is turning evolution into a pseudo religious belief system by declaring it to be true. I have said many times, science doesn't do true. Throughout my education in science I have been taught that you can never say a theory is true only that it hasn't (yet) been proved false.

Unfortunately following up things from the link to Jerry Coyne's talk that Jack posted, I found that the "evolution is true"/"evolution is a fact" stance is taken by a number of prominent scientists in the field of evolution. I can't help but feel that this plays into the hands of people like pete with their accusations of "Evolutionism". It only seems to [apply to] Evolution. I don't recall anyone saying Quantum Theory is true or Relativity is true.

In the confrontation between Evolution and Creationism, much emphasis is put on the overwhelming evidence for evolution. I think this is wrong because it implies that their is a meaningful contest. The important difference is that the study of evolution is a branch of science and creationism is a branch of religion. They have no point of contact. What matters is to establish what defines science to distinguish it from religion. Steve Shaw dismisses this as quasi-philosophical burbling.

I have asked a number of times for people to show me some evolution and neither Troubadour nor Steve Shaw have responded. Parallels have been drawn between evolution/the theory of evolution and gravity/the theory of gravity. I experience gravity every waking moment. Something is holding me in my chair. If I put my coffee mug on my desk, it stays there, if I put it against the wall... oops. If I throw a ball up, it comes down again. Steve went even further saying that evolution was as self-evident as his left hand and its five digits. I can't see Steve's left hand but my own fits the same description. Show me some evolution that I can see and touch and smell. I'm afraid that a 23 year experiment involving bacteria in an American university doesn't really hack it as "self-evident".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 06:59 AM

The snag is, the overpaid prima donnas buggered off in the mid '90s.

So my point holds. What price reality when I can worship once a week and occasionally mid week too. The only difference between Christianity and football is that our prophets and angels exist. And kick the shit out of other blokes in nightclubs.

I bet Jesus didn't show us how human he was. No empathy with the lads there. Ok. He took them out for supper just before the rozzers caught up with him.

Up the Owls!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 06:21 AM

You didn't "stuff" anyone, Musket! A load of over-paid 'prima-donnas', most of whom have no connection with your home city, did. Face it, modern football is boring and massively over-hyped. But then I find all sports unutterably tedious.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 02:55 AM

We stuffed Birmingham 4-1 yesterday cheeky bugger.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 10:06 PM

Got one of those mudcat unavailable doodahs first time and a thread that seemed to be not connected second time. Might I suggest that you refrain from trying my patience by getting your face out of your big, fat, lazy, chocolate-covered arse and quoting proper quotes. I still won't take any bloody notice, of course, as you do appear to be a bit of a waste of space, but you might just convince me, by so doing, that you're worth a constructive response. I doubt it, but you know me: I live in eternal hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:23 PM

Steve Shaw

The link takes you directly to the post.

"No it doesn't,"

Yes it does, I just tried it. Are you sure you haven't got something switched off on your laptop?