BS: Cosmos

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:43 PM

Frequently "evolution" is used as if it was co-terminous with "natural selection". When the word is applied in a cosmological context, that's not true. Stars don't compete with each other in the same way as living things.

That's pedantic point, not an declaration of war with anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

Cosmos the series will biology and evolution by natural selection.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:58 PM

As you can see McGrath pshaw started the fight on this thread here.

>>>"We", Wacko? The implicit inclusion of yourself in that statement duly noted. In fact, Wackers, Carl Sagan knew a hell of a lot more than you will ever know. That was as true 40 years ago as it is now. You are thoroughly out of your depth. <<<

As the rules are not being enforced and as I have been instructed to "fight my own battles" and as Steve is an irritating trolling asshole trying to get this thread shut down because I started it and as Steve is too stupid lazy to come up with any argument any better than "you are wrong 'whacko'"!

The best I can do is point out his ignorant trollishness and hope that it gets removed. Of course, I am happy to see my posts pointing out his flaws removed. if his trolling is removed. Otherwise I hope he gets drowned out with reasonable discussion. or the thread gets closed and I can open another so that reasonable discussion can occur until he comes back and rubs his feces over the next thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 07:12 PM

Takes two to tango.

The real pain is the practice of carrying over feuds from thread to thread. For one thing that makes it hard to make sense of what the squirmish is all about, but that's the least of the damage. It serves to encourage the participants in building up a level of antagonism that gets quite over the top. And it can be catching.

Squabbles, which we are always going to get, should start in a thread, and die away as the thread sinks out of sight.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 07:34 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: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 08:25 PM

Very self revelatory post.

"I'm a troll, trollywoll - and I'll eat you for supper". Watch out for billy goats gruff.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 08:34 PM

After all, I'm a Liverpool fan. Ad we just slaughtered Man U fer chrissake. To the tune of Amazing Grace:

Three Nil
Three-e-e Nil
Three Nil
Three-e Nil
Three Nil
Three-e-e-nil
Three-e-nil...

Three nil
Three-e-e-nil
Three-e-nil
Three nil
Three nil
Three-e-e-nil
Three-nil [susp]...hil

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 11:27 PM

Today it was announced for the very first time that our Antarctic lab has detected not only gravity wave but primordial gravity waves.

If it is true that two orbiting black hole gravity wave time distortion waves have also been discovered, this is really big news that will tell us more about gravity than ever before.


Search for it anywhere

This is a big f'n deal I kid you not.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 05:05 AM

So that's what was going on in the first trillionth, of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 05:07 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26605974

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 06:40 AM

Insofar as I can understand this at all, it means they now have indications that something completely remarkably peculiar happened, without an inkling of an explanation for how or why it happened, and that's why everything exists.

There was nothing and then there was something and something got much bigger very quickly and then kept getting bigger more slowly...

It's basically metaphysics.
..............
"A low quality of debate" is hardly improved by making it even lower and by gleefully prodding others into doing the same. And carrying on arguments from one thread to another makes a nonsense of any kind of debate for anyone who hasn't been obsessively reading all the previous threads through which the squabblers have been romping.

Starting each thread afresh is far more enjoyable for everyone, I suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:17 AM

But no-one's listening, Kevin. Honest!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:18 AM

This is a big f'n deal I kid you not.

It is. Pity us poor mere biologists trying to get our heads round it...

:-(

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 11:17 AM

I'm not Jack's uncle, but it's been genetically proven that we're eighteen-billionth cousins. And I could give a rip if you happen to holler "Wacko" sometime. But you've blasted off rants any number of times in response to entirely reasonable posts, to the point that it's long since grown tiresome.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 12:30 PM

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/03/science-deniers-cosmos-neil-tyson

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 03:53 PM

Half of this thread is trashed with bickering. Too bad.

If any of you decides to contact a moderator about sanctioning others in the thread, it is really helpful if you haven't been in there calling names and throwing punches yourself.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 05:59 PM

But you've blasted off rants any number of times in response to entirely reasonable posts

Really? Well if you're not Wacko's uncle you must be his dad. I rather thought that I've blasted off rather reasonable responses (with the odd well-deserved piss-take here and there) to any number of rants. Mainly from your nephew/son. I'd love you to demonstrate a "rant" from me that was a response to an "entirely reasonable post", just one would do, not even any number, but I'd rather not put you in the embarrassing position of your not being able to reply.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 07:07 PM

"One reason for rebooting the series now not related to CGI and Hi Def TV is forty years of scientific progress. We know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know."

""We", Wacko? The implicit inclusion of yourself in that statement duly noted. In fact, Wackers, Carl Sagan knew a hell of a lot more than you will ever know"

Jack's statement neither demeaned Sagan nor constituted a personal brag; the use of "we" was just a normal part of the simple fact he was noting.

"You are NOT entitled to your opinion" The thread title was just a key line from the article Jack linked. The article was interesting, nothing inflammatory. Your reply: "What in Christ's name are you on about now, Wackers?" indicated, or at least appeared to indicate, that
you had spouted off without paying the least attention to what he was or wasn't "on about".

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 07:23 PM

"We know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know" is a typical shallow and facile pseudo-sage Jack-remark from a shallow, posturing idiot. Easy enough for you to tug this stuff away from its bigger context. I wouldn't have typed that dismal line in a million years and neither would you. Jack has abundantly demonstrated in dozens of posts that he does not belong in that "we". His form of words there is puffed up and pompous. If you can't see it I can't help it.

"What in Christ's name are you on about now?" is simply a riposte to yet another thread-start coming from a man who seemed to have been going through a phase of spending about twenty obsessive hours a day hovering over his keyboard wondering what he can start a thread about as he hasn't started one for at least an hour or two. Free country, of course. The mods have allegedly told him to fight his own fights. Do allow him to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 08:42 PM

""We know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know" is patently obvious, and is the justification for redoing the series. Or rather doing a completely new series, and using the name of the older one as a way of drawing attention and viewers, and giving people a good indication of what it's setting out to do. (Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.)

And it's not a shallow and facile thing to remark, otherwise the bloke presenting the show wouldn't have said pretty well the same thing, and he's a pretty sharp bloke.

"Pretty tiresome" - I think frogprince got it about right.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 08:46 PM

Fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:02 PM

Actually, I must say (and I have no connection with Jack Blandiver save that I admire all his postings here) that his comment early in the thread, concerning Carl Sagan,, his wisdom is a timeless inspiration, is an urgent corrective to those glib (and, to my mind, shallow and thoughtless) expressions here that suggest that we've "moved on" and that we are somehow the wiser because "we know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know" (wouldn't it be just great if the people who adhere to that actually showed any wisdom at all!). Timeless is just that. Darwin's revelations are timeless. He didn't know what "we" know (he knew nothing of modern genetics or biochemistry), but there is not a single idea in Origin that is, in its essence, "dated" in any way. It's the opposite, in fact: it's astonishingly advanced, and could teach many a modern scientist how he should diligently apply himself to his trade. There is nothing whatsoever to be superseded. Carl Sagan, to me, was up there with Darwin: a great communicator ((I mean, how many bloody times have I told pete to read Origins, in which he would find the most clear and elegant - and simple - explanation of, well, something timeless...) whose thinking was as advanced and as modern as anyone else's today. And so clear-minded. You might as well tell me that Tom Finney wouldn't have made it today because football has become so advanced. Bollocks! Do not try to tell me that Cosmos needs "updating". Small-minded people here may concentrate on the clunky effects and the staid presentation. Well I don't need super-duper instant gratification, thanks, even if you do. If you give a shit about that you really don't get science at all. I've got Cosmos on DVD, I love it, and the only dated thing about it is that it don't go right to the edges of my 16:9 telly. Grow up, fer chrissake!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:05 PM

OK, so there's just the one Origin.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:22 PM

Saying that "we" know things that wise people before did not know is patently obvious in many fields of knowledge, and is not in any way a claim that this makes us "wiser", which would be completely absurd.

Wisdom isn't about having more information, and isn't bound up with the date we were born. I would suggest that Socrates was a great deal wiser than any of us, regardless of the fact that we know far more about all kinds of things than he did, and many of the things he would have "known" are not true.

Sagan was a great communicator, Cosmos was a great series. Quite a lot of the stuff that scientists are preoccupied with today were not known at the time he presented it, some of the things that were believed to be the case at that time are no longer held to be true. That's how science goes. And of course it's still worth watching, and it's not too likely that the new series will match it, let alone eclipse it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stu
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 08:52 AM

Saw the new version, a bit glossy and glitzy (with the usual repetition) but worth it just for Tyson's story of his day out with Sagan, which was inspirational.

Although I'm doing my PhD in vertebrate palaeontology there's no doubt programmes such as Cosmos were a massive influence on me as a boy (I am a mature student, age-wise at least), and Sagan was superb at communicating the wonder, awe and pure joy that science helps us to experience as the process of discovery continues.

Tyson (who is an equally capable communicator) mentioned the power of the scientific method several times and the need to communicate it clearly to everyone, and the importance of this was itself communicated very well by the programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 11:31 AM

Anonymity? Been on this board for a good number of years now and only yesterday did I have cause to suspect that Stilly River Sage may not be a man. There ya go.

There is hiding in anonymity, and there is using a handle; SRS has signed her real name, and mentioned her background, any number of times. The same is true for quite a few of the regulars here.

I'm Dean Elkins, a retired coot living in Michigan.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 02:32 PM

Pleased to meet you. I believe in real names though I accept that exceptions need to be made for a few people. I don't accept that everyone here who uses a pseudonym is not hiding behind it so that they feel more free to say stuff they wouldn't usually say. This end, a coot is a small water-bird.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 02:37 PM

Although I'm doing my PhD in vertebrate palaeontology there's no doubt programmes such as Cosmos were a massive influence on me as a boy (I am a mature student, age-wise at least), and Sagan was superb at communicating the wonder, awe and pure joy that science helps us to experience as the process of discovery continues.

Well said. And he did it so well amid all the clunkiness and relative crudeness of the production. I didn't say in spite of. Look what happens when you dress stuff up to give it a bit of modern gloss. You get Brian Cox.



(I like him a lot, actually, but.)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 04:27 PM

I wasn't going to bother after the other thread was closed but if Steve Shaw insists on issuing a challenge, what am I to do?

If you are right, Steve, you should be able to crush me very easily in one of two ways.
1) Show me some evolution. I don't mean a twenty year experiment in an American lab where bacteria suddenly find out how to eat citrate or an observation that moths change colour in a dirty environment. Something as solid and tangible as the digits on your left hand. Something that Darwin would have been able to observe.
2) Start to talk like a scientist. Instead of responding to every hint of dissent with your "Evolution is true" mantra, generally accompanied by a barrage of schoolyard abuse, try actually addressing the points I raise. There are a few things you cheerfully ignored in these two posts on the Darwin's Witnesses thread.
thread.cfm?threadid=153464&messages=1012#3608503
thread.cfm?threadid=153464&messages=1068#3610544

Just in case you can't get the links to work, they were time stamped 09 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM and 18 Mar 14 - 09:11 AM.

I really think you should watch the video that Jack posted. It is a talk by Prof. Jerry Coyne. In his introduction, Richard Dawkins describes him as "... the principle guru to go to on evolutionary genetics in the world." Here it is again - Why evolution is true. Go on, give it a try unless you're afraid of finding something you don't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 05:21 PM

"I don't accept that everyone here who uses a pseudonym is not hiding behind it so that they feel more free to say stuff they wouldn't usually say"

And I'm sure you're quite right about that. One of the saddest things is, a number of the honest people who just used monikers for fun or fancy have more or less dropped away from the forum from disgust at the way some of the "false fronts" have messed up the discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 06:07 PM

anyone know why or who closed the other thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 06:18 PM

TheSnail linked back to a closed thread and these are featured in two of his links:

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. . . . Show me some evolution that I can see and touch and smell.

and

The concept of evolution is a human construct not an observable natural phenomenon.

It's like a trick question. Do you have the answer you're waiting to pop on the class after no one gets it right? What is the point of splitting hairs in the way you're attempting? You most of you agree about Evolution but for you Snail, they don't agree enough? Evolution by definition is over time and you don't have enough time in your life to "prove" it by actual observation. It's a science of fossil records, ancient and modern DNA or RNA, and conjecture.

How many evolution supporters can dance on the head of a pin? Do "true" and "fact" not have enough in common to work for you? Too many dictionary definitions of the word "true" make it unacceptable? Coyne says "theory becomes fact" about Evolution. He uses several ways to prove it, but someone simply stating that "evolution is a fact" or "evolution is true" is also accurate. What level of gravitas are you requesting from those who agree with you so that you can really acknowledge that they get it?

Religion is a social construction that, philosophers posit, started as a way to control people and teach them practices for survival. Religions that sprang from remote small settings among indigenous people (autochthonous) are particularly useful for timing the planting of crops, hunting ceremonies, preventing intermarriage between close relatives, and surviving harsh weather. They are markedly different from urban religions that offer illustrations about how to get along with other people, offer commandments of some sort, and (all too often) are parsed by power-brokers to gain riches and exclude those they don't like or agree with. Belief systems tend to dictate ways of living and believing.

"Evolution" isn't a belief system, even though people who do believe in it often (not always!) then tend to dismiss the religious view of how things came to be. One doesn't replace the other part for part. The fact that evolution is true can be proven in many ways and does not require your being able to see it happen in front of you to know it's true. The closest you'll probably come to it personally is if a study of your DNA proves that you have some Neanderthal mixed in with your Homo sapien.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 07:14 PM

Stilly River Sage
Evolution by definition is over time and you don't have enough time in your life to "prove" it by actual observation. It's a science of fossil records, ancient and modern DNA or RNA, and conjecture.

Well, you can do it without the DNA and RNA, Darwin did, but that gets the general idea. Now all we've got to do is persuade Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 08:50 PM

an observation that moths change colour in a dirty environment.

Rather sad, Snailie, that you've revealed your deficiencies at last. When I was an assistant chief examiner for "A" Level Biology at the University of London (in charge of a team of assistant examiners for the essay paper), I remember a big conflab that took place at our chief examiners' meeting over an essay question on evolution. We finally agreed with the chief examiner that any answer that used the peppered moth as an example of evolution should be scored out and given nil. I suppose I'm going to have to tell you why, aren't I. Both forms of Biston betularia were already present before the Industrial Revolution. The supposed favouring of the melanic form over the white form due to blackening of tree trunks merely caused a change of proportion in the populations of the two. No new mutation, no speciation. And, when the air was cleaned up, normal service was resumed. It's actually an awful example of anything at all, long discredited, and not even without suspicion of fraud. I wouldn't have used that to promote any notion of mine in a million years, old boy. And I can't think that I've ever mentioned the bacteria which you perpetually burble about. They are not an example of evolution either. You tell me I shouldn't say that evolution is true, yet you don't appear to understand the first thing about it yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 09:01 PM

Do "true" and "fact" not have enough in common to work for you? Too many dictionary definitions of the word "true" make it unacceptable? Coyne says "theory becomes fact" about Evolution. He uses several ways to prove it, but someone simply stating that "evolution is a fact" or "evolution is true" is also accurate.

Indeed. I think "simply stating" just about nails it. Simply stating that evolution is a fact, or is true, is not a scientific pitch. The science is in the theory. I find "theory becomes fact" to be a tad uncomfortable. I'd rather say that "the theory overwhelmingly underlines the fact" (or the truth, if you like).

Apologies for my confusion over your gender. I must try to concentrate right to the end of every post. You'll possibly acknowledge that that can occasionally be a tribulation here that tends to condition one in inappropriate ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 10:16 PM

My nom de plume is an homage to my grandfather, and I chose a non-gendered moniker because way back when it was harder for women to be left alone to simply participate in forums. Now no one here would know who I am if I changed to my real name. Gender shouldn't matter in a conversation.

Please stop changing people's names and calling people names. Use the acknowledged abbreviations - SRS, JtS, etc. but let's stop the thumb in the eye insults. Thank you.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 03:39 AM

Pointing and laughing is a product of debate, not a precursor.

Not to mention cathartic at times. Even Jack has seen the purity and clarity of the phrase Fuck Off as being an excellent way to demonstrate the integrity of your point.

In a week where possible evidence of the aftermath of the Big Bang has been identified and refinement on a particular type of dinosaur, the ins and outs of evolution are mere detail surely? Organic evolution is being discussed here but Cosmos isn't quite so parochial.

As Carl Sagan once said, we are all stardust.

(But not all are golden eh?)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM

Yes Steve, I know about the peppered moth. That's why I excluded it from acceptable evidence of evolution happening. Someone on the Darwin's Witnesses thread had mentioned it as an example.

Now, how about either showing me some evolution happening or responding in a rational way to something I actually said rather than something I didn't?

You're a bit selective about your reading of Stilly River Sage as well. How about commenting on -
Evolution by definition is over time and you don't have enough time in your life to "prove" it by actual observation. It's a science of fossil records, ancient and modern DNA or RNA, and conjecture.

Let me pick out a few key words for you -
actual observation
science
conjecture

("you've revealed your deficiencies at last". Since you were wrong about this one, you must now think I have no deficiencies at all. Nice.)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 06:24 AM

This is rather lovely for Cosmos fans old & new:

National Geographic : Who Was Carl Sagan?

*

Watching the episode on the Ionian Philosophers last night, smiling at Anaximander's ideas on Evolution. That's around 611 - 546 B.C.E.

The Truth of Evolution is measured against other universal evolutionary truths, like the evolution of universe, suns, planets, solar systems and life as a whole. All is process, flux & change - we can see this happening day to day in language, culture, music & technology all of which evolve by steady degrees. We can wander around the Natural History Museum and look at our skeletal analogues throughout the animal kingdom from long before there were humans on the planet to newly discovered primate species in the Amazon basin and see the common threads of respective evolutionary developments right there.   

In any case, the alternatives are unthinking & unthinkable, of interest to Storytellers & Folklorists, but once they become 'True', that is the time to worry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmdGFWS0m54

*

The concept of evolution is a human construct not an observable natural phenomenon.

Coming from a Folk Enthusiast, this statement is very rich indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 10:58 AM

On the basis of what I have seen so far and my love for the first Cosmos, I think Tyson was a superb choice and I think this will be an extension as well as a remake of the original. Tyson's love and admiration for Sagan assures that I think.

"Ascent of Man" is another great series that needs a rerun if not a remake. If you never saw it or read the book, pick it up sometime.

Carl Sagan inspired many of us to think more creatively with more tools and he led med me eventually to the greatest, Richard Feynman. If I owe anything to Carl Sagan, I owe him that. I think about Carl Sagan a lot anymore because we also have in common a disease which took his life and on bad days I think of him and wonder if he felt the way I feel. Anyway, I am in the best of company! LOL


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 12:20 PM

Would someone please start a nice neutral thread, maybe "Is Darwinism true?"

And move that conversation there. I am afraid that I will cause more problems than I solve if I do that.

pete, Steve, Dave, Snail, everyone. There is no reason not to start a thread to discuss something you are interested in. That technology is available to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 12:54 PM

The entire "Ascent of Man" series may be found on youtube. I've never seen it, so look forward to watching them.

I'm sorry for your health travails, Catspaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 01:20 PM

The chicken from Hell. Here's a dynamic combination of parts.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Stringsinger
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 01:24 PM

Evolution is an observable and decidedly scientific fact supported by a majority of scientists throughout the world, as immutable as gravity, though some wouldn't support that if they were falling off the edge of a cliff.

Tyson is a hero, debunking the religious objections based on no credible scientific evidence for that position which cites the bible as a reference, a cultist manifesto fraught with inconsistencies, fairy tales and an objectionable main character, who, destroying countless people as a mass murderer is celebrated by a fanatical but decreasing majority.

Maybe, but not optimistic, that Cosmos will wake up some of these religious dogma-drug induced addicts from their intellectual torpor.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 02:01 PM

Please stop changing people's names and calling people names. Use the acknowledged abbreviations - SRS, JtS, etc. but let's stop the thumb in the eye insults. Thank you.

Well they changed their OWN names fer chrissake!! I'm not going to compound the deception of a nom de plume by abbreviating it, largely because I'm broadly sane. If that's your idea of "convention" well it ain't mine. I suggest you would do far better to target the multifarious inanities, disgusting prejudices (including misogyny and homophobia), misrepresentations (of self and others) and lies of some of the participants here rather than attack a bloke who merely falls a little short of charming at times by being a little direct. If someone is being a clot on a public forum they deserve to be called a clot. There is a particularly egregious and long-standing example on this board of a religious fundamentalist who has been indulged and who, as a result, takes the piss out of reasonable people here and beyond here all the time. That's what happens if you call a spade a manual digging implement. I've been sworn at and called names and insulted and misrepresented and lied about far more times than vice versa, in particular by the man who I assume you're trying to defend the most by asking me not to call him names, and I do not complain. And I remind you that you will never find me using the F or C words. I don't recall seeing you having a bash at the people who do that. If you are a mod (I haven't a clue) and you want to clean up this board a bit, you have far more important targets than yours truly. Steve Shaw, or SJS if you like, no p in front of surname, since 1951. Thank YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 02:06 PM

Well, snailie, if you really know that those bacteria and moths are shite examples of evolution, and if I know that, and I've never used them, why try to discredit me by posting this piece of garbage:

If you are right, Steve, you should be able to crush me very easily in one of two ways.
1) Show me some evolution. I don't mean a twenty year experiment in an American lab where bacteria suddenly find out how to eat citrate or an observation that moths change colour in a dirty environment...

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 02:11 PM

Would someone please start a nice neutral thread, maybe "Is Darwinism true?"

There is no such thing as Darwinism. It is a pejorative coined by idiots who wish to discredit evolutionary theory. You start the thread, we'll come and get you. Though I'm sure you'll be scurrying for your dictionary first in order to prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 02:14 PM

What is there to bicker about? We are only talking about everything there is, was and will ever be when discussing the cosmos.

Man's notion of god and knowledge are dwarfed by the questions and answers that cosmology poses regarding the seen and unseen, the known and unknowable, and the stored history of everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 03:35 PM

Stilly River Sage
Evolution by definition is over time and you don't have enough time in your life to "prove" it by actual observation. It's a science of fossil records, ancient and modern DNA or RNA, and conjecture.

Steve Shaw
Simply stating that evolution is a fact, or is true, is not a scientific pitch.

Stringsinger
Evolution is an observable and decidedly scientific fact

Some divergence of opinion there.

Steve Shaw
Well, snailie, if you really know that those bacteria and moths are shite examples of evolution, and if I know that, and I've never used them, why try to discredit me by posting this piece of garbage:

Just in case you hadn't noticed, this is a public forum not a private conversation. Bill D mentioned the peppered moths and your personal henchgnome gave a link to the bacteria experiment. I'm surprised that you didn't kniow about it. I'd like to thank you for your profuse apology for trying to discredit me by misrepresenting my understanding on the peppered moth observations. Unfortunately, I can't.

Have you watched the Jerry Coyne video yet?
Can you (or Stringsinger) tell me where I can actually observe some evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 04:10 PM

isn't it weird ?. I don't know what I,m talking about, if I recall snail correctly, but he insists on the same question, more or less, that I,ve asked so many times before.
stilly says evolution is true, is a valid statement [more or less] then concedes it involves conjecture.
more accurately it is a philosophical/religious statement.