I don't know... In this case I think I'd buy it.

If he was being serious, it would be almost as bad as NotReady's(?) 'OT slavery was fine because modern athletes are kinda like slaves, too--and they're rich!'

It is a narrow and irrelevant point. eg Avogadro's law is also called Avogadro's hypothesis etc etc. Back to evolution theory there is no formula for it so it has not been satisfactorily defined. Theories are proved or disproved by using maths.

Were you around the time he was challenged to find an example of Jesus saying something or other (can't remember the topic, probs about homosexuality or w/e) and Cwocwoc took a quote from Paul and just tacked on ",said Jesus" to the end of it?

That was an innocent mistake I unwittingly cut and paste from a google search. Why drag that up now it was probably years ago and very trivial.

Anyway back to this topic how can we distinguish between natural selection and evolution without any way of measuring ?

what?

Creationists have no prob with the survival of the fittest hypothesis.

Grab any any Life Sciences or general science textbook, and they'll probably spell out in the first five pages for you what a scientific fact, law, and theory are.

Generally, a scientific law attempts to describe a set of observations as a formula. If you have to say anything is dis/proven using math, it would be scientific laws, not theories (though you could certainly use math to disprove many scientific theories, and I'm sure you'll cherry pick an example).

Scientific theories attempt to build a framework or model to explain the facts that have been gathered. Generally, replacing the word "theory" with "model" will make things more clear when you're in the realm of science.

Germ theory, cell theory, and atomic theory are all examples of scientific theories that are not proved or disproved using math.

This is why evolution can be both fact and theory (the facts are observed, the theory explains how/why we see them). Likewise, gravity is a fact, theory (gravitation), and law, depending on which facet you're considering.

I don't understand you. You admit that the microorganisms can "make you sick," but at the same time you say that they are not "responsible for our health problems." Do you know what the germ theory of disease actually is?

To be clear, are you stating that if we took a healthy person and gave them a vial of bacteria to drink, they wouldn't get sick? After all, we aren't changing anything about them except that we are introducing some microorganisms to the mix. To speed up this discussion:

if you answer "yes, the person would get sick"


if you answer "no, the healthy person drinking the bacteria would not get sick"

Consistency with fossil observations etc is not good enough for something like evolution. Stronger proof is necessary. Imo we simply do not understand the process of life well enough to be categoric about evolution. From my own point of view it's irrelevant to my life whether or not I am a product of intelligent design.

You don't understand the meaning of simple words, despite having been told MULTIPLE TIMES, and now you have a history of trying to sneak deceitful quotes into your posts. Why would anyone care what YOU think "we" understand about anything!? lol, what a jopke

Go on, try and divert attention away from your dishonesty again with another "Anyway, back to what we were talking about before".

Wrong (of course!) but the DNA evidence is stronger than fossils anyway.

Because you are wrong about everything.

It's exceedingly probable that you're not.

The DNA evidence is irrefutable. There's entire disciplines in genetics dedicated to studying our evolutionary history.

Not really. We only discovered DNA 60 years ago. We are learning a lot, but there is no fossil record or genetic evidence that we once had gills and crawled out of the sea.

Yeah, we can show the specialization within a species. The dogs for example. Nothing said here about the dogs is anything crazy, wolves and chihuahuas are the same species, but something like a hyena may not be. We can see the genetic tree branches, but have yet to find the common link. We are no where near the root of the tree. We are only able to find the link between any two branches in very unique and specific circumstances.

There are a lot of things that do not make sense with the commonly accepted view of human history.

As for the germs, one guy drinking a vial of something doesn't matter. Did he expect to get sick? Why did he do it? I think all of these things matter. Why doesn't everyone who ate a particular thing always get food poisoning. Why doesn't everyone who digs in the dirt get anthrax.

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty of what I believe, I believe we were created in the image of the creator. We are creators. Nothing on this earth exists without having first existed in the mind of a creator. Power of positive thought, power of prayer, visualization, all of that stuff.

So I am not too concerned with germs, and I almost never get sick. I take it a step further as well, in that I feel the same way about injuries. When I look back, every time I was sick or injured, I was overwhelmed with circumstances, or the injury or sickness seemed to fit with an inner conflict I was having at the time. Even, and especially chronic problems.

Goes back to the it happens in the mind first thing.


This thread has really devolved. Thanks for the OP, it was a good read.

Fellow RGT'ers

You are attempting to debate and engage in intelligent discussion with an attention seeking troll. I'm only posting this to make you realise how pointless it is. Why someone in their 50's would want to carry on this way, who knows?

Anyway, here's a very helpful thread from the Coaching Advice forum for further proof. As you'll see from the Mods post on there he actually deleted a number of posts from them:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/10...-nlhe-1107105/

The troll was also asked to leave a thread in the book forums for trolling there:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=499

There's probably a lot more out there but those are just 2 threads I happened to be reading back in the day.

By continuing to engage with a troll you are just encouraging them.


This was a public service announcement, etc etc

Maybe a thread is warranted to discuss how we deal with trolls. Ignoring them is like herd immunity in vaccines... it only works if we're all doing it...

Sounds like a decent idea

You ARE the stalking troll who is to be avoided because you never have anything constructive to contribute to the discussion. Please say something which adds to the discussion instead of trying to disrupt it. Thanks.


I am fairly agnostic on evolution theory. Life can take many forms and I feel that our knowledge of the process of life is in its infancy. The scientists have agreed that even a cloud of gas can be described as a living thing.

You volunteering, or am I?

Ill do it when Im finished this session

I don't mind this sort of response. There is DNA research going on in this field. I don't know whether the evidence an be described as irrefutable but it does move the discussion on.

It's only fun proving people wrong when they have a reputation to ruin. At this point we're just kicking the div kid.

There is no successful general solution to the problem of trolls that I'm aware of other than aggressive moderation. Since we mostly eschew aggressive moderation on RGT, we will somewhat inevitably (given the subject matter and the general 2p2 demographics and duh, it's the internet) be occasionally plagued by trollish behavior.

My own recommendation is to use trolls as an opportunity to cultivate the Stoic virtues.

How about stalkers ? As you can see from his links Husker has been stalking me for years. I'd be flattered if he wasn't such a pest.