The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

oldrnwisr

Samaris wrote: »

Fascinating reading, oldrnwiser - sounds like this is your area. Do you work in it or is this from interest?

Also, I like the language analogy.

Thanks Samaris.

No I don't work in the area. In fact I've never formally studied biology or evolution. I didn't do biology in school and I'm a physicist (specifically metallurgist) by education and a sysadmin by profession. My interest in evolution is entirely autodidactic. It started with pop-sci books then school textbooks, college textbooks, academic books and eventually peer-reviewed research.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Samaris
Fascinating reading, oldrnwiser - sounds like this is your area. Do you work in it or is this from interest?

oldrnwisr
Thanks Samaris.

No I don't work in the area. In fact I've never formally studied biology or evolution. I didn't do biology in school and I'm a physicist (specifically metallurgist) by education.

wrote:

(10) thanks from:

Delirium, Mark Hamill, MrPudding, oscarBravo, PopePalpatine, robindch, Samaris, spacecoyote, Timberrrrrrrr, timbyr

That's one hell of a 'mutual admiration society' that you guys have going on amongst yourselves there !!:eek:

Oldrnwisr isn't even an Evolutionary Biologist (or indeed any kind of Biologist) ... and ye are 'wetting yourselves' over his use of Evolutionist Textbooks links ... interspersed with a few 'just so' stories, that do little to progress the actual evidence for Spontaneous evolution, other than fill up walls of text ... that would take hours of work to decipher and answer ... which is often the objective of lengthy posts, in the first place.

It's a truism that if you can't say what you want to say in a post, in a few well thought-out sentences ... it's not worth saying.

I was going to answer oldrnwiser ... out of courtesy to the guy ... but I've decided that I'd be wasting my time, such is the demonstrable bias objectively shown by you all.
Nothing I say will make any difference to you guys.

Convince somebody against their will ... and they will be of the same opinion still.:)

J C

wrote:

(10) thanks from:
Delirium, Mark Hamill, MrPudding, oscarBravo, PopePalpatine, robindch, Samaris, spacecoyote, Timberrrrrrrr, timbyr

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

... and BTW that was from Shakespeare (Hamlet) ... just in case somebody starts accusing me of plagarising The Bard. :eek:

robindch

J C wrote: »

[...][ would take hours of work to decipher and answer [...]

Many people spend decades of their lives working through the natural world to figure out how it works. That's what it takes, at least on the scientific side as opposed to the makey-uppey, fluff and nonsense side.

J C wrote: »

Nothing I say will make any difference to you guys.

You are unlikely to change anybody's mind here - not because the good people who post here in A+A are floundering around, clueless, under some weird topic-specific groupthink - but for the much simpler reason that most people are far more well-informed than you about biology.

As before, though, your posts produce the occasional gem in response and that's why the moderators turn a blind eye to your posting style which, over time, is against the forum charter.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Many people spend decades of their lives working through the natural world to figure out how it works. That's what it takes, at least on the scientific side as opposed to the makey-uppey, fluff and nonsense side.

As good a description of spontaneous evolution as one could find.

robindch wrote: »

You are unlikely to change anybody's mind here - not because the good people who post here in A+A are floundering around, clueless, under some weird topic-specific groupthink - but for the much simpler reason that most people are far more well-informed than you about biology.

... even the Physicists and metallurgists apparently.:)
... of course many Evolutionary Biologists know the serious deficiencies in Spontaneous Evolution ... and are furiously looking for a replacement ... with, it has to be said, very little success to date.
... so perhaps the only people who really and truly believe in Spontaneous Evolution are physicists and metallurgists !!!:eek:

robindch wrote: »

As before, though, your posts produce the occasional gem in response and that's why the moderators turn a blind eye to your posting style which, over time, is against the forum charter.

Which part of the charter would that be, Robin?

robindch

J C wrote: »

... even the Physicists and metallurgists apparently.:)

Indeed, and I'm glad that you now accept that you are less informed than oldrnwisr.

J C wrote: »

Which part of the charter would that be, Robin?

As you know quite well, it's the bit about soap-boxing - the endless repetition of a single point of view without engaging in any serious discussion about it.

There are plenty of forums where posters can soapbox to their hearts' content but A+A isn't one of them.

J C

robindch wrote: »

... not because the good people who post here in A+A are floundering around, clueless, under some weird topic-specific groupthink ...

... now that you mention it, Robin ... I couldn't have said it better myself.:)

All the sychophantic profuse thanks and gushing praise for the musings of a physicist on evolution, does indeed indicate a 'weird topic-specific groupthink' ... when it comes to Atheists on this forum and Spontaneous Evolution.

robindch

J C wrote: »

All the sychophantic profuse thanks and gushing praise for the musings of a physicist on evolution, does indeed indicate a 'weird topic-specific groupthink' [...]

It could also, and much more likely, indicate that your fellow forum posters respect the effort which somebody puts in to refuting the nonsense you write.

BTW, have you been drinking?

J C

robindch wrote: »

It could also, and much more likely, indicate that your fellow forum posters respect the effort which somebody puts in to refuting the nonsense you write.

BTW, have you been drinking?

I haven't been drinking ... why, have you been 'hitting the bottle' yourself?

You're starting to sound like a policeman gearing up to administer a sobriety test !!!:)

J C

robindch wrote: »

Indeed, and I'm glad that you now accept that you are less informed than oldrnwisr.

Everybody is uninformed about Spontaneous Evolution ... because there is nothing to be informed about ... as it simply doesn't exist.

robindch wrote: »

As you know quite well, it's the bit about soap-boxing - the endless repetition of a single point of view without engaging in any serious discussion about it.

There are plenty of forums where posters can soapbox to their hearts' content but A+A isn't one of them.

If one looks at the various threads on the A & A the postings are entirely predictable ... knocking the hell out of religion and the people who practice it is the common theme across practically every thread from the get go ... even the titles of most threads do this ... the entire forum is a 'soapbox' for irrelgion and anti-religion (under your defintion of soapboxing being endless repitition of a single point of view).
However, I don't think that soapboxing is as you describe it ... soapboxing would be talking at and through people irrespective of what they are saying (like somebody on a literal soapbox giving a speech) ... and insisting on answering one's own questions (and only one's own questions), irrespective of the questions other people are asking.
Under this definition, neither the forum nor myself are 'soapboxing'.

looksee

J C wrote: »

If one looks at the various threads on the A & A the postings are entirely predictable ... knocking the hell out of religion and the people who practice it is the common theme across practically every thread ... even the titles of most threads do this ... the entire forum is a 'soapbox' for irrelgion and anti-religion (under your defintion of soapboxing being endless repitition of a single point of view).
[/B]

Do you mean to say that after all this time you have only just noticed this is the Atheism and Agnosticism forum? What else would we be doing but knocking the hell out of religion? As long as it continues to plague us and affect our lives we will continue to show what nonsense it is.

J C

looksee wrote: »

Do you mean to say that after all this time you have only just noticed this is the Atheism and Agnosticism forum? What else would we be doing but knocking the hell out of religion? As long as it continues to plague us and affect our lives we will continue to show what nonsense it is.

Two points in response to that ...

Firstly, if soapboxing is an endless repitition of a single point of view ... then you have just confirmed that the entire forum is a soapbox for irreligion. I don't think it is (for the reasons I have already outlined in my previous post).

Secondly, whilst ye are free to do as ye see fit ... if were an atheist in a pluralist democracy ... I wouldn't go 'knocking the hell' out the religious beliefs of the vast majority of the society in which I lived ... doubly so, if had ambitions to 'win friends and influence enemies' on issues ranging from the control of schools and hospitals ... to having my voice taken seriously on all kinds of other issues, especially those relating to respect for social diversity and equaity of treatment for all citizens.
Far be it for me to give you guys any advice ... but if I were an atheist posting on this forum ... I would certainly be trying to, at the very least, balance anti-religion threads with some threads promoting the positives of Atheism and Secularism ... provided, of course, that such positives exist.

robindch

J C wrote: »

However, I don't think that soapboxing is as you describe it [...]

Unfortunately, the moderators are the good folks who set the rules, who decide what's allowed and what isn't and what the terms used mean - usually with input from the people who post in the forum. And the moderators have decided that the tedious repetition of a single point of view without entertaining any serious discussion on the topic - as you do - is not a desirable characteristic, and have deemed it incompatible with the forum charter.

You are free to redefine soap-boxing to mean whatever you like, but that's not going to change the basic fact that the kind of tedious behaviour which would eventually result in you being asked to leave a friend's dinner table will also, ultimately, see you being asked to leave here too - or in your specific case, for the time being, restricted to a corner of the forum where most people don't need to listen.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Firstly, if soapboxing is an endless repitition of a single point of view ... then you have just confirmed that the entire forum is a soapbox for irreligion. I don't think it is (for the reasons I have already outlined in my previous post).

SOAPBOXING IS (A) THE TEDIOUS REPETITION OF A SINGLE POINT OF VIEW (B) WITHOUT ENTERTAINING ANY SERIOUS DISCUSSION ON THE TOPIC.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THIS. THE BIT ABOUT "TEDIOUS REPETITION". AND THE BIT ABOUT "WITHOUT ENTERTAINING SERIOUS DISCUSSION" (I HAVE COLORED THEM RED AND PURPLE SO THAT THE TWO BITS ARE EASIER TO DISTINGUISH).

THE DEFINITION OF SOAP-BOXING HAS BEEN CLARIFIED TO YOU INNUMERABLE TIMES DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS AND HAS BEEN SITTING IN THE FORUM CHARTER FOR ALMOST TWELVE YEARS:

Charter wrote:

the constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerate

AT THIS POINT, YOU SHOULD REALLY BE ABLE TO FIGURE IT OUT. IT REALLY ISN'T VERY DIFFICULT.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Unfortunately, the moderators are the good folks who set the rules, who decide what's allowed and what isn't and what the terms used mean - usually with input from the people who post in the forum. And the moderators have decided that the tedious repetition of a single point of view without entertaining any serious discussion on the topic - as you do - is not a desirable characteristic, and have deemed it incompatible with the forum charter.

You are free to redefine soap-boxing to mean whatever you like, but that's not going to change the basic fact that the kind of tedious behaviour which would eventually result in you being asked to leave a friend's dinner table will also, ultimately, see you being asked to leave here too - or in your specific case, for the time being, restricted to a corner of the forum where most people don't need to listen.

... and do you think that the kind of posts and threads within the A & A and their constant 'knocking the hell out of religion' would be acceptable in polite mixed religious company at a dinner table?

I think I'd have a somewhat better chance at getting past dinner before being asked to leave, than you guys.:)

Either way, we're not at a dinner table ... we're robustly debating issues of common interest, to both sides ... and using dinner conversation standards as a 'yardstick' will reflect much more poorly on the A & As deeply anti-religious stance (to the point of insulting and making fun of people of faith) than on my pro-creation and anti-evolution stance.

J C

robindch wrote: »

SOAPBOXING IS (A) THE TEDIOUS REPETITION OF A SINGLE POINT OF VIEW (B) WITHOUT ENTERTAINING ANY SERIOUS DISCUSSION ON THE TOPIC.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THIS. THE BIT ABOUT "TEDIOUS REPETITION". AND THE BIT ABOUT "WITHOUT ENTERTAINING SERIOUS DISCUSSION" (I HAVE COLORED THEM RED AND PURPLE SO THAT THE TWO BITS ARE EASIER TO DISTINGUISH).

THE DEFINITION OF SOAP-BOXING HAS BEEN CLARIFIED TO YOU INNUMERABLE TIMES DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS AND HAS BEEN SITTING IN THE FORUM CHARTER FOR ALMOST TWELVE YEARS:AT THIS POINT, YOU SHOULD REALLY BE ABLE TO FIGURE IT OUT. IT REALLY ISN'T VERY DIFFICULT.

Ok Firstly one man's 'tedious' is another man's 'riveting stuff'. To a Christian, coming onto your forum, your constant knocking of religion is 'tedious' to them ... and, as I've already suggested ... somewhat counter-productive for you guys, depending on how ye would like to be perceived by society around ye.

On the 'repetition' issue ... both sides are guilty of this ... the A & A is nothing if not repetitive on the 'knocking the hell out of religion' ... and Creationism, for good measure !!!:)

On the 'without entertaining serious discussion' ... I totally disagree that I don't do this ... every post by me, including this one, is focussed precisely on the discussion at hand.

robindch

You've had this explained to you multiple times, so no point in continuing a pointless discussion.

This topic is now closed.

Any further silly postings like the above will see you carded or banned at the moderators' discretion.

mickrock

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know how Dawkins could make it any clearer in The Selfish Gene that he's using artistic licence in anthropomorphising genes. I'd go so far as to say he labours the point.

According to biologist Denis Noble poor old Dawkins doesn't know what a metaphor is, as Nobles mentions here at 8:40

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

The video outlines why Neo-Darwinism/The Selfish Gene as the primary explanation of evolution is specious nonsense. Denis Noble's main conclusions are the following:

"The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection. Any role of physiological function in influencing genetic inheritance was excluded. The organism became a mere carrier of the real objects of selection, its genes. We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual. Molecular genetics and genome sequencing have deconstructed this unnecessarily restrictive view of evolution in a way that reintroduces physiological function and interactions with the environment as factors influencing the speed and nature of inherited change. Acquired characteristics can be inherited, and in a few but growing number of cases that inheritance has now been shown to be robust for many generations. The 21st century can look forward to a new synthesis that will reintegrate physiology with evolutionary biology."

Lucy8080

Wow.

Posters accused of drunkenness,again.

I've seen the mob accuse J.C. of not having any notion of science, whilst an honest admittance by oldnwiser gets thanked for having an interest in the subject J.C. claims he works on.

If this was reversed, folks would have to self-censor for breach of charter and would be skeptical of o,n,w.

I don't believe in literalising biblical stories or dismissing out of hand these stories as "nothing to see here".

But, are you guys reading your own stuff here?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Do you mean to say that after all this time you have only just noticed this is the Atheism and Agnosticism forum? What else would we be doing but knocking the hell out of religion? As long as it continues to plague us and affect our lives we will continue to show what nonsense it is.

I don't think knocking the hell out of religion is really a common occupation of atheists and agnostics, by and large. It's more a preoccupation of that little subset, anti-theists... and the forum hasn't (yet) been renamed, so you could understand some people being bemused by a good deal of the nonsense here. Specious or otherwise.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

... and BTW that was from Shakespeare (Hamlet) ... just in case somebody starts accusing me of plagarising The Bard. :eek:

Whils I appreciate that it must be annoying for you that some of his individual posts probably receive more thanks that you have received in total in you time on boards, you are being rather petty and juvenile here.

There is also a distinct whiff of sour grapes..

MrP

Delirium

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Wow.

Posters accused of drunkenness,again.

I've seen the mob accuse J.C. of not having any notion of science, whilst an honest admittance by oldnwiser gets thanked for having an interest in the subject J.C. claims he works on.

If this was reversed, folks would have to self-censor for breach of charter and would be skeptical of o,n,w.

I don't believe in literalising biblical stories or dismissing out of hand these stories as "nothing to see here".

But, are you guys reading your own stuff here?

Oldrnwsr has consistently posted informative posts on the topic. I thanked him as it is impressive that it is a result of personal interest and reading.

I really don't get the issue you and JC have with that???

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Whils I appreciate that it must be annoying for you that some of his individual posts probably receive more thanks that you have received in total in you time on boards, you are being rather petty and juvenile here.

There is also a distinct whiff of sour grapes..

MrP

No problem with people thanking (or not thanking) posts ... it's when the thankers start behaving as a mob that it becomes obvious that a 'mutual admiration society' is in play.
Again, I have no problem with that, if that is how Atheists want to behave ... but it does seem to be unique to Atheists ... there is no parallel by Chrisitians or other people of faith on the Boards.

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

No problem with people thanking (or not thanking) posts ... it's when the thankers start behaving as a mob that it becomes obvious that a 'mutual admiration society' is in play.
Again, I have no problem with that, if that is how Atheists want to behave ... but it does seem to be unique to Atheists ... there is no parallel by Chrisitians or other people of faith on the Boards.

Don't mind them, JC. They're just a shower of thankers.

looksee

Mod:

Ok, JC, one last time: (this is a warning)

Cease with the victim posturing. You are not being ganged up on, its just that no-one agrees with you.

This is A&A where the vast majority of A&As do not accept creationism. You are not going to change this, you are welcome to keep trying but there is no point sulking when you do not make any progress.

Either get back on topic (which is not the same as soap-boxing) or take a little break - we can organise that for you.

Everyone - stop the personal sniping, the thread is not about the injustices suffered by JC, its about creationism and associated topics.

Take administrative issues to feedback - local or site.

MrPudding

Lucy8080 wrote:

I've seen the mob accuse J.C. of not having any notion of science, whilst an honest admittance by oldnwiser gets thanked for having an interest in the subject J.C. claims he works on.

Key word: claims. JC claims to be a scientist, but give no indication or evidence that he is one.

MrP

smacl

J C wrote: »

To a Christian, coming onto your forum, your constant knocking of religion is 'tedious' to them ... and, as I've already suggested ... somewhat counter-productive for you guys, depending on how ye would like to be perceived by society around ye.

You come to an atheist forum in a country that is in the gradual process of turning its back on religion after very many decades where the church has abused its position of power in the most barbaric and insidious ways imaginable. It seems entirely reasonable to expect to see religion deeply criticised here, and rightly so.

You then start make assertions about the creation of the universe that even most Christians would disagree with, and have every point you make and remake ad nauseum refuted in detail with extensive well supported references. When you continue to repeat these same points, you're met with derision. Again, this is to be expected. This may all seem rather tedious to you but maybe ask yourself how much your contributing to this tedium yourself?

looksee

I SAID...stop the bickering. Cards will be handed out.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

I SAID...stop the bickering. Cards will be handed out.

Happy to take a card or a ban for this, but this needs to be said.

Are you still happy to say that JC posting in this forum has a value? Look back through the history of this forum and see how much trouble his posts have caused. And no JC, by trouble cause I don't mean you have caused trouble by giving us the truth, or by you amazing arguments.

Also, I am fed up reading his ****ing delusional "look at me the victim, they can't stand hearing the truth from me so they try to silence me" posts.

I love reading the posts rebutting his nonsense, and I think they are massively valuable. But there must be a way for us to still have access to post like that without having JC's delusional nonsense inflicted on the forum. In the past I did see the value in allowing him to post, I was of the same opinion, now though, years later, his utility in this respect is getting less.

He is receiving special treatment, and I seriously don't think he deserves it. he is disruptive and divisive and his value to the forum is questionable, particularly since his last restriction to the delusional nonsense thread where all he has done is whine.

Seriously mods. You need to sort this out. I love this forum but JC is killing it for me.

MrP

J C

mickrock wrote: »

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

The video outlines why Neo-Darwinism/The Selfish Gene as the primary explanation of evolution is specious nonsense. Denis Noble's main conclusions are the following:

"The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection. Any role of physiological function in influencing genetic inheritance was excluded. The organism became a mere carrier of the real objects of selection, its genes. We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual. Molecular genetics and genome sequencing have deconstructed this unnecessarily restrictive view of evolution in a way that reintroduces physiological function and interactions with the environment as factors influencing the speed and nature of inherited change. Acquired characteristics can be inherited, and in a few but growing number of cases that inheritance has now been shown to be robust for many generations. The 21st century can look forward to a new synthesis that will reintegrate physiology with evolutionary biology."

Yes, indeed Neo-Darwinian Evolution is just as invalid as the original Darwinian version.
Dr Denis Noble really 'nails it' in the above video.
Further proof that Darwinism is dead in the next video:-