Thanks for not deleting this, but now about locking threads...

And why on earth don't we just move this thread over to the Alternatives subforum?

This feels like nothing more than sweeping dirt under the rug; let's just put the trash where it belongs.

bluecyclist64 said:Why not just move this thread over to the other sub?

This is just sweeping trash under the rug. Put the garbage where it actually belongs.

Because they’d probably just migrate it right back here. There might actually be some logic involved here too, unlike the usual "2+2=437,2453" math you find on those other boards.

PS: Just thinking about the debate over opening up those other forums gives me heartburn. 😠

slycrane94 said:😂😂😂😂 Go take those "it's definitely true" arguments and that "everyone believes it" logic to a religious studies department. You'll find a much better audience there.

Floods definitely happened. For most of human history, we were just another animal species breeding within the limits of our environment—mostly dictated by how much food was available.

It’s clear you’re a product of a system that teaches kids one of the most monstrous and unscientific lies ever conceived, all while passing it off as settled fact. Look, slycrane94, maybe you’re a genius when it comes to math or physics, but it is staggering—to the point where I can barely find the right words—that people living in 2013 are still victims of such relentless indoctrination. Modern genetics, molecular biochemistry, and related disciplines have already dismantled this idea, proving it to be the single greatest scientific fraud and hoax in history.

Let’s take a moment to remember what William A. Williams wrote at the very start of his highly commendable article back in 1925:

Scientific rigor demands a specific progression: first possibility, then probability, and finally certainty. For a theory to even be considered possible, it has to square with the facts. To move toward probability, it needs to align with an even broader set of data. Only once it reconciles with every single fact does it reach certainty. If a theory clashes with even one established fact, it fails. It should be discarded. No exceptions. Every legitimate theory follows this path: possibility, probability, and certainty. Until a theory reaches that final stage of absolute truth, it isn't science—it's just a hypothesis. It hasn't become knowledge yet. The evolution of man from the brute is in the throes of a desperate struggle to prove it might even be possible. Yet, there are those who proudly call themselves "scientists" while claiming evolution is already a proven fact. They are skipping the steps.

Even if someone manages to prove it's technically possible for humans to descend or ascend from lower animals, they’ll still need a mountain of extra evidence to argue that such a transition is actually probable. And even then? They'd need even more to call it a certainty.

Ronald Morales51 said:Even if you had picked more recent literature supporting creationist ideas, this thread wouldn't belong on PZ because that argument was debunked ages ago. I certainly hope you don't actually believe that major populations before Christ consisted of only five to twenty people. By what logic would they ever manage to build something like the pyramids?

It’s pathetic that if you actually have an interest in evolution, you limit your knowledge to such low-quality sources, especially when modern science has managed to describe the evolution of the human species so beautifully.

You clearly haven't read a single word of this text, considering you're spouting nonsense like "populations of 5 to 20 residents"—what are you even talking about? The argument is that according to evolutionary theory, there should have been so many people living on Earth by now that we could barely fit them all on Jupiter, let alone this little earth. It's sad that you choose to comment on something you didn't even read, much like shadoworca3 did; all he read was Daniel Chavez14's appeal to close the thread, while you seemingly just read the emojis in shadoworca3's post and decided that was enough to write unscientific garbage about a text you didn't even skim.

As for limiting my knowledge to poor sources, you should know I have more books on this subject at home than you've ever seen online. The reason I quoted that text is to show people how many years they've been lagging behind the facts regarding evolutionary theory—facts that even 100 years ago were known, and upon which one could have rejected this disgusting scientific falsification as the product of a deeply diseased and malicious mind with total certainty.

Today, after everything discovered from the early 1990s to the present at the molecular level (DNA) that has UNDENIABLY proven INTELLIGENT DESIGN in the basic biological structures of living beings, attempting to defend something as obscure and UNscientific is a sign of profound self-delusion and the worst kind of indoctrination. Anyone who still defends such a PROVEN, disgusting lie while simultaneously believing they understand what science is (or should be) ought to be so ashamed that they never write anything remotely related to science ever again.

Carl Brown66 said:A question for Daniel Chavez14: Is this kind of El Niño response formally logically consistent? 😂

Since there isn't a single self-referential sentence in there, yes, it is! 😛

Carl Brown66 said:It is quite apparent to me that you are a product of a system designed to teach children one of the most monstrous and unscientific lies ever conceived, all while presenting it as established fact. My dear slycrane94, you might be exceptionally gifted in mathematics or physics, but it is truly staggering—to the point where I struggle to find the right words—that people living in 2024 are still victims of such relentless indoctrination regarding a subject that modern genetics, molecular biochemistry, and related disciplines have already thoroughly dismantled. These fields have effectively demolished it as the most proven scientific fraud and hoax in history.

Let us recall what William A. Williams wrote at the beginning of his remarkable article back in 1925:

It is obvious you haven't actually read any of that text, considering you are rambling about things like "populations of 5 to 20 inhabitants"—what on earth are you talking about? The author demonstrates that according to Darwinian evolution, there would have been so many humans living on Earth by now that they would be difficult to fit even on Jupiter, let alone all squeezed onto our ordinary little earth. It is honestly sad to see you choosing to comment on something you haven't even read. Then again, shadoworca3 did the same thing; all he read was Daniel Chavez14's appeal to close the thread, whereas you seem to have just looked at the smiley faces in shadoworca3's post and decided that was enough to claim everything in a text you didn't even skim is unscientific.

As for limiting one's knowledge to such low-quality sources, you should know that I possess more books on this subject at home than you have likely seen on the entire internet. The reason I quoted that specific text was to show people just how many years we have been lagging behind the facts regarding evolutionary theory—facts that were even 100 years ago well known. Based on those very facts, one could have rejected this disgusting scientific forgery, born of a deeply disturbed and malicious mind, with total certainty even a century ago.

Today, after everything discovered at the molecular (DNA) level since the early 1990s has indisputably proven Intelligent Design within the fundamental biological structures of living beings, attempting to defend something as obscure and unscientific as Darwinian evolution is a sign of profound self-delusion. It is the worst kind of indoctrination. Any person who continues to defend such a demonstrably loathsome lie while simultaneously believing they understand what science is (or should be) ought to be so ashamed that they never attempt to write anything related to science ever again.

Since faith is not the result of critical thinking based on facts and logical conclusions, neither can the mental squabbles of faith, creationism, or pure idiocy be analyzed that way. It is a matter of emotion or the irrational part of the human psyche, which rational arguments struggle to reach, if not fail entirely. Therefore, I believe it is pointless to analyze or critique anything in your text.

It is like trying to explain to a friend who has been madly in love for three weeks that his fiancée is simply someone who wasn't picked up off the street because people didn't have enough cash to buy her two shots and a beer.
I can only wait for the first wave of romantic madness, driven by phenylethylamine, to pass—that is, to wait for his body to adjust and hope he doesn't hit the endorphin phase that triggers deep attachment. If he’s an endorphin guy, then he’s a lost cause. 🤷

Your infatuation has been going on for quite some time now, and while I have absolutely no intention of standing in your way, I do ask one thing: please refrain from projecting your feelings for her onto the PZ. 🙂

shadoworca3 said:Since faith isn't the result of critical thinking based on facts and logical conclusions, neither can mental pathologies like creationism or ID-iotism be criticized for that reason. It’s a matter of emotion or the irrational part of the human psyche—areas where rational arguments rarely, if ever, penetrate. Therefore, I find it pointless to analyze or critique anything you've written here.

It’s like trying to explain to a friend who has been head-over-heels in love for three weeks that his fiancée is just some girl who was only picked because no one else had enough money to take her out for a couple of beers.
I can only wait for the first wave of romantic madness, driven by phenylethylamine, to pass—essentially waiting for the body to adjust—and hope he doesn't hit the endorphin phase that triggers deep attachment. If he’s an endorphin type, he’s a lost cause. 🤷

Your infatuation has lasted far too long, and while I won't stand in your way, I ask only one thing: don't project your relationship onto the PZ. 🙂

You could try being funnier; this attempt fell flat. As for your scientific views and the way you dogmatically moderate the PZ, everyone knows the score. I'll tell you this: the longer you persist in imitating Cardinal Riesel, the more you'll eventually regret your actions. Mark my words, because they will 100% come true.

I can only offer a few quotes regarding this topic, which you refuse to allow on the PZ because YOU have absolutely nothing to do with actual science:

Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolution — mostly due to the discoveries of the information found in DNA — states: "This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on Earth" (ibid., p. 221).

Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist, concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).

All of this has enormous implications for our society and culture. Professor Johnson makes this clear when he states: "Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were regarded as 'scientific' (and hence far more reliable than anything 'religious') in their heyday.

"Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three" (Johnson, p. 113).

Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).

Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... "I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).

Look at this disgrace from Dawkins. Does his silence even require further comment? Take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1-rWejx94A#t=0h33m18s

👋

Well, sure, she’s a beautiful fiancée, and on top of that, she’s a hardworking and honest woman. 🙂
I just hope the kids take after their mother in looks and inherit their father's intellect. 🙂

shadoworca3 said:Sure, sure, she’s a beautiful fiancée, and hardworking and honest too. 🙂
Let’s just hope the kids take after their mother in looks and their father in brains. 🙂

As one of the leading defenders of this Darwinian filth, do you happen to have any inside info on what will serve as the new backbone for atheist hatred once you're finally tossed into the scrapheap of the most loathsome lies EVER told?

If you don't know what you'll be rallying around once we scientifically dismantle this garbage theory of yours, then it's time to start thinking. Darwin's fall will be as massive as the Satanic fall of your patron.

Think I'm exaggerating?

I have a video here that every atheist-Darwinist needs to watch. After seeing this, no defender of Darwinian filth can ever claim they didn't know exactly what they were defending:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6h4GBTiyCA

shadoworca3 said:Since faith isn't the product of critical thinking based on facts and logic, you can't really judge its mental quirks—whether it's creationism or pure idiocy—by those standards. It’s an emotional thing, a part of the human psyche that rational arguments struggle to touch. Honestly, trying to analyze or critique anything in your text feels pretty pointless.

It's like trying to explain to a friend who's been head-over-heels in love for three weeks that his fiancée is just someone people pick because they couldn't afford a decent date.
I guess I just have to wait for the initial rush of phenylethylamine to wear off and hope he doesn't hit that endorphin stage where everything becomes permanent attachment. If he's an endorphin guy, he's a lost cause. 🤷

Your infatuation has gone on long enough, and while I won't stand in your way, I'd just ask that you don't bring your sweetheart into discussions on PZ. 🙂

shadoworca3 for admin, president, or maybe even god!

Carl Brown66 said:It’s clear you’re a product of a system that teaches kids one of the most monstrous and unscientific lies ever told by presenting it as settled fact. My dear slycrane94, you might be a whiz at math and physics, but it’s honestly staggering—hard to even find the right word for it—that people living in the 21st century are still victims of such relentless indoctrination on a subject that modern genetics, molecular biochemistry, and related fields have already dismantled through reasoned argument, despite it being touted as the greatest scientific fraud in history.

You remind me of my elementary school teacher. She was just as certain that only certain groups suffered during the World Wars and that the Allies were nothing short of angels.

She reacted just as explosively when I suggested it might be time to deal with reality instead of dogma, especially if she intended to teach history.

Using all caps isn't exactly cruise control for being cool, by the way. 😉
And finally, repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true or scientific. Citing three or four professors—as if earning a title at some random college is such a feat—isn't much of an argument when the other side is backed by empirical evidence.

PS: Judging by your theory on how a hypothesis becomes a theory, I don't think you quite grasp how science actually works.

slycrane94 said:El Niño for admin, president, and everything else under the sun!

When I become a moderator, will you be sucking up to me just as much?

slycrane94 said:You remind me of my elementary school teacher. She was just as certain that only one group suffered in WWII and that the Allies were nothing but angels.

And she reacted just as violently when I suggested it might be time to deal with reality instead of religion—at least if she wanted to teach history.

Using all caps isn't exactly cruise control for being cool, by the way. 😉
And finally, repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true or scientific. Citing three or four professors—as if getting a title at some state university is such a feat—isn't much of an argument when the other side has empirical evidence.

PS: Judging by your theory on how a hypothesis becomes a theory, I don't think you even understand how science works.

Which professor are you talking about here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Kenyon

And this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonatha...gn_advocate%29

How about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

Carl Brown66 said:When I finally become a moderator, will you be sucking up to me just as much?

Is this what you consider a professor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon

And this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

Or this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonatha...gn_advocate%29

How about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

And this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

I'm the admin. No ass-kissing required.

Those aren't professors; they're failures. The Discovery Institute 😁 Good grief, if that place exists, it’s just a massive collection of idiots.

As for having a PhD—I know plenty of people with those titles who don't have a clue about their own field, let alone anything that would actually impress someone.

I'm 13. But I'm just a really talented and precocious kid, so I probably sound like I'm 15.

slycrane94 said:I'm the admin. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

These people aren't professors; they're absolute failures. The Discovery Institute 😁 My god, if that place exists anywhere, it’s just a massive collection of idiots.

And as for having a PhD—let me tell you, I know plenty of people with those titles who don't have a single clue about the field they supposedly specialized in, let alone anyone else being impressed by some fancy credentials.

I'm 13. But I'm just incredibly talented and mature, so I look like I'm 15.

you became an admin back in 2003, which means you were 3 years old when you got the job 😁, and you were already a moderator in your first year

Justin Harris12 said:So you became an admin back in 2003, which means you were only three years old when you took the job😁, yet you were already a moderator by your first year

Talented at 3 PM.

The moderators have already laid everything out clearly, so I don't really have anything left to add to the conversation—and as for that sandstone, you're probably better off looking for it somewhere else.