Jump to content


Photo

Questions To Evolutionists/atheists


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
84 replies to this topic

#81 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:01 PM

The issue of chirality is something a theory of abiogenesis would definitely need to explain, and it does make abiogenesis less likely, but it doesn't make it impossible. That's an extremely strong claim that can't be justified given our current understanding (and lack of understanding) of chemistry. You mean, the thread where your last post consists of you screaming like a lunatic ? Just looking at that post shot my blood pressure through the roof. I don't know if you think larger fonts make you easier to understand or what but their actual effect is opposite and they're certainly nothing I want any part in. You're the one who said, on this thread, that where the universe comes from is one of the arguments for God; if you want to discuss it further do and if you don't don't.



So what is more scientific? The claim that from what we know about the world that X doesn't happen or the faith based hope that some day we will find a way for X to happen despite what we know defies such an occurence? Seems like the evolutionist claim here is much more unscientific...

Chirality is a huge issue for abiogenesis and simply saying that impossible is too strong a word doesn't solve the problem. Its simply a chicken and the egg problem, DNA / RNA / protein synthesis require proteins to join the amino acids / nucleic acids in the proper sequence, (Not to mention that DNA / RNA is required for the proper sequence itself meaning the problem is two-fold).

Until there is a plausible mechanism to get around this problem. The more rational position to take is that with the evidence which is that abiogenesis cannot occur, no "science is working on it" (argument to the future fallacy).



How is larger fonts screaming? How can one "scream" whilst writing? An inuendo no?

Larger fonts make you angry? (Was considering making this entire post a larger font just for laughs but figured I shouldn't)... Should I assume that any document you make will have its title and subtitle the same size as its contents? Larger font is merely for emphasis, (Jonas had already admitted that my highlighting of my points via the bold function wasn't working for him, I suggest you get all the facts before you judge things).

Actually I was only replying to your statement about such, as you were replying to Calypsis, follow the breadcrumbs.

#82 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:05 PM

aelyn:

You're the one who posted these things, giving the appropriate context and saying where they come from is your homework not mine



Don't give me that. You've made it clear that it doesn't matter what kind of documentation we post for you. You dispose of everything that doesn't agree with your stubbornly held myth.

#83 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:59 AM

aelyn: Don't give me that. You've made it clear that it doesn't matter what kind of documentation we post for you. You dispose of everything that doesn't agree with your stubbornly held myth.

Wrong thread.

How is larger fonts screaming? How can one "scream" whilst writing? An inuendo no?

Sure, THAT'S WHY NOBODY HAS EVER REFERRED TO ALL-CAPS AS "SHOUTING" AND WHY IT'S TOTALLY NOT FROWNED UPON ON THE INTERNET.
Go learn some netiquette. And what "innuendo" means.

Larger fonts make you angry? (Was considering making this entire post a larger font just for laughs but figured I shouldn't)... Should I assume that any document you make will have its title and subtitle the same size as its contents? Larger font is merely for emphasis,

And it needs to be used wisely and extremely sparingly. Talking louder is also for emphasis, that doesn't make screaming an acceptable mode of conversation. Titles and subtitles are completely irrelevant, just like any case where standard typography expects larger fonts.

#84 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:24 AM

Wrong thread. Sure, THAT'S WHY NOBODY HAS EVER REFERRED TO ALL-CAPS AS "SHOUTING" AND WHY IT'S TOTALLY NOT FROWNED UPON ON THE INTERNET. Go learn some netiquette. And what "innuendo" means. And it needs to be used wisely and extremely sparingly. Talking louder is also for emphasis, that doesn't make screaming an acceptable mode of conversation. Titles and subtitles are completely irrelevant, just like any case where standard typography expects larger fonts.


Thanks for skipping over this...

"(Jonas had already admitted that my highlighting of my points via the bold function wasn't working for him, I suggest you get all the facts before you judge things)."


Therefore if bolding isn't working for highlighting things perhaps making larger fonts will, as I said it was used for emphasis. Meaning you're simply complaining over a molehill and diverting away from the thread. I trust this has been put to bed.

#85 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:50 AM

Thanks for skipping over this... "(Jonas had already admitted that my highlighting of my points via the bold function wasn't working for him, I suggest you get all the facts before you judge things)." Therefore if bolding isn't working for highlighting things perhaps making larger fonts will, as I said it was used for emphasis. Meaning you're simply complaining over a molehill and diverting away from the thread. I trust this has been put to bed.

I skipped over that because it was irrelevant; having reasons for being terribly rude doesn't make you any less rude. But since you're insisting I went looking for the place where Jonas admits that your using the bold function “wasn't working for him”, and I could find no such admission. I did see you declaring you'd use capitals instead of bolding because bolding wasn't “working” (by which you apparently mean that it wasn't making Jonas understand you better) and then proceeding to SHOUT FOR A WHOLE PARAGRAPH, which is charming. Nowhere did I see Jonas talk about a need for you to highlight your statements in a particular way or comment on the fact you did, in fact I'd say his self-restraint in ignoring your incredible rudeness was almost saintly.

Look, Gilbo, when someone doesn't understand what you say, there are a few potential reasons for this :

  • They're willfully misunderstanding you

  • They're sincerely misunderstanding you

  • You're sincerely explaining yourself badly

  • They did understand you, and you're the one misunderstanding their response and misinterpreting it as showing they didn't understand you

In not a single one of those instances does it do any good to repeat the exact same thing with more aggressive typeface choices. If someone is wilfully misunderstanding you then changing the typeface won't make them suddenly argue in good faith. If someone is innocently misunderstanding your words then they won't understand the same words in all-caps better. If you're explaining yourself badly then a larger font won't make that explanation clearer.
I can see the use of emphasis to draw the attention to the most important points as being possibly useful for the simplest cases. But if you have to do it more than once then you clearly aren't in the simplest of cases.
What you should do in those situations is find different ways of explaining what you mean (in case you were explaining yourself badly), ask questions of the other person to narrow down what the source of the misunderstanding is and find ways of addressing that (in case they're innocently misunderstanding). If the other person is wilfully misunderstanding you then there's nothing you can do about it over the internet anyway, but those two approaches are more likely to throw the other person off their game or reveal their bad faith. And if you're the one with the innocent misunderstanding then that exchange can dissipate that too.

This isn't even netiquette, it's basic theory of the mind.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users