Leopolds Evolution Diversion

No, other people have offered their thoughts on that. What I had to say was about the unsolicited messages you annoyed me with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not that that's relevant anyway: abiogenesis isn't evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ok, i reread your post and the linked to posts.
now what?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

do you believe it is creationist?

it will be a cold day in hell before i send you another one, ok?
aside: i'm unofficially known as sciforums porn link editor, and for a GOOD reason.

 

you know something, yes, actually i do.
i want you to spell out to me why dr. ayala would bitch and moan to an author of a personal website and not to "science".
if he did bitch and moan to "science" then where is the apology from "science"?
in my opinion there can be only one reason "science" has not issued any errata concerning this, and the rest of quote from "science" i and origin posted seems to support it.
gould mentions the very same gaps.
the quote immediatly preceding goulds reinforces goulds and ayalas remarks.
so yes trippy, enlighten me.

no.
the only contradiction i see is the matter of the retraction.
there is a reason why "science" never issued one concerning ayala.

 

So if Dr. Ayala says he was misquoted it makes no difference because the misquote was in the journal Science? Really? The quote being in the Science means that it is irrelevent what Dr. Ayala says about his own beliefs. So just to be clear, what a reporter told Science trumps what the actual person says that he thinks?

Just out of curiosity, ARE YOU NUTS?????

 

The lengths people will go to...

 

In my experience, if I want somebody else to communicate clearly with me, it's usually most productive if I start out by communicating clearly with them. If the other person is highly emotional, then it's best to try to calm them down. A calm and sympathetic manner often works best. Anything that threatens to turn the exchange into an ego-contest would obviously be counterproductive.

I used to work in an investigative capacity in a district attorney's office interviewing witnesses and these principles worked well for me in some very emotionally charged situations.

Threatening to ban anyone who displays emotion in a thread that seems designed to excite them is at best a mixed-message.

 

I have been presenting an overview of the impact of water on evolution. I have been trying to show how water is a singularly consistent and important variable that is left out of the modern theory of evolution, in proportion to its global impact on life. This is not Creationism, but rather I prefer to see it as intelligent design, that uses intelligence, logic, data and science to overcome the subjectivity of dogmatic traditions. This water oversight challenges the existing theory of evolution, because if you leave out a main variable, your theory can only be empirical at best, and not a fully rational theory. Subjective empirical theory explains the appeal to emotions and the need to censor and bully any challenge.

When a status quo theory is successfully challenged, such as the water challenge to evolution, this should demote that theory back to the level of an alternate theory, until it can address the challenge. What appears to be occurring is a dual standard is in effect. The criteria, that were defined on this site to screen alternate theory, are there to suppress challenges, and are not intended to apply to problems in the status quo. Nobody has addressed the water problem, but all I hear are emotional appeal and insults, which is liberal arts drama, not science discussion of a major flaw in a theory.

Based on my knowledge of human nature, evolution appears to be a cornerstone dogma for the atheist religion, that is not called a religion because there is no God. One can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. Like any religion, an appeal to logic, data and common sense, like I have done, will not change the dogma of that religion, since the dogma is based on faith, not logic and common sense.

The question I ask myself is, how do you do science, in the midst of the irrationality of dogma, that is the cornerstone of atheist religion and therefore supports subjective rituals that go beyond science? I would prefer stick to science and show how to develop a rational theory for evolution that can take into account water. But I am also willing to fight injustice and the constant bullying used to suppress opposition to this cornerstone dogma of atheism.

 

I expect that link probably does accurately reflect Ayala's views. Nevertheless, it's a report of a private communication.

According to the webpage you linked to, the (mis)quote of Ayala that Leopold talks about may have originated with a British science-writer named Roger Lewin.

I still fail to understand the importance of any of this. Ayala is a fairly well-known figure who may or may not have made an ill-considered remark decades ago. Or maybe a science-writer at a conference where he spoke misquoted him. Or something.

Creationists (and their anti-creationist opponents it seems) seem to be pretty much the only ones still reproducing the alleged quote. Then one of our Sciforums participants tried to use the remark for his own rhetorical purposes in an argument here.

Ok, so why is any of this important or even interesting? What are Sciforums' readers supposed to conclude from it?

 

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You might have a point except for that darn overwhelming evidence for evolution that ruins your whole rant. I would have thought that since you were on a roll with the dogma of the godless atheists that you might throw in some comments on the socialist liberals and simple minded women, that you love to rant about.

 

we are talking about a well respected source here, not the sunday comics.
"science" didn't earn that respect by dabbling in horseshit reporters.
i will repeat it, "science" issued no errata, retractions, or apologies concerning this matter.

 

okay.
list your several reasons why ayala would complain to an author of a personal website and not to the journal that published the alleged misquote.

 

Hi Yazata......
The article referenced by leopold and now being discussed online, is apparently the article leopold wanted me to discuss with his messaging to me off line.
The tone of his PM's, the admittance in the first one of being a "God supporter" the aggressive tones of those PM's had me very wary.
In any case, I am not, and was not, prepared to discuss any subjects with anyone off line. So it was not being offensive to leopold.
I'm not really into lengthy off line chats and that sort of thing, although I havn't minded members messaging me on "one off" situations on occasions. They have and will always receive a reply back, and I thank a couple of them for their advice.

I also was prepared to forget about those PM's from leopold, [and I did forget about them] until he once again started to raise them incessantly. Hence the situation that has now developed.

 

indeed.
ayala goes to all the trouble of addressing an author of a personal website but never bothers to address the respected journal that supposedly got it wrong.
frankly i don't buy it.
i would have been on the horn as soon as i found out about it.

he is apparently a prolific science writer.
"science" would not employ the man if he was prone to "dumb shit".

or something.
the real question is "what, exactly, is going on here?"

 

We all are prone to dumbshit at one time or another...That's why we have the scientific method and peer review.

Sounds as if you are promoting a conspiracy.
I don't believe that is on.