Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Is evolution useful?

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 6:18:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I stumbled upon a great article earlier, it appears in The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com...-/

The author - a pretty serious scientist with serious credentials - explores the question of why we think evolution is important and whether it adds anything of value in biological scientific study.

"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

Definitely worth a read...

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 6:34:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:18:31 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I stumbled upon a great article earlier, it appears in The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com...-/

The author - a pretty serious scientist with serious credentials - explores the question of why we think evolution is important and whether it adds anything of value in biological scientific study.

"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

Definitely worth a read...

Harry.

Yes, then you can read this...

"Skell's claims are strongly disputed by actual biologists. For example, Nesse and Williams, in their book Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, explain in detail how understanding evolution contributes to the improved practice of medicine. P. Z. Myers, in two different posts, has explained in detail why Skell is wrong. And Gary Hurd has also pointed out Skell's misrepresentations."

http://recursed.blogspot.ca...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 6:39:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:34:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:18:31 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I stumbled upon a great article earlier, it appears in The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com...-/

The author - a pretty serious scientist with serious credentials - explores the question of why we think evolution is important and whether it adds anything of value in biological scientific study.

"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

Definitely worth a read...

Harry.

Yes, then you can read this...

"Skell's claims are strongly disputed by actual biologists. For example, Nesse and Williams, in their book Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, explain in detail how understanding evolution contributes to the improved practice of medicine. P. Z. Myers, in two different posts, has explained in detail why Skell is wrong. And Gary Hurd has also pointed out Skell's misrepresentations."

http://recursed.blogspot.ca...

Big deal - so there are people who disagree with him - what a surprise! I have no doubt there are people who disagree with him, this is nothing alarming in science.

What is interesting is that a scientist is expressing this view, he's aware of many others who share his view and he had it published in a science magazine.

No doubt you'll accuse him of being "ignorant" or "not really understanding evolution" or perhaps you'll try to label him a "religionist" or "Bible thumper" - anyway, I'm sure you'll devise some nice ad hominem attack to make his nasty opinions go away!

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 6:45:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:39:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:34:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:18:31 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I stumbled upon a great article earlier, it appears in The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com...-/

The author - a pretty serious scientist with serious credentials - explores the question of why we think evolution is important and whether it adds anything of value in biological scientific study.

"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

Definitely worth a read...

Harry.

Yes, then you can read this...

"Skell's claims are strongly disputed by actual biologists. For example, Nesse and Williams, in their book Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, explain in detail how understanding evolution contributes to the improved practice of medicine. P. Z. Myers, in two different posts, has explained in detail why Skell is wrong. And Gary Hurd has also pointed out Skell's misrepresentations."

http://recursed.blogspot.ca...

Big deal - so there are people who disagree with him - what a surprise!

Yes, they are called the "Scientific Community" and they have called out Skell on his bs.

I have no doubt there are people who disagree with him, this is nothing alarming in science.

Uh no, there are scientists who have exposed his misrepresentations.

What is interesting is that a scientist is expressing this view, he's aware of many others who share his view and he had it published in a science magazine.

He's a chemist, not a biologist. It is the biologists who are pointing out his misrepresentations.

No doubt you'll accuse him of being "ignorant" or "not really understanding evolution" or perhaps you'll try to label him a "religionist" or "Bible thumper" - anyway, I'm sure you'll devise some nice ad hominem attack to make his nasty opinions go away!

Skell is an ID Creationist and it is the biologists who accuse him of ignorance and not really understanding evolution.

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 7:00:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:45:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:39:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:34:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:18:31 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I stumbled upon a great article earlier, it appears in The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com...-/

The author - a pretty serious scientist with serious credentials - explores the question of why we think evolution is important and whether it adds anything of value in biological scientific study.

"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

Definitely worth a read...

Harry.

Yes, then you can read this...

"Skell's claims are strongly disputed by actual biologists. For example, Nesse and Williams, in their book Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, explain in detail how understanding evolution contributes to the improved practice of medicine. P. Z. Myers, in two different posts, has explained in detail why Skell is wrong. And Gary Hurd has also pointed out Skell's misrepresentations."

http://recursed.blogspot.ca...

Big deal - so there are people who disagree with him - what a surprise!

Yes, they are called the "Scientific Community" and they have called out Skell on his bs.

Dannel is there no "scientific community" that I'm aware of and if there is then he's already a member I think because he was a member of the US National Academy of Sciences - I think that makes him part of some community - yes?


I have no doubt there are people who disagree with him, this is nothing alarming in science.

Uh no, there are scientists who have exposed his misrepresentations.

Only after he first exposed theirs...


What is interesting is that a scientist is expressing this view, he's aware of many others who share his view and he had it published in a science magazine.

He's a chemist, not a biologist. It is the biologists who are pointing out his misrepresentations.

Evolution operates at a chemical and biochemical level - its called genetics - a chemist is therefore very well placed to express opinions on evolution. He also contributed to early processes that led to the development of penicillin - perhaps a thank you is in order Dannel?

No doubt you'll accuse him of being "ignorant" or "not really understanding evolution" or perhaps you'll try to label him a "religionist" or "Bible thumper" - anyway, I'm sure you'll devise some nice ad hominem attack to make his nasty opinions go away!

Skell is an ID Creationist and it is the biologists who accuse him of ignorance and not really understanding evolution.

Harry.

Most evolutionists react like this - personal attacks - when their fundamentalist ideology is questioned, insults and personal attacks are their weapon of choice I often find.

Skell by the way is known as the father of carbene chemistry and has a rule named after him called "skell's rule" - if you weren't so ignorant about science you'd have known these things.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 7:17:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 7:00:20 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:45:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:39:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:34:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:18:31 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I stumbled upon a great article earlier, it appears in The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com...-/

The author - a pretty serious scientist with serious credentials - explores the question of why we think evolution is important and whether it adds anything of value in biological scientific study.

"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

Definitely worth a read...

Harry.

Yes, then you can read this...

"Skell's claims are strongly disputed by actual biologists. For example, Nesse and Williams, in their book Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, explain in detail how understanding evolution contributes to the improved practice of medicine. P. Z. Myers, in two different posts, has explained in detail why Skell is wrong. And Gary Hurd has also pointed out Skell's misrepresentations."

http://recursed.blogspot.ca...

Big deal - so there are people who disagree with him - what a surprise!

Yes, they are called the "Scientific Community" and they have called out Skell on his bs.

Dannel is there no "scientific community" that I'm aware of and if there is then he's already a member I think because he was a member of the US National Academy of Sciences - I think that makes him part of some community - yes?

Yes, as a CHEMIST, not a biologist. Did you not understand the concept of biologists showing a chemist why he is wrong on subjects of biology?


I have no doubt there are people who disagree with him, this is nothing alarming in science.

Uh no, there are scientists who have exposed his misrepresentations.

Only after he first exposed theirs...

But, he didn't, which once again shows your ignorance and incredulity on the topic of evolution.


What is interesting is that a scientist is expressing this view, he's aware of many others who share his view and he had it published in a science magazine.

He's a chemist, not a biologist. It is the biologists who are pointing out his misrepresentations.

Evolution operates at a chemical and biochemical level - its called genetics - a chemist is therefore very well placed to express opinions on evolution.

LOL. That's one of the funniest things you've said thus far.

He also contributed to early processes that led to the development of penicillin - perhaps a thank you is in order Dannel?

And, somehow in your twisted thinking process, this is ample justification for Skell to misrepresent evolution?

No doubt you'll accuse him of being "ignorant" or "not really understanding evolution" or perhaps you'll try to label him a "religionist" or "Bible thumper" - anyway, I'm sure you'll devise some nice ad hominem attack to make his nasty opinions go away!

Skell is an ID Creationist and it is the biologists who accuse him of ignorance and not really understanding evolution.

Harry.

Most evolutionists react like this - personal attacks - when their fundamentalist ideology is questioned, insults and personal attacks are their weapon of choice I often find.

Really? So, every time you come on to a Science forum to push a religious agenda, you get insults and personal attacks? Gee, I wonder why?

Skell by the way is known as the father of carbene chemistry and has a rule named after him called "skell's rule" - if you weren't so ignorant about science you'd have known these things.

If Skell was arguing chemistry, then that would be different, wouldn't it, Harry.

Your strawmen fallacies have been noted, Harry.

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 7:47:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:39:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:34:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:18:31 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I stumbled upon a great article earlier, it appears in The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com...-/

The author - a pretty serious scientist with serious credentials - explores the question of why we think evolution is important and whether it adds anything of value in biological scientific study.

"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

Definitely worth a read...

Harry.

Yes, then you can read this...

"Skell's claims are strongly disputed by actual biologists. For example, Nesse and Williams, in their book Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, explain in detail how understanding evolution contributes to the improved practice of medicine. P. Z. Myers, in two different posts, has explained in detail why Skell is wrong. And Gary Hurd has also pointed out Skell's misrepresentations."

http://recursed.blogspot.ca...

Big deal - so there are people who disagree with him - what a surprise! I have no doubt there are people who disagree with him, this is nothing alarming in science.

What is interesting is that a scientist is expressing this view, he's aware of many others who share his view and he had it published in a science magazine.

No doubt you'll accuse him of being "ignorant" or "not really understanding evolution" or perhaps you'll try to label him a "religionist" or "Bible thumper" - anyway, I'm sure you'll devise some nice ad hominem attack to make his nasty opinions go away!

Harry.

Ad Hominem attacks on Creationists, are actually a highly legitimate. While many of Creationists claims are easily debunked and regularly are; including the claim made by this author by another member in this thread.

You have been relying heavily within this thread on an "Argument on Authority". Claiming that as he is a scientist himself, his views necessarily have more credibility than someone making the opposing view point.

As DJR pointed out, his views have been criticized by other, more prominent and more relevant authors; including PZ Myers who not only criticized and objected to the position, but actually provided a detailed argument why Biological Evolution is critical in the understanding of, and critical to the investigation of biology; in direct contradiction to the original claim.

If you are actually interested in what the truth of particular claims actually are, I would have expected you to performed rigorous checking of your source, contradictions of that source, and other material (as I know I do when making claims); to ensure that you are not simply googling and listing information that agrees with your point of view, but also trying to see whether the position you are arguing from is likely valid in the first place.

If you had done so, you would have realized and discovered that scientists in more relevant fields with a higher position of authority have refuted this scientists position, and detailed exactly why he is wrong.

Therefore, your argument from authority falls over. Even worse, the article doesn't even attempt to make a stringent proof and detail of exactly why Evolution is not useful to biology (to which the opponents of his position can provide the detail). In reality, this renders your entire position a "Pro-Hominem" justification; to which an "Ad-Hominem" argument is particularly relevant and non-fallacious.

The elephant in the room however, is even if the position was true; and in many ways evolution is not relevant to many fields of chemistry and medicine, and even to a degree in aspects of biology where how an organism or feature arose is not totally relevant to how the feature behaves; it is not a justification or argument that Evolution is wrong; especially when considering that evolutionary matters are exceptionally useful and critically required in many other aspects of that science.

Even worse for you, is that if you want to make this argument in order to erode the position of evolution within the sciences where it should have the most benefit; you shoot yourself in the foot for your own position too; as while you could potentially argue that evolution has no practical benefit (which it does), you are neglecting the fact that your own position of origins doesn't only have no practical benefit in any way, to any science of any kind, the postulation and definition itself can have no practical benefit of any kind ever because it is neither a model of or explanation of any aspect of biology.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 8:04:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 7:17:26 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 7:00:20 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:45:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:39:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:34:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:18:31 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I stumbled upon a great article earlier, it appears in The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com...-/

The author - a pretty serious scientist with serious credentials - explores the question of why we think evolution is important and whether it adds anything of value in biological scientific study.

"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

Definitely worth a read...

Harry.

Yes, then you can read this...

"Skell's claims are strongly disputed by actual biologists. For example, Nesse and Williams, in their book Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, explain in detail how understanding evolution contributes to the improved practice of medicine. P. Z. Myers, in two different posts, has explained in detail why Skell is wrong. And Gary Hurd has also pointed out Skell's misrepresentations."

http://recursed.blogspot.ca...

Big deal - so there are people who disagree with him - what a surprise!

Yes, they are called the "Scientific Community" and they have called out Skell on his bs.

Dannel is there no "scientific community" that I'm aware of and if there is then he's already a member I think because he was a member of the US National Academy of Sciences - I think that makes him part of some community - yes?

Yes, as a CHEMIST, not a biologist. Did you not understand the concept of biologists showing a chemist why he is wrong on subjects of biology?


I have no doubt there are people who disagree with him, this is nothing alarming in science.

Uh no, there are scientists who have exposed his misrepresentations.

Only after he first exposed theirs...

But, he didn't, which once again shows your ignorance and incredulity on the topic of evolution.


What is interesting is that a scientist is expressing this view, he's aware of many others who share his view and he had it published in a science magazine.

He's a chemist, not a biologist. It is the biologists who are pointing out his misrepresentations.

Evolution operates at a chemical and biochemical level - its called genetics - a chemist is therefore very well placed to express opinions on evolution.

LOL. That's one of the funniest things you've said thus far.

He also contributed to early processes that led to the development of penicillin - perhaps a thank you is in order Dannel?

And, somehow in your twisted thinking process, this is ample justification for Skell to misrepresent evolution?

No doubt you'll accuse him of being "ignorant" or "not really understanding evolution" or perhaps you'll try to label him a "religionist" or "Bible thumper" - anyway, I'm sure you'll devise some nice ad hominem attack to make his nasty opinions go away!

Skell is an ID Creationist and it is the biologists who accuse him of ignorance and not really understanding evolution.

Harry.

Most evolutionists react like this - personal attacks - when their fundamentalist ideology is questioned, insults and personal attacks are their weapon of choice I often find.

Really? So, every time you come on to a Science forum to push a religious agenda, you get insults and personal attacks? Gee, I wonder why?

Skell by the way is known as the father of carbene chemistry and has a rule named after him called "skell's rule" - if you weren't so ignorant about science you'd have known these things.

If Skell was arguing chemistry, then that would be different, wouldn't it, Harry.

Your strawmen fallacies have been noted, Harry.

Harry.

I'm sorry but I'm not letting you get away that easy Dannel. Evolution operates at a genetic level - mutations are genetic mutations, transcription errors and so on. Evolution is attributed to germline mutations.

Genetics rests upon chemistry and biochemistry not biology, you're all mixed up.

So arguing about the viability of supposed processes like natural selection is an argument about chemistry and biochemistry not biology. Why? because the processes are at the genetic level the molecular level.

So tell us all please why does being a leading chemist who's a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and who helped develop penicillin, disqualify one from critiquing evolution - ultimately a molecular based mechanism?

Skell knew far more than you about the actual mechanics of genetics so unless you're a professor of chemistry and a member of the NAS you're waffle here is pretty useless because you lack the skills to understand the subject.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 8:40:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 7:47:56 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:39:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:34:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:18:31 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I stumbled upon a great article earlier, it appears in The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com...-/

The author - a pretty serious scientist with serious credentials - explores the question of why we think evolution is important and whether it adds anything of value in biological scientific study.

"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

Definitely worth a read...

Harry.

Yes, then you can read this...

"Skell's claims are strongly disputed by actual biologists. For example, Nesse and Williams, in their book Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, explain in detail how understanding evolution contributes to the improved practice of medicine. P. Z. Myers, in two different posts, has explained in detail why Skell is wrong. And Gary Hurd has also pointed out Skell's misrepresentations."

http://recursed.blogspot.ca...

Big deal - so there are people who disagree with him - what a surprise! I have no doubt there are people who disagree with him, this is nothing alarming in science.

What is interesting is that a scientist is expressing this view, he's aware of many others who share his view and he had it published in a science magazine.

No doubt you'll accuse him of being "ignorant" or "not really understanding evolution" or perhaps you'll try to label him a "religionist" or "Bible thumper" - anyway, I'm sure you'll devise some nice ad hominem attack to make his nasty opinions go away!

Harry.

Ad Hominem attacks on Creationists, are actually a highly legitimate. While many of Creationists claims are easily debunked and regularly are; including the claim made by this author by another member in this thread.

But I could then react and say ad hominem attacks on evolutionists are highly legitimate and we'd end up attacking one another and never getting to the truth of the matter at hand.


You have been relying heavily within this thread on an "Argument on Authority". Claiming that as he is a scientist himself, his views necessarily have more credibility than someone making the opposing view point.

Perhaps but I only did so after Dannel rejected Skell's views and it was Dannel who did so on the basis of authority, if you re-read you'll see he invoked the authority of the "scientific community" I merely responded likewise, perhaps this objection is better directed at Dannel's post?


As DJR pointed out, his views have been criticized by other, more prominent and more relevant authors; including PZ Myers who not only criticized and objected to the position, but actually provided a detailed argument why Biological Evolution is critical in the understanding of, and critical to the investigation of biology; in direct contradiction to the original claim.

I'm sorry but what you just wrote is an example of an argument from authority! "more prominent", "more relevant" and naming an objector PZ Myers.

Furthermore as I've said elsewhere I fully accept that there are many who disagree with Skell, after all Skell's views are a minority view generally but that has no bearing on the efficacy or validity of his reasoning on this matter nor does it invalidate his claim - which is ultimately subjective anyway.


If you are actually interested in what the truth of particular claims actually are, I would have expected you to performed rigorous checking of your source, contradictions of that source, and other material (as I know I do when making claims); to ensure that you are not simply googling and listing information that agrees with your point of view, but also trying to see whether the position you are arguing from is likely valid in the first place.


If you had done so, you would have realized and discovered that scientists in more relevant fields with a higher position of authority have refuted this scientists position, and detailed exactly why he is wrong.

I'm sorry but your doing this a lot - arguing from authority (and you accused me of this!).


Therefore, your argument from authority falls over.

But your arguments from authority are more eligible why?

Even worse, the article doesn't even attempt to make a stringent proof and detail of exactly why Evolution is not useful to biology (to which the opponents of his position can provide the detail). In reality, this renders your entire position a "Pro-Hominem" justification; to which an "Ad-Hominem" argument is particularly relevant and non-fallacious.


He cited 70 professionals who shared his view, that's evidence based I think. In truth he could never provide enough evidence to "prove" his view because it's subjective - the takeaway from it is that leading recognized scientists in relevant fields openly disagree - it is not universally held by all relevant scientists that evolution is useful in the study of biology and related fields.


The elephant in the room however, is even if the position was true; and in many ways evolution is not relevant to many fields of chemistry and medicine, and even to a degree in aspects of biology where how an organism or feature arose is not totally relevant to how the feature behaves; it is not a justification or argument that Evolution is wrong; especially when considering that evolutionary matters are exceptionally useful and critically required in many other aspects of that science.

I can only assume you never read Skell's article - he never once claimed evolution wasn't true nor presented any arguments leading to that conclusion - this is a strawman argument (in addition to your own heavy reliance on arguing from authority).

Here's what Skell says at the end of the article - flatly contradicting what you just wrote:

"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false."

emphasis mine.


Even worse for you, is that if you want to make this argument in order to erode the position of evolution within the sciences where it should have the most benefit; you shoot yourself in the foot for your own position too; as while you could potentially argue that evolution has no practical benefit (which it does), you are neglecting the fact that your own position of origins doesn't only have no practical benefit in any way, to any science of any kind, the postulation and definition itself can have no practical benefit of any kind ever because it is neither a model of or explanation of any aspect of biology.

I haven't presented any arguments about origins or pragmatism/benefits etc of alternative views in this thread nor do I have any intention of doing so.

One again your committing a straw-man fallacy and ad-hominem combined - attack me for beliefs I might hold AND attack me for something I didn't say !
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 9:17:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 8:04:50 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/16/2016 7:17:26 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 7:00:20 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:45:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:39:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:34:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:18:31 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I stumbled upon a great article earlier, it appears in The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com...-/

The author - a pretty serious scientist with serious credentials - explores the question of why we think evolution is important and whether it adds anything of value in biological scientific study.

"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

Definitely worth a read...

Harry.

Yes, then you can read this...

"Skell's claims are strongly disputed by actual biologists. For example, Nesse and Williams, in their book Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, explain in detail how understanding evolution contributes to the improved practice of medicine. P. Z. Myers, in two different posts, has explained in detail why Skell is wrong. And Gary Hurd has also pointed out Skell's misrepresentations."

http://recursed.blogspot.ca...

Big deal - so there are people who disagree with him - what a surprise!

Yes, they are called the "Scientific Community" and they have called out Skell on his bs.

Dannel is there no "scientific community" that I'm aware of and if there is then he's already a member I think because he was a member of the US National Academy of Sciences - I think that makes him part of some community - yes?

Yes, as a CHEMIST, not a biologist. Did you not understand the concept of biologists showing a chemist why he is wrong on subjects of biology?


I have no doubt there are people who disagree with him, this is nothing alarming in science.

Uh no, there are scientists who have exposed his misrepresentations.

Only after he first exposed theirs...

But, he didn't, which once again shows your ignorance and incredulity on the topic of evolution.


What is interesting is that a scientist is expressing this view, he's aware of many others who share his view and he had it published in a science magazine.

He's a chemist, not a biologist. It is the biologists who are pointing out his misrepresentations.

Evolution operates at a chemical and biochemical level - its called genetics - a chemist is therefore very well placed to express opinions on evolution.

LOL. That's one of the funniest things you've said thus far.

He also contributed to early processes that led to the development of penicillin - perhaps a thank you is in order Dannel?

And, somehow in your twisted thinking process, this is ample justification for Skell to misrepresent evolution?

No doubt you'll accuse him of being "ignorant" or "not really understanding evolution" or perhaps you'll try to label him a "religionist" or "Bible thumper" - anyway, I'm sure you'll devise some nice ad hominem attack to make his nasty opinions go away!

Skell is an ID Creationist and it is the biologists who accuse him of ignorance and not really understanding evolution.

Harry.

Most evolutionists react like this - personal attacks - when their fundamentalist ideology is questioned, insults and personal attacks are their weapon of choice I often find.

Really? So, every time you come on to a Science forum to push a religious agenda, you get insults and personal attacks? Gee, I wonder why?

Skell by the way is known as the father of carbene chemistry and has a rule named after him called "skell's rule" - if you weren't so ignorant about science you'd have known these things.

If Skell was arguing chemistry, then that would be different, wouldn't it, Harry.

Your strawmen fallacies have been noted, Harry.

Harry.

I'm sorry but I'm not letting you get away that easy Dannel. Evolution operates at a genetic level - mutations are genetic mutations, transcription errors and so on. Evolution is attributed to germline mutations.

Genetics rests upon chemistry and biochemistry not biology, you're all mixed up.

So arguing about the viability of supposed processes like natural selection is an argument about chemistry and biochemistry not biology. Why? because the processes are at the genetic level the molecular level.

So tell us all please why does being a leading chemist who's a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and who helped develop penicillin, disqualify one from critiquing evolution - ultimately a molecular based mechanism?

Skell knew far more than you about the actual mechanics of genetics so unless you're a professor of chemistry and a member of the NAS you're waffle here is pretty useless because you lack the skills to understand the subject.

Harry.

There is no problem here, Harry, you can remain willfully ignorant and dishonest the rest of your life, no one is going to force you to give up your religious beliefs nor is anyone going to force you to get an education, that is all entirely your decision.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 9:33:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 8:40:36 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Ad Hominem attacks on Creationists, are actually a highly legitimate. While many of Creationists claims are easily debunked and regularly are; including the claim made by this author by another member in this thread.

But I could then react and say ad hominem attacks on evolutionists are highly legitimate and we'd end up attacking one another and never getting to the truth of the matter at hand.

It can almost universally be shown that there is either an element of bias, dishonesty, falsehood, and misrepresentation both within the Creationist community as a whole, and individuals in general. Levels of which can be both shown and demonstrated (and have both scientifically, and legally)

The same cannot be shown either in part or as a whole in evolution or the evolutionary science community.

Given this, challenging both the veracity, and the honesty and bias of those standing against evolution is both pertinent and relevant to any Creationists position; especially when (as the previous poster showed), such questions of honesty remain under contention.

You have been relying heavily within this thread on an "Argument on Authority". Claiming that as he is a scientist himself, his views necessarily have more credibility than someone making the opposing view point.

Perhaps but I only did so after Dannel rejected Skell's views and it was Dannel who did so on the basis of authority, if you re-read you'll see he invoked the authority of the "scientific community" I merely responded likewise, perhaps this objection is better directed at Dannel's post?

No.

Claiming that views espoused by a particular authority should be believed on the grounds primarily of that authority is a fallacious argument; which is what you're doing.

What Daniel did, is point out that more relevant authorities, and more of them disagreed with the claims. When you make an argument from authority, an argument from larger and more relevant authority is sufficient to reject that claim.

If there was a detailed justification, which there isn't, that was rejected on the grounds of authority you may have a point; but Daniel didn't do this either; as he provided a source (as you did) that sufficiently argued why the original point was wrong too.

I'm sorry but what you just wrote is an example of an argument from authority! "more prominent", "more relevant" and naming an objector PZ Myers.

Not at all, as I said; you are making almost solely an argument from authority (as the original post was mainly assertion) to which you argued because of the prominence of the source should be believed. Using greater authority in the way I did undermines the primary justification of your position. Moreover, I am not citing PZ Myers just because of his credentials, but as I specified, because he actually provided a demonstrative argument as to why it is wrong. So your argument here fails in two ways.

Furthermore as I've said elsewhere I fully accept that there are many who disagree with Skell, after all Skell's views are a minority view generally but that has no bearing on the efficacy or validity of his reasoning on this matter nor does it invalidate his claim - which is ultimately subjective anyway.

No, but arguments that demonstrate how evolution is valid and useful to science do, which DJR provided; especially when Skells views, as cited are not much more than an asserted opinion. Not least his last claim that evolution can explain anything so has not to be useful; especially when the examples are often mathematically explained and justified using game theory statistics that provides a useful test of evolutionary claims; refuting that too.

If you had done so, you would have realized and discovered that scientists in more relevant fields with a higher position of authority have refuted this scientists position, and detailed exactly why he is wrong.

I'm sorry but your doing this a lot - arguing from authority (and you accused me of this!).

As I said, no. DJR and his source both reject the authority upon which you are trying to base the validity of the argument upon, rendering this position non-fallacious, AND reject the argument and providing a refutation.

Therefore, your argument from authority falls over.

But your arguments from authority are more eligible why?

Selling the validity of a claim on Authority only, is a fallacy.

Showing that authority is not an authority, or that a greater authority makes a different claim; is in this case perfectly valid when your primary argument is based on authority only.

However even then, DJR provided a source that also refutes the initial claims, meaning that it still isn't solely an argument from authority.

He cited 70 professionals who shared his view, that's evidence based I think.

He asserted 70 professionals, he did not cite them.

Who are they. Who do they work for. What fields do they work in. Are these working biologists who work with evolution? What was the specific question asked? Were the biologists and medical scientists selected based on any criteria?

Without knowing that, you cannot assert that the conclusion he draws from it is valid; as the criteria above can be carefully selected for; and yield 70 scientists answering the question in a way the person wants. It is especially dubious as Skell is a member of an organization who did just that with an equivalent survey, the scientific descent from darwinism.

The elephant in the room however, is even if the position was true; it is not a justification or argument that Evolution is wrong.

I can only assume you never read Skell's article - this is a strawman argument (in addition to your own heavy reliance on arguing from authority).

Actually no, it isn't.

It is obvious that both the original post, and your reasons for citing it, is part of a wider attempt to undermine evolution; you do not believe in Evolution, nor does Skell (and is part of the DI, a non-scientific group politically opposed to evolution).

To claim that an ID proponent opposed to evolution, cited by an opponent of Evolution, and makes claim painting evolution negatively is not doing so as an attempt to undermine evolution, and as part of the wider discourse to argue that evolution is incorrect (a discourse which at this time, the organization of which he is a member is one of the leading campaigners), is not just incorrect and incoherent, it is flat out dishonest.

Even worse for you, is that if you want to make this argument in order to erode the position of evolution within the sciences where it should have the most benefit; you shoot yourself in the foot for your own position too.

One again your committing a straw-man fallacy and ad-hominem combined - attack me for beliefs I might hold AND attack me for something I didn't say !

The sole reasonable conclusion of making this post, is because you do not believe in evolution (which is established), and in all likelihood, this post was made as an attempt to undermine it or to present an aspect of evolution that you feel undermines it. Denial of either would be dishonest for the reasons I cited above.

A straw man requires me to misrepresent your position or specifically in this case, your intentions; it is clearly evident I am not doing so.

As it is wholly reasonable and logical to conclude you hold a different position on the origins of life; and that your intent for posting this is to present an argument undermining evolution: pointing out that the position you and your source both hold is undermined even more by the argument being presented is highly relevant, and most assuredly not Ad-Hominem as I am attacking the validity of your position and not you.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 11:57:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Sadly this forums weaknesses prevent me from sensibly responding to some recent replies, it limits the text of a post and when I open and already posted post it truncates the text within it - a bug I'd say.

Perhaps some of you'd care to visit arguman.org a far superior if experimental debating system...

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 12:22:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 11:57:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Sadly this forums weaknesses prevent me from sensibly responding...

And yet, your demonstration of the lack of critical thinking skills, understanding the world around you and honesty appears to have prevented you from responding sensibly.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 3:16:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 12:22:36 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:57:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Sadly this forums weaknesses prevent me from sensibly responding...

And yet, your demonstration of the lack of critical thinking skills, understanding the world around you and honesty appears to have prevented you from responding sensibly.

You are not qualified to assess my or anyone else's intellectual abilities Dannel. You complain all the time about me the person, yet seem unable to actually present counter arguments pertaining to the subject being discussed. You seem to have a high opinion of yourself to the extent of being arrogant.

If you can't discuss a subject logically and take offense when someone disagrees with you then perhaps you need to grow up and come back here when you reach adulthood.

Have a nice day.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 3:48:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 3:16:06 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:22:36 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:57:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Sadly this forums weaknesses prevent me from sensibly responding...

And yet, your demonstration of the lack of critical thinking skills, understanding the world around you and honesty appears to have prevented you from responding sensibly.

You are not qualified to assess my or anyone else's intellectual abilities Dannel. You complain all the time about me the person, yet seem unable to actually present counter arguments pertaining to the subject being discussed.

Your ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not require counter arguments, what is actually required has been mentioned to you time and again, that you go off and spend the time to actually learn something about the subject matter as you are woefully uninformed.

You seem to have a high opinion of yourself to the extent of being arrogant.

You seem to believe you know what you're talking about when you clearly do not.

If you can't discuss a subject logically and take offense when someone disagrees with you then perhaps you need to grow up and come back here when you reach adulthood.

You're ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not allow logical discourse as all you do is deny the facts and evidence. Come back when you've educated yourself.

Have a nice day.

Harry.

Scary.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:08:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 3:48:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:16:06 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:22:36 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:57:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Sadly this forums weaknesses prevent me from sensibly responding...

And yet, your demonstration of the lack of critical thinking skills, understanding the world around you and honesty appears to have prevented you from responding sensibly.

You are not qualified to assess my or anyone else's intellectual abilities Dannel. You complain all the time about me the person, yet seem unable to actually present counter arguments pertaining to the subject being discussed.

Your ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not require counter arguments, what is actually required has been mentioned to you time and again, that you go off and spend the time to actually learn something about the subject matter as you are woefully uninformed.

You seem to have a high opinion of yourself to the extent of being arrogant.

You seem to believe you know what you're talking about when you clearly do not.

If you can't discuss a subject logically and take offense when someone disagrees with you then perhaps you need to grow up and come back here when you reach adulthood.

You're ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not allow logical discourse as all you do is deny the facts and evidence. Come back when you've educated yourself.

Have a nice day.

Harry.

Scary.

Your ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not allow logical discourse as all you do is deny the facts and evidence. Come back when you've educated yourself.

(I corrected your poor punctuation too, no need to thank me).

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:38:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 4:08:24 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:48:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:16:06 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:22:36 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:57:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Sadly this forums weaknesses prevent me from sensibly responding...

And yet, your demonstration of the lack of critical thinking skills, understanding the world around you and honesty appears to have prevented you from responding sensibly.

You are not qualified to assess my or anyone else's intellectual abilities Dannel. You complain all the time about me the person, yet seem unable to actually present counter arguments pertaining to the subject being discussed.

Your ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not require counter arguments, what is actually required has been mentioned to you time and again, that you go off and spend the time to actually learn something about the subject matter as you are woefully uninformed.

You seem to have a high opinion of yourself to the extent of being arrogant.

You seem to believe you know what you're talking about when you clearly do not.

If you can't discuss a subject logically and take offense when someone disagrees with you then perhaps you need to grow up and come back here when you reach adulthood.

You're ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not allow logical discourse as all you do is deny the facts and evidence. Come back when you've educated yourself.

Have a nice day.

Harry.

Scary.

Your ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not allow logical discourse as all you do is deny the facts and evidence. Come back when you've educated yourself.

(I corrected your poor punctuation too, no need to thank me).

LOL. That's probably your very best contribution, so far.

Harry.

Arbitrary.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:45:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 4:38:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/17/2016 4:08:24 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:48:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:16:06 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:22:36 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:57:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Sadly this forums weaknesses prevent me from sensibly responding...

And yet, your demonstration of the lack of critical thinking skills, understanding the world around you and honesty appears to have prevented you from responding sensibly.

You are not qualified to assess my or anyone else's intellectual abilities Dannel. You complain all the time about me the person, yet seem unable to actually present counter arguments pertaining to the subject being discussed.

Your ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not require counter arguments, what is actually required has been mentioned to you time and again, that you go off and spend the time to actually learn something about the subject matter as you are woefully uninformed.

You seem to have a high opinion of yourself to the extent of being arrogant.

You seem to believe you know what you're talking about when you clearly do not.

If you can't discuss a subject logically and take offense when someone disagrees with you then perhaps you need to grow up and come back here when you reach adulthood.

You're ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not allow logical discourse as all you do is deny the facts and evidence. Come back when you've educated yourself.

Have a nice day.

Harry.

Scary.

Your ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not allow logical discourse as all you do is deny the facts and evidence. Come back when you've educated yourself.

(I corrected your poor punctuation too, no need to thank me).

LOL. That's probably your very best contribution, so far.

Harry.

Arbitrary.

Your ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not allow logical discourse as all you do is deny the facts and evidence. Come back when you've educated yourself.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 10:41:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 11:57:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Sadly this forums weaknesses prevent me from sensibly responding to some recent replies, it limits the text of a post and when I open and already posted post it truncates the text within it - a bug I'd say.

Perhaps some of you'd care to visit arguman.org a far superior if experimental debating system...

Harry.

No thanks.

I know it requires a Herculean effort, but you need to push through. While the ability to mount a cogent reply the moment a post exceeds 8000 characters is something that I'm sure would thwart superman, I believe in you! You have the strength to reply without quoting, the pain and hardship of opening a second window may seem too much, but that's not the attitude that made America great!

Chop out those quotes! Copy a segment of my post and paste it in at the end! Just reply without a quite at all, and let it ring out loud and clear through these forums:

"A message box saying your post can't exceed 8000 characters will not stop me, needing some other way of referencing my opponents argument is not a bridge too far for me! Lord willing, if I have to, I will create not one but two posts in reply! And as God as my witness, these infinitely high, inpenetrable walls without work around or solution that takes less than 2 seconds to achieve, the walls preventing me from replying will tumble down to the horn of my internet prowess."
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 12:34:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 10:41:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:57:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Sadly this forums weaknesses prevent me from sensibly responding to some recent replies, it limits the text of a post and when I open and already posted post it truncates the text within it - a bug I'd say.

Perhaps some of you'd care to visit arguman.org a far superior if experimental debating system...

Harry.

No thanks.

I know it requires a Herculean effort, but you need to push through. While the ability to mount a cogent reply the moment a post exceeds 8000 characters is something that I'm sure would thwart superman, I believe in you! You have the strength to reply without quoting, the pain and hardship of opening a second window may seem too much, but that's not the attitude that made America great!

Chop out those quotes! Copy a segment of my post and paste it in at the end! Just reply without a quite at all, and let it ring out loud and clear through these forums:

"A message box saying your post can't exceed 8000 characters will not stop me, needing some other way of referencing my opponents argument is not a bridge too far for me! Lord willing, if I have to, I will create not one but two posts in reply! And as God as my witness, these infinitely high, inpenetrable walls without work around or solution that takes less than 2 seconds to achieve, the walls preventing me from replying will tumble down to the horn of my internet prowess."

I'm a professional software engineer Ramshutu and I work with intense technical focus for many hours almost every day, I've been in this profession in various guises for several decades.

You'll understand therefore how what may be trifling for you is a real drag for me, especially if I'm on this forum with a tablet, I just can't be bothered fiddling with windows, copy, paste etc when I do this 50+ hours a week year in year out.

Sorry but that's me - I come to this forum to engage in challenging discourse with other (hopefully) intelligent people not find ways around 8,000 limitations and related bugs, it's just too much effort.

Harry.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 12:38:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 12:34:41 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 10:41:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:57:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Sadly this forums weaknesses prevent me from sensibly responding to some recent replies, it limits the text of a post and when I open and already posted post it truncates the text within it - a bug I'd say.

Perhaps some of you'd care to visit arguman.org a far superior if experimental debating system...

Harry.

No thanks.

I know it requires a Herculean effort, but you need to push through. While the ability to mount a cogent reply the moment a post exceeds 8000 characters is something that I'm sure would thwart superman, I believe in you! You have the strength to reply without quoting, the pain and hardship of opening a second window may seem too much, but that's not the attitude that made America great!

Chop out those quotes! Copy a segment of my post and paste it in at the end! Just reply without a quite at all, and let it ring out loud and clear through these forums:

"A message box saying your post can't exceed 8000 characters will not stop me, needing some other way of referencing my opponents argument is not a bridge too far for me! Lord willing, if I have to, I will create not one but two posts in reply! And as God as my witness, these infinitely high, inpenetrable walls without work around or solution that takes less than 2 seconds to achieve, the walls preventing me from replying will tumble down to the horn of my internet prowess."

I'm a professional software engineer Ramshutu and I work with intense technical focus for many hours almost every day, I've been in this profession in various guises for several decades.

You'll understand therefore how what may be trifling for you is a real drag for me, especially if I'm on this forum with a tablet, I just can't be bothered fiddling with windows, copy, paste etc when I do this 50+ hours a week year in year out.

Sorry but that's me - I come to this forum to engage in challenging discourse with other (hopefully) intelligent people not find ways around 8,000 limitations and related bugs, it's just too much effort.

Harry.

I'll have you know that a) I'm a professional software engineer too, b) it's Sunday, c) the amount of time it took you to write that response requires more effort and intensity than replying to my post, fairly trivially, d) I'm on a tablet or phone the majority of times.

I think that's just a cop out argument
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 12:54:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 12:38:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/18/2016 12:34:41 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 10:41:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:57:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Sadly this forums weaknesses prevent me from sensibly responding to some recent replies, it limits the text of a post and when I open and already posted post it truncates the text within it - a bug I'd say.

Perhaps some of you'd care to visit arguman.org a far superior if experimental debating system...

Harry.

No thanks.

I know it requires a Herculean effort, but you need to push through. While the ability to mount a cogent reply the moment a post exceeds 8000 characters is something that I'm sure would thwart superman, I believe in you! You have the strength to reply without quoting, the pain and hardship of opening a second window may seem too much, but that's not the attitude that made America great!

Chop out those quotes! Copy a segment of my post and paste it in at the end! Just reply without a quite at all, and let it ring out loud and clear through these forums:

"A message box saying your post can't exceed 8000 characters will not stop me, needing some other way of referencing my opponents argument is not a bridge too far for me! Lord willing, if I have to, I will create not one but two posts in reply! And as God as my witness, these infinitely high, inpenetrable walls without work around or solution that takes less than 2 seconds to achieve, the walls preventing me from replying will tumble down to the horn of my internet prowess."

I'm a professional software engineer Ramshutu and I work with intense technical focus for many hours almost every day, I've been in this profession in various guises for several decades.

You'll understand therefore how what may be trifling for you is a real drag for me, especially if I'm on this forum with a tablet, I just can't be bothered fiddling with windows, copy, paste etc when I do this 50+ hours a week year in year out.

Sorry but that's me - I come to this forum to engage in challenging discourse with other (hopefully) intelligent people not find ways around 8,000 limitations and related bugs, it's just too much effort.

Harry.

I'll have you know that a) I'm a professional software engineer too, b) it's Sunday, c) the amount of time it took you to write that response requires more effort and intensity than replying to my post, fairly trivially, d) I'm on a tablet or phone the majority of times.

I think that's just a cop out argument

Ramshutu I opened the post in question to attempt a reply, two things happen 1) I get warned there's an 8,000 character limit and 2) mysteriously its chosen to truncate the post a little (suggesting the post is already > 8,000 characters).

So I can't even see how your post ends without fiddling around and I'm not into fiddling with technology that should really be designed better, sorry but you'll have to live with my limitation!