onceforgivennowfree

[Baggi]

Just to be clear, as far as I know I was never banned. I found the conversation here to be immature and mind numbing.

I came here looking for a stimulating discussion between AronRa and OFNF and all I saw was deflection, debate tactics, some name calling, word definitions, conditions, and lot's of blah blah blah blah that went no where. It was disappointing to say the least.

I don't blame OFNF for not continuing in the lions den, as it's quite distracting here. People take any number of tangents in these threads and they don't lead to constructive discussions. It seems to be all about winning. Reminds me too much of High School posturing than actual reasoning with one another.

So I skipped out and came back less and less waiting for the discussion to start, which it didn't.

But at no time, as far as I know, was I ever edited, banned, or censored. Nor were any of the others as Creationist claims in his video. I am sympathetic to Creationist and his video and his point of view, as I think it was uncalled for to ban him for a week. But meh. That's neither here nor there at this point.

I'd say this discussion here, in this thread, is for all intents and purposes over. I look forward to OFNF's response to AronRa and I'll hope that on Youtube or somewhere else, AronRa will respond to OFNF.

Good fortune to you all.

 

[AronRa]

I look forward to OFNF's response to AronRa and I'll hope that on Youtube or somewhere else, AronRa will respond to OFNF.

The only appropriate place for he or I to post on this topic is right here. The only appropriate response would be to pursue the conversation he agreed to in the first place.

 

[Gnug215]

Thanks for your version of the events AronRa! Want to hear mine?

You accepted my challenge to prove evolution.

You didn't.

You claimed that I declared victory.

I didn't.

I said I would make a video in order to go over the evidence (or proof) you cited in detail.

So what's the problem? I will directly address your "evidence" and take the time to put some thought into it. You couldn't ask for more. Instead, you're panicking after having banned Creationist (just like Thunderf00t was banned from free-thought blogs) and you're creating straw men about me saying that I am declaring victory. I'm not.

OFNF,

Now you're making creationist's temp ban into a big issue again.

He broke the rules, got a temporary ban (which has run out now, so he's free to post again), simple as that.

But now it looks like you're trying to use that ban save face or score some points. I can tell you right away that that will heavily indicate to everyone here that you're just looking for an easy way out of this.

As if that weren't bad enough, you're trying hard to pin this on AronRa:

Instead, you're panicking after having banned Creationist ...

This quote shows that you are either ignorant on the matter, or being incredibly dishonest.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former. In either case, AronRa had nothing to do with the ban. He does not run this website. He is not a mod here.

Lastly, I don't know AronRa well, but I'm really not detecting much panic from him right now. Rather, I'm sensing annoyance over yet another Creationist abandoning a debate with him.

 

[ardip]

Claiming Creationist was banned when it was only a week shows you either didn't read the thread or are being willfully dishonest.

And bringing up Thunderf00t shows you're just desperate, that has nothing to do with anything.

You should just admit you didn't like the discussion and move on instead of this lame attempt to save face.

 

[dandan]

]I don't need to 'prove' what has already been proved, and which you yourself have already admitted. How could I prove something to your satisfaction if you already accept it?

In addition to your lapse of logic, we're also adding to the list of things you do not know. For example, you don't know what a presupposition is. Let me help you with that.

1. to take for granted; assume
2. to require or imply as a necessary prior condition
3. philosophy, logic, linguistics to require (a condition) to be satisfied as a precondition for a statement to be either true or false or for a speech act to be felicitous. Have you stopped beating your wife? presupposes that the person addressed has a wife and has beaten her.
-Dictionary.com.

Remember you were asked to prove that “complexity increases” this is one of you 9 “facts” that are only consistent with evolution.
In response to this you provided an article that starts the assumption that we came from simple apes. ¿do you understand why is this circular reasoning?

There is nothing wrong with making assumptions; all articles make some assumptions, an assumption is simply something that the author is not attempting to prove/disprove in that specific paper. However you can´t assume the very thing that you were asked to prove. If you were asked to prove that “complexity increases” it would be nice if you post a paper that doesn´t assumes that we came from a simple ape, but rather a paper that actually attempts to prove that premise.

For example, we've already shown that (1) most mutations are neutral, not deleterious

However it is still a fact that deleterious mutations are more frequent than beneficial mutations, this is true regardless of how you what to define “neutral” “beneficial” “deleterious” the fact is that genetic load increases as time passes, this is an observable and verifiable fact

(2) Even 'deleterious' mutations sometimes provide a positive and naturally-selectable advantage, but any mutation which causes an actual detriment will be removed by natural selection, and the more deleterious it is, the faster it will be weeded out. These are all facts which have been well-established in the course of this conversation.

Wrong, natural selection only removes the lethal mutations, it doesn´t remove the slightly deleterious mutations NS only removes a minority.

. We have only 'directly witnessed' a few dozen speciation events, but then we have only directly witnessed a few dozen extinctions too

Wrong we have witnesses a few dozen speciation events and around 1,000 extinction events since 1500, extinction is many, many times more frequent than speciation.

So you're wrong on this one point twice. (1) Because we're currently in a period of mass-extinction, and we ourselves are the cause of it -NOT "degraded genetics". THAT isn't happening anywhere, and apparently never has happened either

Let me try to read your mind…Since according to your dating methods and you interpretation of the geologic column, the average rate of extinction is around 1 specie for every 3-4 years and the current rate of extinction is about 2 species per year, then we are OBVIOULSY in a period of mass extinction right? Do you understand why is that circular reasoning ?

It´s true that humans are responsible for a lot of extinction events, however it is also true that most (if not all speciation events) are also caused by humans, the fact is that extinction is more common than speciation, this is true regardless if you remove “human intervention” from the equation or not.

(2) That while there are now several hundred species of scorpion, all evidently from a common ancestor, despite all the extinct forms in the fossil record, that one example out of millions shows that speciation must occur "hundreds of times" more often than extinction.

sure, since evolution is obviously true, and all scorpions obviously share a common ancestor, then it follows logically that speciation is more common than extinction. ¿do you understand why is this circular reasoning?

]Wrong again, as I already explained. But now you've brought a whole new subject to be wrong about. What is a transitional species? And would we determine whether any species qualifies as "transitional" or "intermediate"?

No sir, I don’t what to bring a whole new subject, the point that I was trying to make is that the majority of species found in the fossil record are evolutionary dead ends, or organisms that whent extinct without “evolving” in to something else. ¿agree?

e]As has already been pointed out by Dragan Glas, no. You're wrong about that too, like you have been about everything else.

But the fact remains that I already showed a paper that proves that genome degenerate at a ratio of 5% per generation, and none of you have provided a paper showing the opposite.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Dandan. I do not know much about science. Most of the things I do know about it, come from Google searches, wiki articles, and some science-based, TV programming. I have never come across, nor have I been able to find anything supporting the idea of, "simple apes." Could you please explain what you mean by this, give an example of a species of "simple ape," the different categories involved (even if it is as simple as simple ape and non-simple ape) and how one would classify an ape into these categories? I think by explaining your terminology, it would go a long way with helping some of us understand your point better. Thank you.

 

[dandan]

Dandan. I do not know much about science. Most of the things I do know about it, come from Google searches, wiki articles, and some science-based, TV programming. I have never come across, nor have I been able to find anything supporting the idea of, "simple apes." Could you please explain what you mean by this, give an example of a species of "simple ape," the different categories involved (even if it is as simple as simple ape and non-simple ape) and how one would classify an ape into these categories? I think by explaining your terminology, it would go a long way with helping some of us understand your point better. Thank you.

Simple ape = with less genetic material that codes for something or has some objective function
ARONRA presented and article that presupposes that we came from a simple (hypothetical) ape and that complexity increased to account for the differences between humans and other apes.

 

[dandan]

Throughout this thread, every science-based poster has shown that there's no such thing as "degradation" occurring.

That leaves Shapiro's NGE - which I've already shown to have been debunked. Moran dissected Shapiro's reaction to the review of Shapiro's book.

What it basically sounds like is little different from Wilson's "group selection" or Dembski's "complex specified information" - none of which are accepted by science.

Also, as the Wiki article makes clear, Shapiro disagrees with both Creationism - and (particularly) ID.

So, where does that leave you?

Kindest regards,

James

Here is the thing, I posted a peer reviwed article that explains how NGE works and the evidence for it, and you posted a random WordPress bloq written by a random guy.

It´s a fact that organisms can get information from the environment and change their genetic material accordingly, the only controversies are:

-How important is these mechanisms to account for adaptation, change, speciation etc.

-How could something like that “evolve”

In fact not even your random webpage denies this.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Simple ape = with less genetic material that codes for something or has some objective function

I'm still not understanding this. Do you mean an ape that has more "junk" DNA than others? I ask because you're the one using this term "simple ape" which appears no where in the paper. Also, could you please provide an example of an ape species that you believe to be simple, and where is the threshold for when an ape is no longer simple?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thanks for your version of the events AronRa! Want to hear mine?

You accepted my challenge to prove evolution.

What your challenge actually was, was uncertain from the start.

You first asked Aron to prove evolution in your video, but then changed this - in the self-same video - to proving that life is the result of "blind random processes - not design", which is completely wrong. It took a while to clarify this.

You didn't.

You initially accepted evolution - so the challenge appeared to have been met.

You then back-tracked and rejected evolution - and it's no longer clear what exactly you do or do not accept. Aron's spent some time trying to clarify this without much success.

The fact that you neither know enough to understand (argument from ignorance) or accept (argument from incredulity) - or reject having initially accepted - what he's shown you so far does not mean that he hasn't met your challenge.

You claimed that I declared victory.

I didn't.

It is inferred from your reply:

Ok well I think I have all I need.....or all I'm going to get from AronRa. He clearly has no proof for Evolution. Rather, he has facts which he claims support and are concordant with Evolution, and which Creationists cannot account for. I keep waiting for the "magic bullet" proof from AronRa, but he's admitted he has none. He claims that his proof is the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Ok, well he already gave a few of those, so I will simply address those in a video. I haven't addressed those point very much yet, because I was waiting for the real proof. Why should I spend all this time addressing circumstantial evidence if it's not actually AronRa's proof? I was waiting for his proof, but now it's become clear that it's not coming.

So since this is all that AronRa's got, I"ll create a video response where I can go in detail and show that AronRa is wrong about those (he is) and that Creationists CAN account for them. This will show that AronRa does not have good evidence for Evolution, and he most certainly does not have proof. He's also wrong when he says that Creationists cannot account for these facts he has presentThanks for your "proof" AronRaed. I'll start putting my thoughts together and provide a detailed response in the next week or so.

Thanks for your "proof" AronRa. That's all I wanted. If you have any BETTER evidence, let me know and perhaps I can address that in the future. For now, I will address the best that you have provided.

Regards,
OFNF

I said I would make a video in order to go over the evidence (or proof) you cited in detail.

So what's the problem? I will directly address your "evidence" and take the time to put some thought into it. You couldn't ask for more. Instead, you're panicking after having banned Creationist (just like Thunderf00t was banned from free-thought blogs) and you're creating straw men about me saying that I am declaring victory. I'm not.

Why can't you address his evidence here? That is to what you agreed to do in coming to this site.

As has already been explained, creationist wasn't banned - neither by LoR or Aron: he was suspended for a week due to his attitude.

Aron is not "panicking" - he's still waiting for you to address his evidence here.

Thunderf00t's banning at FTB is irrelevant to creationist's suspension here - as such, you're raising a red-herring in an attempt to provide you a excuse to withdraw from this debate.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mugnuts]

Dandan, I just joined this site yesterday, but I've read many other threads, including the entirety of this one. It took three days, that made me laugh, smile, and learn a hell of a lot. In the past few years, I myself have had a breakthrough of self discovery and acceptance. It is pushing me to apply myself and learn everything I can. If I want to be any kind of a proper parent/role model I had better start looking at the world through a clear fresh set of eyes. I love science and skepticism. So naturally a thirst for knowledge went towards religion(s). Not seeking one to follow or believe in, but to understand them with what they are all about, and how/why they all claim to have ultimate truth.


With good grammar, and concise speech your posts have clung to the same mis-interpreted notions of mutations, claims that verifiable facts are presupposed or assumptions, and every now and then, an actual understanding/admittance to some facts that others vehemently deny for many reasons (usually faith). That last point of observation is quite substantial due to it's rarity and you have the highest compliment I can give you for that without really knowing you.

What you seem to be missing through all of this is the ability to look on the other side. We all love to debate. All of us that come here. It's a competition, and who doesn't like to win? Well not everybody. I would wager quite substantionially that more satisfaction would come to any here promoting free thought, and scientific data knowing that they actually taught someone something, or pointed in them in the direction that allowed them to gain knowledge.

Before you complain again about not being presented the paper you keep asking for, go back and re-read the posts. The information is there. If you really are looking for it is the question here.


And if there is any assumption that should be taken from this is the proof/evidence that is actually right in front of you, requires no assumption.

I suggest that you read 'Finding Darwin's God' by Kenneth Miller, and stay away from OFNF's videos. I don't believe he's trying to teach or enlighten anyone, but it seems more likely he's out to provoke and get notoriety.

How about we all go to another board and leave AronRa and OFNF to handle this one by themselves. I see there is a few opened already. What do you say?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Throughout this thread, every science-based poster has shown that there's no such thing as "degradation" occurring.

That leaves Shapiro's NGE - which I've already shown to have been debunked. Moran dissected Shapiro's reaction to the review of Shapiro's book.

What it basically sounds like is little different from Wilson's "group selection" or Dembski's "complex specified information" - none of which are accepted by science.

Also, as the Wiki article makes clear, Shapiro disagrees with both Creationism - and (particularly) ID.

So, where does that leave you?

Kindest regards,

James

Here is the thing, I posted a peer reviwed article that explains how NGE works and the evidence for it, and you posted a random WordPress bloq written by a random guy.

Professor Jerry Coyne is not "a random guy" - given that he's Dawkins' "go-to guy" on evolution and the author of Why Evolution Is True.

Professor Larry Moran is not "a random guy" - given that he specialises in molecular biology and molecular evolution, which is why he was asked to review Shapiro's book for NCSE.

It´s a fact that organisms can get information from the environment and change their genetic material accordingly, the only controversies are:

-How important is these mechanisms to account for adaptation, change, speciation etc.

-How could something like that “evolve”

In fact not even your random webpage denies this.

Organisms don't "change their genetic material accordingly" - that's what Shapiro claims. His views are no more correct or accepted by the scientific community than Dembski's "CSI" or Wilson's "group selection" - as I showed earlier.

He accepts abiogenesis and evolution.

What you don't seem to realise in all this is that Shapiro claims that the cell is the "designer" - completely ignoring the fact that in order to arrive at the cell, plain old evolution was needed to do so. If evolution was good enough to get to the cell, why would Nature suddenly change tack and need NGE to continue evolution?

And, before you say evolution didn't occur until the first cell, all the tools of evolution - such as replication, which is part-and-parcel of evolution - already existed before the first cell and DNA in the form of RNA.

The "RNA World" was just as much subject to evolution as DNA.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

]I don't need to 'prove' what has already been proved, and which you yourself have already admitted. How could I prove something to your satisfaction if you already accept it?

In addition to your lapse of logic, we're also adding to the list of things you do not know. For example, you don't know what a presupposition is. Let me help you with that.

1. to take for granted; assume
2. to require or imply as a necessary prior condition
3. philosophy, logic, linguistics to require (a condition) to be satisfied as a precondition for a statement to be either true or false or for a speech act to be felicitous. Have you stopped beating your wife? presupposes that the person addressed has a wife and has beaten her.
-Dictionary.com.

Remember you were asked to prove that “complexity increases” this is one of you 9 “facts” that are only consistent with evolution.
In response to this you provided an article that starts the assumption that we came from simple apes. ¿do you understand why is this circular reasoning?

There is nothing wrong with making assumptions; all articles make some assumptions, an assumption is simply something that the author is not attempting to prove/disprove in that specific paper. However you can´t assume the very thing that you were asked to prove. If you were asked to prove that “complexity increases” it would be nice if you post a paper that doesn´t assumes that we came from a simple ape, but rather a paper that actually attempts to prove that premise.

For example, we've already shown that (1) most mutations are neutral, not deleterious

However it is still a fact that deleterious mutations are more frequent than beneficial mutations, this is true regardless of how you what to define “neutral” “beneficial” “deleterious” the fact is that genetic load increases as time passes, this is an observable and verifiable fact

(2) Even 'deleterious' mutations sometimes provide a positive and naturally-selectable advantage, but any mutation which causes an actual detriment will be removed by natural selection, and the more deleterious it is, the faster it will be weeded out. These are all facts which have been well-established in the course of this conversation.

Wrong, natural selection only removes the lethal mutations, it doesn´t remove the slightly deleterious mutations NS only removes a minority.

. We have only 'directly witnessed' a few dozen speciation events, but then we have only directly witnessed a few dozen extinctions too

Wrong we have witnesses a few dozen speciation events and around 1,000 extinction events since 1500, extinction is many, many times more frequent than speciation.

So you're wrong on this one point twice. (1) Because we're currently in a period of mass-extinction, and we ourselves are the cause of it -NOT "degraded genetics". THAT isn't happening anywhere, and apparently never has happened either

Let me try to read your mind…Since according to your dating methods and you interpretation of the geologic column, the average rate of extinction is around 1 specie for every 3-4 years and the current rate of extinction is about 2 species per year, then we are OBVIOULSY in a period of mass extinction right? Do you understand why is that circular reasoning ?

It´s true that humans are responsible for a lot of extinction events, however it is also true that most (if not all speciation events) are also caused by humans, the fact is that extinction is more common than speciation, this is true regardless if you remove “human intervention” from the equation or not.

(2) That while there are now several hundred species of scorpion, all evidently from a common ancestor, despite all the extinct forms in the fossil record, that one example out of millions shows that speciation must occur "hundreds of times" more often than extinction.

sure, since evolution is obviously true, and all scorpions obviously share a common ancestor, then it follows logically that speciation is more common than extinction. ¿do you understand why is this circular reasoning?

]Wrong again, as I already explained. But now you've brought a whole new subject to be wrong about. What is a transitional species? And would we determine whether any species qualifies as "transitional" or "intermediate"?

No sir, I don’t what to bring a whole new subject, the point that I was trying to make is that the majority of species found in the fossil record are evolutionary dead ends, or organisms that whent extinct without “evolving” in to something else. ¿agree?

e]As has already been pointed out by Dragan Glas, no. You're wrong about that too, like you have been about everything else.

But the fact remains that I already showed a paper that proves that genome degenerate at a ratio of 5% per generation, and none of you have provided a paper showing the opposite.

This is essentially the same post as earlier in this thread - all of which was addressed by myself and other posters.

You appear to be going round in circles - either ignoring or rejecting what's been posted by everyone.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Onceforgivennowfree]

AronRa said:
"It will be of no value for you to 'go over' what you don't understand. So there is no point in your exposing your ignorance of what little evidence I showed to dandan when you stopped responding. The only way to meet your challenge was for you to participate by at least answering those prerequisite questions -which you refused to do."

Aron, your condescension has been at the forefront of this discussion the entire time. You assume that I don't understand the evidence for Evolution because that is what you have convinced yourself to believe - that if anyone rejects the theory of Evolution, then that person does not understand the evidence. Have you ever considered that maybe (just maybe) I understand the evidence for Evolution and I have a reason to reject it? You want me to address the evidence on this thread.....then when I say I will make a video and go over it in detail, you claim that it is of no value for me to 'go over' what I don't understand and that I have "declared victory" (I haven't). So which is it? Are you even willing to listen to what I have to say? Because your words indicate that you've already decided that I don't understand......before I even offer my explanation. Let me assure you that I'm not an idiot. I do have a degree in Engineering from a secular university, and I'm a professional Engineer. If you want to approach me with your high school diploma and be so condescending as to assume that it is of 'no value' for me to go over the evidence you presented, is it ANY WONDER that your conversations on here never go anywhere? I've looked at your other "debates" on here where you claim you will prove evolution. You don't. You play word games and ask dozens of questions so that the conversation never actually gets to your proof that you supposedly have! I see no reason to keep chasing you to try and get you to reveal this proof you have. The only reason I've been trying is because you have over 100,000 subscribers on youtube, so I figured I'd give you a chance. But clearly, your large subscriber base does not actually mean you can logically defend your beliefs - although it appears that you believe it puts you "literally" on the same ground as phD scientists. If that is what you think, then fine. Keep believing that. And if you want to claim that creationist wasn't banned (he was just suspended, right?) then whatever. Keep telling yourself that. Would you be that lenient if that was done to you? Of course not. We both know that. So don't blame me if I'm skeptical.

I will go over the evidence you presented in a video. I'll take the time to do abit of research, put my thoughts together, and record it. Anyone can then watch my video and decided for themselves if I understand what I'm saying or not.

Except for you of course - you've already decided that it will be of no value.

All the best,
OFNF

 

[MarsCydonia]

sure, since evolution is obviously true, and all scorpions obviously share a common ancestor, then it follows logically that speciation is more common than extinction. ¿do you understand why is this circular reasoning?

Are you saying that scorpions did NOT have a common ancestor? Were more than one ancestor "kind" to scorpions on the ark?

So as to not clutter this discussion more and provide more excuses to OnceForgivenNowFree and people like Baggi, I have created a new discussion where we might continue if you would be so kind to join it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

MarsCydonia, not to hijack/clutter your thread, but I do have a couple of on-topic questions related to this "deterioration of the genome", which dandan keeps claiming.

If, as you claim, dandan, the "(human) genome is losing 5% per generation", I have a couple of mathematics questions for you:

1) How many generations before there isn't enough of our genome left to be classed as "human"? (In other words, how long before we're no longer the "special kind");
2) How many generations before there isn't enough genome left for a viable organism?

Also, with regards to your claim about "extinctions exceeding speciation", did you not read my earlier post, where I clearly quoted the conclusions from a book's chapter on this?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

For example, we've already shown that (1) most mutations are neutral, not deleterious

However it is still a fact that deleterious mutations are more frequent than beneficial mutations, this is true regardless of how you what to define “neutral” “beneficial” “deleterious” the fact is that genetic load increases as time passes, this is an observable and verifiable fact

:facepalm:

No it is not, as AronRa stated above. You are still using your erroneous definition of deleterious mutation, which includes neutral mutations.

(2) Even 'deleterious' mutations sometimes provide a positive and naturally-selectable advantage, but any mutation which causes an actual detriment will be removed by natural selection, and the more deleterious it is, the faster it will be weeded out. These are all facts which have been well-established in the course of this conversation.

Wrong, natural selection only removes the lethal mutations, it doesn´t remove the slightly deleterious mutations NS only removes a minority.

Again, you are basing this off your erroneous definition of deleterious mutation. You have already been corrected on this mistake several times. Your steadfastness to this wrong idea exposes that you are unwilling to question your preconceived notions.

It´s true that humans are responsible for a lot of extinction events, however it is also true that most (if not all speciation events) are also caused by humans, the fact is that extinction is more common than speciation, this is true regardless if you remove “human intervention” from the equation or not.

I would love to see a citation for your new claim.

e]As has already been pointed out by Dragan Glas, no. You're wrong about that too, like you have been about everything else.

But the fact remains that I already showed a paper that proves that genome degenerate at a ratio of 5% per generation, and none of you have provided a paper showing the opposite.

Inferno showed that you were incorrect in your interpretation of that paper. Why should we have to cite a paper to show you are wrong, when Inferno has already shown that you are wrong (and you said you agreed with him) in citing that paper to support your assertion.

Aron, your condescension has been at the forefront of this discussion the entire time.

You assume that I don't understand the evidence for Evolution because that is what you have convinced yourself to believe - that if anyone rejects the theory of Evolution, then that person does not understand the evidence. Have you ever considered that maybe (just maybe) I understand the evidence for Evolution and I have a reason to reject it?

This is demonstrably false; as Master_Ghost_Knight demonstrated in his post that refuted the video you created addressing another YouTuber’s video. You obviously do not understand evolution or evolutionary theory. Beyond that, just the way you are forming your challenge (i.e. “life on earth is descended via blind random processes - not design”) displays a gross ignorance of how evolution actually works.

If I were to tell you that the bible was wrong because there is a story in it of a man named Jesus that built a giant boat and filled it with seven of every animal, then sailed it across a lake of fire in order to save them from another man named Moses, would you think I actually know something about the bible? Would you think I actually ever even read the bible? That is what it is like for me (and probably everyone else on this forum) who reads the posts/watches videos from creationists when they talk about evolution. The only people they are fooling are themselves (and maybe their fans).

I do have a degree in Engineering from a secular university, and I'm a professional Engineer.

Great, so when I want to know how a bridge was made, I will ask you. Until then you should listen to the people who have a background in biology.

If you want to approach me with your high school diploma and be so condescending as to assume that it is of 'no value' for me to go over the evidence you presented, is it ANY WONDER that your conversations on here never go anywhere?

First off, you are missing the point. You agreed to a two-way conversation with AronRa. The point of this two-way conversation was for you and AronRa to go over the evidence together. You running off to your YouTube channel seems to mean you are abandoning your two-way conversation.

Second, if you would rather talk to someone with a college degree, there is always me (and several others on this forum). However, I think I would keep the rules the same (i.e. on this forum, written two-way conversation).

And if you want to claim that creationist wasn't banned (he was just suspended, right?) then whatever. Keep telling yourself that.

:lol:

One does not have to keep telling oneself that, tis the truth. If you cannot accept a basic fact such as this, it speaks volumes as to why you are unable to accept evolution and evolutionary theory. Those preconceived biases you hold will not allow you to see simple facts against your worldview.

Anyone can then watch my video and decided for themselves if I understand what I'm saying or not.

That has already happened, and it was demonstrated that you do not understand a thing when it comes to biology.

 

[Gnug215]

[...] And if you want to claim that creationist wasn't banned (he was just suspended, right?) then whatever. Keep telling yourself that.

OFNF,

You keep repeating this point, although it has been explained to you several times.

Creationist got a week-long ban, or suspension. (Doesn't matter what you call it, the fact was simply that - after he broke the rules - was unable to post on this forum for a week.) That's it. AronRa isn't the one claiming it. It is not a claim. I'm STATING it. For anything MOD related, ask the MODs, which is either me, or Prolescum.
If you don't believe that it was a temp ban/suspension, just ask creationist to post again, and you'll see that he's fully able to.

It really does seem as if you're having problems believing this. If so, then you're basically calling me (and others) a liar. (In that case, thanks!)

Would you be that lenient if that was done to you? Of course not. We both know that. So don't blame me if I'm skeptical.

[...]

What does leniency have to do with this? In fact, what do YOU have to do with this? You weren't the one who got banned, was it? So why are you making such a big deal out of this? (This is pretty much a rhetorical question by now, since most of us here already have a pretty good idea about why.)

You're just massively in the wrong here.

You seem to believe that creationist's ban was totally unprovoked. Wrong!

You seem to believe that creationist's ban wasn't a week long temp-ban. Wrong!

You seem to believe AronRa is somehow responsible for creationists ban. Wrong!

You seem to believe that creationist's ban was somehow an attack on you. Wrong!


And you keep high-lighting it and repeating it, which has lead pretty much everyone on these boards to believe that you're using it as an excuse, which quite simply shreds to pieces ANY kind of trustworthiness you might have had.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Thanks for your version of the events AronRa! Want to hear mine?

You accepted my challenge to prove evolution.

You didn't.

You claimed that I declared victory.

I didn't.

I said I would make a video in order to go over the evidence (or proof) you cited in detail.

So what's the problem? I will directly address your "evidence" and take the time to put some thought into it. You couldn't ask for more. Instead, you're panicking after having banned Creationist (just like Thunderf00t was banned from free-thought blogs) and you're creating straw men about me saying that I am declaring victory. I'm not.

First, Creationist was not banned, he was suspended. Secondly, you were neither banned or suspended. What is your excuse?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Aron, your condescension has been at the forefront of this discussion the entire time. You assume that I don't understand the evidence for Evolution because that is what you have convinced yourself to believe - that if anyone rejects the theory of Evolution, then that person does not understand the evidence.

Let me state this clearly. You don’t understand science, you don’t understand the evidence for evolution, and your comments (which I have addressed) demonstrates so.
Furthermore, if a creationist understood science, he wouldn’t be a creationist.

Have you ever considered that maybe (just maybe) I understand the evidence for Evolution and I have a reason to reject it?

I could have entertained that idea, but just for a couple of milliseconds, because ignorance in terms of common scientific matters is just too obvious to ignore.
You are not misunderstood, you don’t have a different but reasonable view of the evidence, you are misinformed, you are just wrong.

Are you even willing to listen to what I have to say?

In case you haven’t noticed, you haven’t said much.

Let me assure you that I'm not an idiot.

Let me assure you otherwise.

I do have a degree in Engineering from a secular university, and I'm a professional Engineer.

I have a degree in engineering, and I am a professional engineer. And I am going to straight forwardly tell you that I very much doubt that you have one. But that is because I like to believe that in a decent engineering course you would be able to get you a decent scientific background, which would avoid you from making such fundamental mistakes. And if you do have such a degree, it’s irrelevant, because the fact is you have demonstrated not to know science, which would make you in that case an incompetent engineer.
As to the accusations about Aron Ra’s credentials, I will let him speak for himself. However let me tell you this, if someone knows then they know. And trying to pull rank as a substitute for an argument is a logical fallacy.
And unless you are a bioengineer, you would be pretty much a layman when it comes to biology. Sure it could have given you tools to be able to distinguish good science from bad one, and how science works, but it is quite obvious that you are missing those.
And by the way, what kind of engineering did you major on? Now I am curious.