(2018-01-20, 05:07 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Biology is not a science I find all that interesting so I can't rattle off an answer. But I can provide links.
However, I will state that for a 150 years no non natural means of species evolution has ever been shown.
Three sources for why TOE is a viable unimpeachable explanation. I think the first link is most interesting historically.
https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-o...evolution/
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar...e/lines_01
And yet Bem, Radin, Beischel...., all of which have experimented using materialistic scientific methods all claim to find evidence don't they.
Many of these links, they provide evidence that organisms have changed over time (primarily fossil record evidence). This would be evidence against creationism (a god made creatures static, as is).
But I don't think that's what people here were arguing. The arguments were the source of the change over time, is it mutation driven selection, or did some intelligent agent meddle in the process (whatever that agent may be). The video I posted, for example, shows the giraffe's laryngeal nerve getting super long, when it it is possible that it could only have to traverse a short distance if an intelligent agent was involved. This is a result that would be expected from a process that can only work with what it has available, such as neo-darwinism.
Fossils changing over time, it seems everyone here has agreed with that so far.
(2018-01-20, 05:21 AM)darkcheese Wrote: [ -> ]Many of these links, they provide evidence that organisms have changed over time (primarily fossil record evidence). This would be evidence against creationism (a god made creatures static, as is).
But I don't think that's what people here were arguing. The arguments were the source of the change over time, is it mutation driven selection, or did some intelligent agent meddle in the process (whatever that agent may be). The video I posted, for example, shows the giraffe's laryngeal nerve getting super long, when it it is possible that it could only have to traverse a short distance if an intelligent agent was involved. This is a result that would be expected from a process that can only work with what it has available, such as neo-darwinism.
Fossils changing over time, it seems everyone here has agreed with that so far.
I believe to fully understand the position of certain members perspective on this specific topic it is necessary to understand how and why they view reality. I am very familiar with the original poster's position on reality he chose the title thoughtfully. The title's pedigree so to speak implies Darwin was an addle brained man whom concocted nothing more than an idea that has holes in it like Swiss cheese.
Steve001 Wrote:I believe to fully understand the position of certain members perspective on this specific topic it is necessary to understand how and why they view reality. I am very familiar with the original poster's position on reality he chose the title thoughtfully. The title's pedigree so to speak implies Darwin was an addle brained man whom concocted nothing more than an idea that has holes in it like Swiss cheese.
So is the original poster of this thread the same guy who made the blog post (the title is from the blog post).
Otherwise, the title was not the choice of OP, perse. I guess you could say that he chose the article. It was interesting, apart from the casual racism.
(2018-01-20, 05:49 AM)darkcheese Wrote: [ -> ]So is the original poster of this thread the same guy who made the blog post (the title is from the blog post).
Otherwise, the title was not the choice of OP, perse. I guess you could say that he chose the article. It was interesting, apart from the casual racism.
I was the OP and I linked to an article, using the title of the article for the title of this thread. I don't need to agree with the man's politics (and I don't) to find some agreement with what he has to say on this subject. By the way, there are people on this forum with whom I agree on Psi related matters but am diametrically opposed to their political views. Likewise, I find myself in agreement with some of the sceptics here when they express their political opinions.
(2018-01-20, 06:01 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I was the OP and I linked to an article, using the title of the article for the title of this thread. I don't need to agree with the man's politics (and I don't) to find some agreement with what he has to say on this subject. By the way, there are people on this forum with whom I agree on Psi related matters but am diametrically opposed to their political views. Likewise, I find myself in agreement with some of the sceptics here when they express their political opinions.
Fair enough. The article was interesting, and worth the time taken to read. And yeah, everyone having the same opinions on everything would be boring indeed.
(2018-01-20, 04:35 AM)darkcheese Wrote: [ -> ]Gotcha, but the tags don't appear when I hit reply to someone's post. I can do the tags manually though, as now edited. Thanks for the tip, and glad to contribute.
The editor tries to be WYSIWYG but that's not really useful when editing.
I copy the text to my text editor, edit it there, and then paste it back in the reply box.
~~ Paul
(2018-01-20, 04:58 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]No - the tags don't appear automatically. If you want to see them, use the "View Source" button at the end of the toolbar.
Well, look at that. As usual, one word is worth 1000 icons.
But why doesn't your entire post appear when I reply to it? The stuff inside [code], for example, is missing.
~~ Paul
(2018-01-20, 02:47 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]But why doesn't your entire post appear when I reply to it? The stuff inside [code], for example, is missing.
We've enabled an option so that quotes (i.e. "quote" tags and that which they enclose) are not themselves included in the quoted text generated when clicking "reply". It just so happened that the content of Kamarling's "code" tag was itself a "quote" tag - which, I guess, MyBB strips out along with all of the other quote tags, as per the option we enabled (we enabled it by request - people got sick of having to manually strip out earlier quotes when composing replies).
(2018-01-20, 03:38 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]We've enabled an option so that quotes (i.e. "quote" tags and that which they enclose) are not themselves included in the quoted text generated when clicking "reply". It just so happened that the content of Kamarling's "code" tag was itself a "quote" tag - which, I guess, MyBB strips out along with all of the other quote tags, as per the option we enabled (we enabled it by request - people got sick of having to manually strip out earlier quotes when composing replies).
Any way to treat [code] tags differently from [quote] tags?
~~ Paul
(2018-01-21, 11:30 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]Any way to treat "code" tags differently from "quote" tags?
[I edited the above quote of your post to replace open and close square brackets with double-quote marks so as to avoid formatting issues]
You mean, so that "quote" tags aren't stripped out when they are within "code" tags?
I doubt there's a custom setting for this, but of course the MyBB source code could be extended or hacked to make it so - personally, I don't have the motivation to do this, but if you or anybody else does then feel free to send me the patch.