rea Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 When was the last time I posted a picture of myself? As for my username being almost my real name, and regular forum users being able to easily link the forum user to the 'real person'... FFS! So does REA, SGG, Div even? I have no need to adopt an unlinked username, I use the same username on here, the official forum, B&W Army and the Denver Broncos fan forum. What you see is what you get - a moaning faced ginger whinger knickerwetting keyboard warrior.....who vomits and crys a lot Guilty! .....fixed for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 .....fixed for you Indeed. The vomiting and crying comes as standard with every season ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 I just cant imagine a life where the idea of learning something new was seen as completely unecessary. Horrible. Or worse the idea you could learn something new was seen as impossible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 It was only a few posts ago where you denied, when replying to rea's post, that it was landscapes and that it was definitely surfaces. I asked you the same question as soon as you mentioned it but you still kept going on about it. If you had just said that you were talking about landscapes then this could all have been avoided. How am I being pedantic when you stipulated that you weren't talking about landscapes? Now that we're clear about it, yes I have heard of them, what's your point? Yes me being pedantic I mean that when I used the term Evolutionary Surfaces I am using a perfectly acceptable term (It's used in the method papers). And that I did not mean to use another term instead. Its a bit like if I say Saints, I don't mean to say Buddies, even if Saints and Buddies are the same thing. I might well be a bit annal about this, but I've seen you pick at someone's terminology and then use that to attempt to discredit them regardless of the validity of their argument. Admittedly mostly to Stuart Dickson, and his arguments usually don't have any validity My point is that Evolutionary science is an interesting field with much more interesting and appropriate questions to answer than getting bogged down in theology. I raised the question about the difficulty of modelling the evolution of the eye because it is an interesting question. Eye's came in to being some how, and I'd like to know how, The current theories do not really hack it when it comes to explaining it's development. With advances in cell biology, there are some left field suggestions that changes in embryo development in utero could create variation (It undoubtably does but it the extent of speciation I'm not so sure). Incomplete phagocytosis is postulated as the origin of Mitochondria and chloroplasts. You do it a disservice when you use it as a blunt instrument for your own agenda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuartsmfc Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 Islam will guide you all Inshallah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 FFS, I thought we were past this. You said that you weren't talking about Evolutionary Landscapes, then said Evolutionary Landscapes and Evolutionary Surfaces were the same thing. As far as I am aware, a surface (not Evolutionary Surface) is part of an Evolutionary Landscape, not the same as. But, then again, I'm no expert on it. I simply asked you if you were talking about Evolutionary Landscapes and you started throwing links about to "prove" your point, none of which used the term Evolutionary Surfaces. I was actually curious to know what they were but you appear to have immediately jumped on the defensive about it. It's quite easy to admit you used the wrong language/phrase/terminology, I did it earlier in the thread. You should try that next time instead of digging furiously. I'm not going to talk about it any more, it's really boring now. So boring that I don't even want to talk about the science and that's not like me. Except I'm not wrong, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 22, 2016 Report Share Posted April 22, 2016 Looks like the Royal Society is now opening up the discussion that established evolutionary ideas might need some revision.... https://royalsociety.org/events/2016/11/evolutionary-biology/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbles old paperboy Posted April 22, 2016 Report Share Posted April 22, 2016 At last night's kirk session meeting St Mirren FC were spoken about in glowing terms, from someone helping dementia sufferers via the "Football Memories" group. It was mentioned that the group had regularly visited Partick Thistle and St Mirren and St Mirren in particular had been fantastic towards the group. Well done to the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat Posted April 22, 2016 Report Share Posted April 22, 2016 What a man Neil is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 22, 2016 Report Share Posted April 22, 2016 ImageUploadedByBlack & White Army1461365175.363334.jpg What a man Neil is Which is of course a personal belief of his Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 22, 2016 Report Share Posted April 22, 2016 I'm all for discussion but I don't see why there is a need to "explore the social and philosophical implications". Is it a case of " Some extremist nutcase will be pissed off about this, let's not do it or, if we do it, let's not tell anyone"? Nope you have lost me. Don't understand your point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Looks like the Royal Society is now opening up the discussion that established evolutionary ideas might need some revision.... https://royalsociety.org/events/2016/11/evolutionary-biology/ What's your point? Science has always been open to changing its position. Those wanting to change their minds will require some evidence though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 I'm all for discussion but I don't see why there is a need to "explore the social and philosophical implications". Is it a case of " Some extremist nutcase will be pissed off about this, let's not do it or, if we do it, let's not tell anyone"? Science has its roots in philosophy. Not sure what the social bit is getting at. I'm also not sure why there is the apparent gloating from the religious people on this forum that science is open to change. It's not as though sticking to your guns in the face of reasonable evidence to the contrary is a strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbles old paperboy Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Science has its roots in philosophy. Not sure what the social bit is getting at. I'm also not sure why there is the apparent gloating from the religious people on this forum that science is open to change. It's not as though sticking to your guns in the face of reasonable evidence to the contrary is a strength. Potentially science could have been wrong for a decent length of time while some of those singing its praises poked fun at the stupidity of religious believers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Potentially science could have been wrong for a decent length of time while some of those singing its praises poked fun at the stupidity of religious believers? Science is wrong all the time. Bill Nye (the science guy) said he had reservations about GMO's. He then conducted a science based analysis of the evidence. He then came out, held his hands up and said he was wrong, GMO's are perfectly safe to eat. Science is not a belief system. Science is just drawing conclusions from fact based analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 (edited) Potentially science could have been wrong for a decent length of time while some of those singing its praises poked fun at the stupidity of religious believers? Your unwillingness to listen to what others are saying is the root of your problem. This is not about science versus religion. Never has been. The scientific world is excited at the prospect of a potentially big change in this field. Just as it did when Einstein made his relativity discovery. Just as it did when Planck, Bohr, Schrodinger and Heisenberg made theirs on quantum mechanics. How on earth could that possibly compare to religion whose followers have historically resorted to oppression and murder in the event of any challenge to their scriptures? Edited April 23, 2016 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 That's true in regards that some ancient philosophers thought about "physical things" but I don't see what it has to do with science now. Philosophy is science without experimentation, IMO of course. That last bit is absolutely true. The ancient Greeks thought experiment was a bad idea because of how easily the human mind can be deluded into seeing something that isn't there. Today we see the effect of that in the continuation of religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbles old paperboy Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Your unwillingness to listen to what others are saying is the root of your problem. This is not about science versus religion. Never has been. The scientific world is excited at the prospect of a potentially big change in this field. Just as it did when Einstein made his relativity discovery. Just as it did when Planck, Bohr, Schrodinger and Heisenberg made theirs on quantum mechanics. How on earth could that possibly compare to religion whose followers have historically resorted to oppression and murder in the event of any challenge to their scriptures? I promise to start putting smilies at the end of my wind ups to stop you having a meltdown from now on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 I promise to start putting smilies at the end of my wind ups to stop you having a meltdown from now on. I'd settle for you posting things which simply making sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Talking Heads fan, imo, God help us all if anything happens to David Byrne... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 ^^^ Like that sentence? To be fair to you both that is quiet funny......see what I did there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treaclebreeks Posted April 24, 2016 Report Share Posted April 24, 2016 To be fair to you both that is quiet funny......see what I did there"Now Tony saw his workplace as a factory. “It’s a profit factory where we’re doing piecework,” he said. All these decades after university, his working life was suddenly dictated by people who had little respect for his education or his profession. “The standard of education of these managers … some of them can’t even spell prescription; they put ‘quiet’ when they mean quite.” "From: How Boots went Rogue - The Guardian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted April 24, 2016 Report Share Posted April 24, 2016 There clearly are plenty "scientific" nutters out there. The obvious one is Dawkins who always comes across as unhinged, But there are others, The likes of David Ike and L Ron Hubbard also fall into this category. And these are only some of the less extreme versions. I once was speaking to the editor of a very prestigious Evolutionary journal who told me that he use to get hate mail telling him that ethnic minorities were a result of humans interbreeding with gorillas. And worse. It's all very well disowning these people, but they are "motivated by science" not religion. A nutter is a nutter regardless of their belief system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted April 24, 2016 Report Share Posted April 24, 2016 Ye N.N.Nutter. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted April 24, 2016 Report Share Posted April 24, 2016 There clearly are plenty "scientific" nutters out there. The obvious one is Dawkins who always comes across as unhinged, But there are others, The likes of David Ike and L Ron Hubbard also fall into this category. And these are only some of the less extreme versions. I once was speaking to the editor of a very prestigious Evolutionary journal who told me that he use to get hate mail telling him that ethnic minorities were a result of humans interbreeding with gorillas. And worse. It's all very well disowning these people, but they are "motivated by science" not religion. A nutter is a nutter regardless of their belief system. Again this obsession woth science. We are criticising religion on here. What on earth has science got to do with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.