Talk:Evolutionism - Revision history

Philip J. Rayment: Revert post making slanderous allegations with no attempt to justify them. And blocking user (duplicate account) for doing so.

2008-05-13T13:30:06Z

Revert post making slanderous allegations with no attempt to justify them. And blocking user (duplicate account) for doing so.

Urushnor2: /* Ending Debate */

2008-05-13T12:03:16Z

Ending Debate

Philip J. Rayment: /* Ending Debate */ No hypocrisy involved.

2008-05-11T06:05:42Z

Ending Debate: No hypocrisy involved.

Philip J. Rayment: /* A fresh start */ I think this supports what I said.

2008-05-11T02:17:27Z

A fresh start: I think this supports what I said.

Urushnor2: /* Ending Debate */

2008-05-10T19:24:22Z

Ending Debate

Philip J. Rayment: /* Ending Debate */ Message to Kels.

2008-05-10T14:50:01Z

Ending Debate: Message to Kels.

Philip J. Rayment: /* Ending Debate */ Not a lie.

2008-05-10T12:20:48Z

Ending Debate: Not a lie.

Urushnor2: Ending Debate

2008-05-01T20:30:49Z

Ending Debate

Able806: /* 'Weak Atheism' */

2008-05-01T15:39:47Z

'Weak Atheism'

Philip J. Rayment: /* A fresh start */ A lot of replies

2008-05-01T14:51:12Z

A fresh start: A lot of replies

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, May 13, 2008
Line 387:		Line 387:
	::: As for the insult, rather than try and figure out what I must have meant, how about reading what I said (on this page) was the reason? It wasn't for calling me ignorant, so ho hypocrisy involved.		::: As for the insult, rather than try and figure out what I must have meant, how about reading what I said (on this page) was the reason? It wasn't for calling me ignorant, so ho hypocrisy involved.
	::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 11 May 2008 (EDT)		::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
−
−	:::: I'm sorry, you're correct - you did not use the term third party. However, as for the rest of your comments, you seem to be trying to frantically defend an action by you that is either false, hypocritical or both. As I said, I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who is that dishonest. [[User:Urushnor2\|Urushnor2]] 08:03, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:03, May 13, 2008
Line 387:		Line 387:
	::: As for the insult, rather than try and figure out what I must have meant, how about reading what I said (on this page) was the reason? It wasn't for calling me ignorant, so ho hypocrisy involved.		::: As for the insult, rather than try and figure out what I must have meant, how about reading what I said (on this page) was the reason? It wasn't for calling me ignorant, so ho hypocrisy involved.
	::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 11 May 2008 (EDT)		::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::: I'm sorry, you're correct - you did not use the term third party. However, as for the rest of your comments, you seem to be trying to frantically defend an action by you that is either false, hypocritical or both. As I said, I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who is that dishonest. [[User:Urushnor2\|Urushnor2]] 08:03, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:05, May 11, 2008
Line 384:		Line 384:
	: You said, "the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.". That is, you were accusing the producers of the video of lying. Admittedly, you were basing your accusation on what someone else has said, but you weren't putting it as a quote or attributing it to someone else, but repeating the accusation yourself. So no, that reason for the block was ''not'' a lie. Secondly, that was only one of the reasons for the block. Why didn't you mention the other? Why misrepresent the reasons for the block by only mentioning one of the reasons? [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)<!-- Message to Kels: Urushnor2 is /not/ blocked, and Urushnor's block--not the one I applied--will expire in a few days. -->		: You said, "the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.". That is, you were accusing the producers of the video of lying. Admittedly, you were basing your accusation on what someone else has said, but you weren't putting it as a quote or attributing it to someone else, but repeating the accusation yourself. So no, that reason for the block was ''not'' a lie. Secondly, that was only one of the reasons for the block. Why didn't you mention the other? Why misrepresent the reasons for the block by only mentioning one of the reasons? [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)<!-- Message to Kels: Urushnor2 is /not/ blocked, and Urushnor's block--not the one I applied--will expire in a few days. -->
	:: Well, as the person who said that the interviewers lied was Richard Dawkins, the person being interviewed. That is NOT a 'third party', that is a FIRST party. Secondly, if you are blocking me for saying this, I guess you're saying that this did not happen (unless, of course, you feel justified in blocking someone for stating the truth), so this means that you are accusing Richard Dawkins of lying, so feel free to block yourself for 'allegations of lying' any time. Thirdly, the reason that I did not mention the other reason for being blocked was that I was going to let that slide, as certain things I have said could be perceived as being insulting, if you're rather sensitive about such things, but since you've brought it up, let's address it - the only thing I have said that could really be perceived as an insult is that you are ignorant of science. Considering I have seen you call people ignorant of creationism or ignorant of intelligent design, blocking me for that 'insult' is blocking me for something you do yourself. There is a word that is not very nice for such actions, that begins with 'H', but I will refrain from saying it, as you will no doubt say I'm insulting you again. [[User:Urushnor2\|Urushnor2]] 15:24, 10 May 2008 (EDT)		:: Well, as the person who said that the interviewers lied was Richard Dawkins, the person being interviewed. That is NOT a 'third party', that is a FIRST party. Secondly, if you are blocking me for saying this, I guess you're saying that this did not happen (unless, of course, you feel justified in blocking someone for stating the truth), so this means that you are accusing Richard Dawkins of lying, so feel free to block yourself for 'allegations of lying' any time. Thirdly, the reason that I did not mention the other reason for being blocked was that I was going to let that slide, as certain things I have said could be perceived as being insulting, if you're rather sensitive about such things, but since you've brought it up, let's address it - the only thing I have said that could really be perceived as an insult is that you are ignorant of science. Considering I have seen you call people ignorant of creationism or ignorant of intelligent design, blocking me for that 'insult' is blocking me for something you do yourself. There is a word that is not very nice for such actions, that begins with 'H', but I will refrain from saying it, as you will no doubt say I'm insulting you again. [[User:Urushnor2\|Urushnor2]] 15:24, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
		+	::: I didn't use the term 'third party'. Saying that they didn't lie does not mean that I'm accusing Richard Dawkins of lying. It could (and does, incidentally) simply mean that I'm claiming Dawkins was ''mistaken''. Not that that justifies ''him'' making accusations of lying, but that's a separate issue.
		+	::: As for the insult, rather than try and figure out what I must have meant, how about reading what I said (on this page) was the reason? It wasn't for calling me ignorant, so ho hypocrisy involved.
		+	::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

@@ Line 377: / Line 377: @@
 ::::::: No, it's not a claim of incredulity.  The ripples do not contain a message, because there is no specified complexity, as Conservative mentions.  The ripples are the result of natural processes, whereas the information on DNA is not, because the DNA is not arranged by natural laws, but by machines that put it together according to a code.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
 ::::::::Actually DNA is a self-assembling molecule, arranged by natural laws.  Many common pieces of lab equipment use this fact to replicate, expand and sequence DNA molecules.  If you take the four bases, sugars and phosphates and place them in a simple solution they will bind to form a DNA molecule.  The reason for this is that the DNA configuration is a lower energy state compared to the individual molecules of the bases, phosphates and sugars.  As for information encoded in DNA, well that is another issue.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:39, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
 == Ending Debate ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, May 10, 2008
Line 382:		Line 382:
	Well, I have been blocked for 'accusations of lying'. Ironically, that, in itself, is a complete lie. I have no interest in continuing what I regarded as a healthy discussion and exchanging of views with someone who resorts to such tactics. Goodbye. [[User:Urushnor2\|Urushnor2]] 16:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)		Well, I have been blocked for 'accusations of lying'. Ironically, that, in itself, is a complete lie. I have no interest in continuing what I regarded as a healthy discussion and exchanging of views with someone who resorts to such tactics. Goodbye. [[User:Urushnor2\|Urushnor2]] 16:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
	: You said, "the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.". That is, you were accusing the producers of the video of lying. Admittedly, you were basing your accusation on what someone else has said, but you weren't putting it as a quote or attributing it to someone else, but repeating the accusation yourself. So no, that reason for the block was ''not'' a lie. Secondly, that was only one of the reasons for the block. Why didn't you mention the other? Why misrepresent the reasons for the block by only mentioning one of the reasons? [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)<!-- Message to Kels: Urushnor2 is /not/ blocked, and Urushnor's block--not the one I applied--will expire in a few days. -->		: You said, "the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.". That is, you were accusing the producers of the video of lying. Admittedly, you were basing your accusation on what someone else has said, but you weren't putting it as a quote or attributing it to someone else, but repeating the accusation yourself. So no, that reason for the block was ''not'' a lie. Secondly, that was only one of the reasons for the block. Why didn't you mention the other? Why misrepresent the reasons for the block by only mentioning one of the reasons? [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)<!-- Message to Kels: Urushnor2 is /not/ blocked, and Urushnor's block--not the one I applied--will expire in a few days. -->
		+	:: Well, as the person who said that the interviewers lied was Richard Dawkins, the person being interviewed. That is NOT a 'third party', that is a FIRST party. Secondly, if you are blocking me for saying this, I guess you're saying that this did not happen (unless, of course, you feel justified in blocking someone for stating the truth), so this means that you are accusing Richard Dawkins of lying, so feel free to block yourself for 'allegations of lying' any time. Thirdly, the reason that I did not mention the other reason for being blocked was that I was going to let that slide, as certain things I have said could be perceived as being insulting, if you're rather sensitive about such things, but since you've brought it up, let's address it - the only thing I have said that could really be perceived as an insult is that you are ignorant of science. Considering I have seen you call people ignorant of creationism or ignorant of intelligent design, blocking me for that 'insult' is blocking me for something you do yourself. There is a word that is not very nice for such actions, that begins with 'H', but I will refrain from saying it, as you will no doubt say I'm insulting you again. [[User:Urushnor2\|Urushnor2]] 15:24, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:50, May 10, 2008
Line 381:		Line 381:

	Well, I have been blocked for 'accusations of lying'. Ironically, that, in itself, is a complete lie. I have no interest in continuing what I regarded as a healthy discussion and exchanging of views with someone who resorts to such tactics. Goodbye. [[User:Urushnor2\|Urushnor2]] 16:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)		Well, I have been blocked for 'accusations of lying'. Ironically, that, in itself, is a complete lie. I have no interest in continuing what I regarded as a healthy discussion and exchanging of views with someone who resorts to such tactics. Goodbye. [[User:Urushnor2\|Urushnor2]] 16:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
−	: You said, "the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.". That is, you were accusing the producers of the video of lying. Admittedly, you were basing your accusation on what someone else has said, but you weren't putting it as a quote or attributing it to someone else, but repeating the accusation yourself. So no, that reason for the block was ''not'' a lie. Secondly, that was only one of the reasons for the block. Why didn't you mention the other? Why misrepresent the reasons for the block by only mentioning one of the reasons? [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)	+	: You said, "the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.". That is, you were accusing the producers of the video of lying. Admittedly, you were basing your accusation on what someone else has said, but you weren't putting it as a quote or attributing it to someone else, but repeating the accusation yourself. So no, that reason for the block was ''not'' a lie. Secondly, that was only one of the reasons for the block. Why didn't you mention the other? Why misrepresent the reasons for the block by only mentioning one of the reasons? [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)<!-- Message to Kels: Urushnor2 is /not/ blocked, and Urushnor's block--not the one I applied--will expire in a few days. -->

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:20, May 10, 2008
Line 381:		Line 381:

	Well, I have been blocked for 'accusations of lying'. Ironically, that, in itself, is a complete lie. I have no interest in continuing what I regarded as a healthy discussion and exchanging of views with someone who resorts to such tactics. Goodbye. [[User:Urushnor2\|Urushnor2]] 16:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)		Well, I have been blocked for 'accusations of lying'. Ironically, that, in itself, is a complete lie. I have no interest in continuing what I regarded as a healthy discussion and exchanging of views with someone who resorts to such tactics. Goodbye. [[User:Urushnor2\|Urushnor2]] 16:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
		+	: You said, "the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.". That is, you were accusing the producers of the video of lying. Admittedly, you were basing your accusation on what someone else has said, but you weren't putting it as a quote or attributing it to someone else, but repeating the accusation yourself. So no, that reason for the block was ''not'' a lie. Secondly, that was only one of the reasons for the block. Why didn't you mention the other? Why misrepresent the reasons for the block by only mentioning one of the reasons? [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:30, May 1, 2008
Line 377:		Line 377:
	::::::: No, it's not a claim of incredulity. The ripples do not contain a message, because there is no specified complexity, as Conservative mentions. The ripples are the result of natural processes, whereas the information on DNA is not, because the DNA is not arranged by natural laws, but by machines that put it together according to a code. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)		::::::: No, it's not a claim of incredulity. The ripples do not contain a message, because there is no specified complexity, as Conservative mentions. The ripples are the result of natural processes, whereas the information on DNA is not, because the DNA is not arranged by natural laws, but by machines that put it together according to a code. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
	::::::::Actually DNA is a self-assembling molecule, arranged by natural laws. Many common pieces of lab equipment use this fact to replicate, expand and sequence DNA molecules. If you take the four bases, sugars and phosphates and place them in a simple solution they will bind to form a DNA molecule. The reason for this is that the DNA configuration is a lower energy state compared to the individual molecules of the bases, phosphates and sugars. As for information encoded in DNA, well that is another issue.--[[User:Able806\|Able806]] 11:39, 1 May 2008 (EDT)		::::::::Actually DNA is a self-assembling molecule, arranged by natural laws. Many common pieces of lab equipment use this fact to replicate, expand and sequence DNA molecules. If you take the four bases, sugars and phosphates and place them in a simple solution they will bind to form a DNA molecule. The reason for this is that the DNA configuration is a lower energy state compared to the individual molecules of the bases, phosphates and sugars. As for information encoded in DNA, well that is another issue.--[[User:Able806\|Able806]] 11:39, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Ending Debate ==
		+
		+	Well, I have been blocked for 'accusations of lying'. Ironically, that, in itself, is a complete lie. I have no interest in continuing what I regarded as a healthy discussion and exchanging of views with someone who resorts to such tactics. Goodbye. [[User:Urushnor2\|Urushnor2]] 16:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:39, May 1, 2008
Line 376:		Line 376:
	::::::Basically a claim of incredulity. Just because the information in DNA leads to a specific result (the protein and it's properties), is not to say that the drip of water doesn't, it leads to the ripple, which may lead to a number of specific results. The drop is simpler because it cannot replicate itself. Imperfect replication is the key to DNA's success. The selfish gene, it is indeed a truly brilliant theory (though in truth I don't think you could claim it even as a theory, it is simple logic). In short my point with the previous comment was simply to show that just because a system contains information, it most certainly does not mean that system, or information, was made by an intelligence.[[User:Raggs\|Raggs]] 17:31, 30 April 2008 (EDT)		::::::Basically a claim of incredulity. Just because the information in DNA leads to a specific result (the protein and it's properties), is not to say that the drip of water doesn't, it leads to the ripple, which may lead to a number of specific results. The drop is simpler because it cannot replicate itself. Imperfect replication is the key to DNA's success. The selfish gene, it is indeed a truly brilliant theory (though in truth I don't think you could claim it even as a theory, it is simple logic). In short my point with the previous comment was simply to show that just because a system contains information, it most certainly does not mean that system, or information, was made by an intelligence.[[User:Raggs\|Raggs]] 17:31, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
	::::::: No, it's not a claim of incredulity. The ripples do not contain a message, because there is no specified complexity, as Conservative mentions. The ripples are the result of natural processes, whereas the information on DNA is not, because the DNA is not arranged by natural laws, but by machines that put it together according to a code. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)		::::::: No, it's not a claim of incredulity. The ripples do not contain a message, because there is no specified complexity, as Conservative mentions. The ripples are the result of natural processes, whereas the information on DNA is not, because the DNA is not arranged by natural laws, but by machines that put it together according to a code. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
		+	::::::::Actually DNA is a self-assembling molecule, arranged by natural laws. Many common pieces of lab equipment use this fact to replicate, expand and sequence DNA molecules. If you take the four bases, sugars and phosphates and place them in a simple solution they will bind to form a DNA molecule. The reason for this is that the DNA configuration is a lower energy state compared to the individual molecules of the bases, phosphates and sugars. As for information encoded in DNA, well that is another issue.--[[User:Able806\|Able806]] 11:39, 1 May 2008 (EDT)