FlytrapCare Carnivorous Plant Forums

Sponsored by

Discuss carnivorous plant books here

Moderator: Matt

User avatar
By roarke
Posts:  2388
Joined:  Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:11 am
bigbowlowrong wrote:Again, I wasn't being purposely offensive. If people insist on reading it that way, that's their business. As always I'm happy to debate and defend any aspect of any of my posts.

Seriously, in a topic about Charles Darwin there is always gonna be posts about evolution and religion. I would suggest if these topics are too hot for some that a) discussion of Charles Darwin be banned or b) people who might be offended by discussion of Darwin avert their eyes.

Go back and read my first post in this thread. About 80% of it is simply encouraging people to read Darwin's catalogue - something DIRECTLY related to the thread topic. Now because someone has decided the other 20% kinda sorta offended them this has gone wayyyyy off topic which is a damn shame.

So yeah. Read Darwin.:3
You repeat your words and thus, psychologically, clearly don't respect other person idea and what about respecting the following forum rules :
2. Personal attacks, rudeness, "flame wars", and insults to others will not be tolerated. It is acceptable to challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully. Any member who threatens anyone on the forum, via private message, email, or other means will be banned immediately and without notice. ... 18725.html
roarke, roarke, roarke liked this
By sbrooks
Posts:  748
Joined:  Tue May 22, 2012 3:33 pm
bigbowlowrong wrote:This is the internet, strong opinion abounds.
This is Matt's website. On here, he is God. He sets the rules.
bigbowlowrong wrote:As always I'm happy to debate and defend any aspect of any of my posts.
bigbowlowrong wrote: Some people disagree. That is their prerogative. Let them debate it out like adults.
You've already admitted on the ghost thread to having a closed mind. How then would such a debate be fair? You're also incapable of having a post lately, especially in your alleged debates, that some aren't interpreting as offensive. No one attacked Fatty Tuna's post. Droseracloner didn't throw out any veiled insults, did he? Search Darwin on this site. I'll bet that you'll find very few people taking offense to the subject of Darwin. It's your obvious underlying tone that is getting called out. It's you, dude. Look in the mirror.
If you want to debate God and Christianity and evolution and ghosts, there are plenty of websites you can do this on. I'm sure they will absorb all of the evidence that you have presented us so far, and convert to whatever it is you are. Or have you already been banned from them?
On this site, such a debate would only turn more heated, and offensive, certainly from the religious side, whereas non-believers quickly start accusing the believers of forcing their agenda/beliefs down their throat. That's why such sensitive manners should probably be avoided. No one is going to change anyone's mind, either. Same goes for politics and abortion.
This website is dedicated to people who love CPs. Sure there is plenty of room to discuss other issues. But first you have to learn how to do it in a friendly manner. And you can't be admittedly closed-minded. Otherwise, what's the point?
Last edited by sbrooks on Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sbrooks, sbrooks liked this
User avatar
By Matt
Posts:  22479
Joined:  Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:28 pm
bigbowlowrong wrote:Matt, as I clearly stated in my post I was comparing the figures mentioned vis a vis their impact on the understanding of the world around us. As I'm sure you would agree, both religion and science claim to impact that. Therefore comparing a scientist (Darwin) to a religious figure (Jesus etc) was 100% legitimate in that context.
I agree. And I wasn't questioning the legitimacy of the comparison as much as I was stating that it was an odd choice and seemed to be intended to offend. There were many other ways to go with the statement in question that would have been far less likely to offend.
bigbowlowrong wrote:So yeah, still don't see how I was being offensive unless that is people are actively looking to be offended.
Seriously? Do you entirely lack all sense of empathy?
bigbowlowrong wrote:And don't call me a troll. Trolls post things they don't necessarily believe JUST to irritate people. The posts to which you refer are my genuinely held opinions. There is a big difference.
That is true. I apologize if I am reading you wrong here, but it seems that some of your posts were at least half-hearted attempts at trolling (mixing statements intended to incite with other things that contribute).
Matt, Matt liked this
By sbrooks
Posts:  748
Joined:  Tue May 22, 2012 3:33 pm
I edited a part of my last post, after a while I realized that I in turn was being a bit offensive. I apologize for that.
By plantman1001
Posts:  445
Joined:  Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:55 am
Yeah. Like the THEORY of gravity. And the germ THEORY of disease. And the water cycle THEORY. Lots of things we think of as fact are labelled theory by the scientific community.

Is gravity "only" a theory too?
I don't believe that things like gravity, the germ THEORY of disease, And the water cycle THEORY are theory's because there is observable evidence.

In my option, I think you are looking for a fight.
By bigbowlowrong
Posts:  84
Joined:  Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:20 am
Well plantman, in the scientific community the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity are equally regarded. The lay public simply has a different conception of the noun "theory" than scientists do and this is the cause of much confusion.

In science, for an idea to become an accepted theory it has to be testable, falsifiable, explain known facts and make accurate predictions. Both gravity and evolution easily meet these tests.

In the public domain, people think the word theory just means any old idea. This couldn't be further from the truth in this context. In science, there's no such thing as "just" or "only" a theory... they're the pinnacle of the scientific method.
By plantman1001
Posts:  445
Joined:  Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:55 am
Well..... the so called lay public are right as well:
This is from

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
notice it says , COMMONLY REGUARDED AS CORRECT in the sentence.

SO with that being said, not all theory's are correct, and gravity and evolution may not meet these so called tests.

SO with that being said, if a theory dose not add up and people still believe it then what does that make it?(a false idea?)

With that being said, I would almost think that a theory could be any old idea.

By bigbowlowrong
Posts:  84
Joined:  Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:20 am
I know there are conflicting definitions of the word theory, that is what my entire post was about. When scientists label an idea a theory, it means much more than a possible explanation. Dismissing it, therefore, as "just" a theory shows a lack of understanding in scientific nomenclature. Which I suppose is fair enough.

Anyhoo, you're being slightly vague. I get the impression you are sceptical of evolution. Any part in particular you doubt? :)
Last edited by bigbowlowrong on Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
By sbrooks
Posts:  748
Joined:  Tue May 22, 2012 3:33 pm
bigbowlowrong wrote:I get the impression you are sceptical of evolution. Any part in particular you doubt?
Yes. 8-)
sbrooks liked this
By sbrooks
Posts:  748
Joined:  Tue May 22, 2012 3:33 pm
What you're itching for here is to embark on an endeavor that will go on indefinitely, and change no one's mind. Being fresh out of LIberal Think Tank University, and armed to the teeth with this arsenal of knowledge to destroy the Old World Bumpkin Mindset, I'll ask again why you are choosing such a small fish tank to do battle? Surely there is an endless array of Creationist websites where you could retrain multiple minds at once with this great new knowledge you have gained about the universe, no?
Charles Darwin truly was a great man. Since his death, The Powers That Be have seen the power of his message (see Third Reich) and how they can use it to their advantage if they can convince the general public that all the smart people in the world have already proven evolution to be true. There are MULTITUDES of scientists who have issues with evolution, and many who outright reject it; the general public doesn't hear much about them, but thanks to the internet and printed books, their qualifications and objections can be easily found by anyone who HAS AN OPEN MIND and wishes to pursue the Other Perspective.
So what happens is many who have accepted evolution use the observation method to determine that evolution is a fact. They observe that the vast majority of scientists accept it, so therefore it is proven true. When they hear that many scientists reject it, they assume that these scientists are just nuts, based on the fact that they are in the minority.
Let's hear what problems Chucky D. himself had with his THEORY:
"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, FATAL TO THE THEORY.

These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads: First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some other animal with widely different habits and structure? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to the instinct which leads the bee to make cells, and which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?

Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?"

Toward the end of his life, Darwin openly admitted: “Not one change of species into another is on record…. We cannot prove that a single species has changed into another.”

Of course several "missing links" were discovered in recent years; all turned out to be hoaxes by desperate scientists hoping to be the one to finally solve Darwin's dilemma and "discover' a missing link.

Microevolution abounds. Macroevolution has never been observed or proven.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also a major problem for evolutionists.

Countless natural systems could not possibly have been going at anywhere near their present rate if the earth was even close to as old as evolutionists claim: the levels of helium in the atmosphere, the amount of meteoric dust on the Earth, flux of chemical elements from rivers to oceans, rate at which various elements leach out of the continents, decay of Earth's magnetic field, solar system dust, population size, the amount of top soil, amount of sediment in the ocean, influx of radio-carbon into the Earth's system, recession rate of the moon, decay rate of comets, the size that the sun would have to have been billions of years ago, I could go on and on, and on........

For those who care to take perhaps their first look ever at the creationist perspective, I suggest "A Scientific Analysis of Genesis" by Edward F. Blick; "Starlight and Time", by D. Russell Humphreys; "Scientific Creationism", by Henry Morris; and "The Collapse of Evolution", by Scott Muse.

Of course, an open mind is required to read any of these books.

Now one may be inclined to pick and choose a small segment or two from above and pick it apart, and perhaps even be successful. But one would be completely overwhelmed if he/she were to endeavor to tackle all of the above issues, keeping in mind that the above list is greatly shortened by time constraints. So I would assume that the tactical response would probably be a lump dismissal/discreditng of the creationist viewpoint and all who hold it. And that such a lump dismissal would be based off of the viewpoint that they hold, and not the matters in question themselves. But I guess I'll see....................... ;)
sbrooks, sbrooks liked this
By bigbowlowrong
Posts:  84
Joined:  Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:20 am
Oh don't you worry, you will have a very thorough and cited rebuttal coming your way. I may dedicate my lunch break (from indoctrinating my country's youth into godless communism*) tomorrow to it, in fact. That said, some of your points are widely-repeated snippets of nonsense, particularly the thermodynamics one. Still, for the sake of completeness, I'll address it.

But as an entree, that quote of Darwin you highlighted in your post is him saying there are no challenges to his theory (apparent or real) that are fatal to it. I think you misread what he was saying. Seriously, read it again. Slowly.

By sbrooks
Posts:  748
Joined:  Tue May 22, 2012 3:33 pm
bigbowlowrong wrote:that quote of Darwin you highlighted in your post is him saying there are no challenges to his theory (apparent or real) that are fatal to it. I think you misread what he was saying. Seriously, read it again. Slowly.
I read it again. It still says the same thing. I have no doubt that in Evolutionary Psychology, excuses abound. Even if Darwin meant it differently from what he appears to be saying, I am unaware as to where he solved all of the blatant dilemmas that he brought up. Perhaps later in his work, he discovers the transitional forms, but keeps them hidden from us for some reason?
sbrooks wrote:Toward the end of his life, Darwin openly admitted: “Not one change of species into another is on record…. We cannot prove that a single species has changed into another.”

Was this taken out of context, too? I guess considering how badly people have "reinterpreted" The Bible to fit their beliefs, it shouldn't be too surprising to see desperate evolutionists do the same to make Darwin appear as if he accepted his theories as fact as well.

Don't skip lunch all together over this, now. You're going to need your strength if you want to keep evolving...... 8-)

Also interesting that you won't answer why you want to take this battle to this website, instead of where many more Creationists and God people can be found. I think I know the answer, though.......
sbrooks liked this
By bigbowlowrong
Posts:  84
Joined:  Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:20 am
Mate, I didn't say you took him out of context. I said you misread the quote to mean the diametric opposite of what he was saying.

You thought he was admitting there were fatal flaws to his theory when he is in fact saying he had considered potential objections and dismissed them after careful thought. It fills me with dread we're debating a fairly simple paragraph when what he was saying is as clear as day. If English is your first language, anyway

Look again at the last phrase of the last sentence: "...and those that are real [objections] are NOT, I think, FATAL TO THE THEORY."

Emphasis and clarification mine, case closed.

He later dedicates several chapters of Origins to these very objections - some of which, bizarrely, are still brought up today as if they werent debunked by the man himself! Talk about redundant!

You give me the painful impression you haven't read Origins. Which explains a lot.

Until tomorrow!
Sandtastik Play Sand

Is there an example of sand that isn't safe for […]

Personal Memes

I can’t help but keep vandalizing this one p[…]

Plastic cup from Wallyworld

Yep, gotta drill'em in the sides. I grow vegetabl[…]

Well, hey. At least something’s growing. I c[…]

Excess tubers

I've known Jim Beam and he was kind of mind alte[…]

That sounds sensible, cutting the sphagnum moss up[…]

Lookin for N.Appendiculata

I only know of one person who currently grows it ([…]

I think the seeds may be a bit charred from the af[…]

Support the community - Shop at!