Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

Do animals think?
I have not come across any evidence that they have thoughts like humans do - they just react.

Some birdss and some squirrels can solve quite complex problems in order to get a titbit.
You do not know what other human thoughts are like. You assume they are like yours.
I am pretty sure my thoughts are nothing like yours as your thoughts seem child-like are more simplistic than mine.

[Leonard James]

Exactly right yes.
It did so as eyesight was advantageous to its survival.
We evolved differently for ours but we have evolved more.
More than what would be the question

NS will have an apoplectic fit when he reads that! 

[BeRational]

NS will have an apoplectic fit when he reads that! 

Wondered what you meant, then spotted my typo.

Corrected now thanks.

I did NOT mean to say we had evolved more, but ask it as a rhetorical question.

[Leonard James]

Wondered what you meant, then spotted my typo.

Corrected now thanks.

I did NOT mean to say we had evolved more, but ask it as a rhetorical question.

I think we all know what we mean, and it's much ado about nothing.

[torridon]

The brain alone is quite capable of producing any of the reactions we see in animal behaviour.

I am looking out of my window now at a flower in the garden.  Is it my brain that is experiencing sight, or is it my soul ?

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know, but although he is better informed than either you or I on the subject of evolution, I think he is too keen on pointing it out sometimes. 

You have expressed approval in the past when people have continually pointed out theist misunderstandings of evolution, why am I then being 'too keen' in pointing out Floo's?

[floo]

Ah, but chimps can't employ the scientific method .... wait a minute, on second thoughts .... there are some Christians like that.

 

[floo]

You have expressed approval in the past when people have continually pointed out theist misunderstandings of evolution, why am I then being 'too keen' in pointing out Floo's?

Well let us have chapter and verse of your scientific qualifications on the subject of evolution, and then we can bow to your superior knowledge.

[Nearly Sane]

Well let us have chapter and verse of your scientific qualifications on the subject of evolution, and then we can bow to your superior knowledge.

Which again is not something you ask for when the misunderstandings of evolution are pointed out by others to, for example, Sassy. Why the double standards?

[floo]

Which again is not something you ask for when the misunderstandings of evolution are pointed out by others to, for example, Sassy. Why the double standards?

Oh come on, no one with half a brain takes anything Sass says seriously. I was paying you a compliment if you but knew it!

[Leonard James]

You have expressed approval in the past when people have continually pointed out theist misunderstandings of evolution, why am I then being 'too keen' in pointing out Floo's?

Because I think she simply worded her post in a way that could give the wrong impression of what she was saying.

[Dicky Underpants]

Well let us have chapter and verse of your scientific qualifications on the subject of evolution, and then we can bow to your superior knowledge.

I don't know how tongue in cheek your comment is, but could you name a few peer-reviewed books you've read on the subject of evolution in recent years?

[floo]

I don't know how tongue in cheek your comment is, but could you name a few peer-reviewed books you've read on the subject of evolution in recent years?

I don't claim to be any expert on the topic of evolution. All I asked of NS was to explain where I had gone wrong, and his qualifications for correcting me. I think that was fair enough.

[Dicky Underpants]

I don't claim to be any expert on the topic of evolution. All I asked of NS was to explain where I had gone wrong, and his qualifications for correcting me. I think that was fair enough.

I do know he's well-informed, since he's cited various books on evolution that I've read, and made insightful comments about them (especially the writings of Stephen J Gould) He is also familiar with the work of Superdick Dawkins - (but that's not unusual).

[Nearly Sane]

I don't claim to be any expert on the topic of evolution. All I asked of NS was to explain where I had gone wrong, and his qualifications for correcting me. I think that was fair enough.

No, you didn’t ask about why you were wrong, and the specific issue of you thinking that things are more evolved has been covered before, specifically the last time you made such a comment.


Again, you don't ask for qualifications when people pick up Sriram, Sassy or Hope on misunderstandings of evolution, I have no ide why you would do in your case. It reminds of BA who used to ask for qualifications when he trotted out his assertions.

[jeremyp]

I do know he's well-informed, since he's cited various books on evolution that I've read

So the definition of "well informed" is "read the same books as Dicky U"? 

[floo]

No, you didn’t ask about why you were wrong, and the specific issue of you thinking that things are more evolved has been covered before, specifically the last time you made such a comment.


Again, you don't ask for qualifications when people pick up Sriram, Sassy or Hope on misunderstandings of evolution, I have no ide why you would do in your case. It reminds of BA who used to ask for qualifications when he trotted out his assertions.

I suspect you are a bit of a pedant. But as I am still unaware of exactly what I have done wrong, which you haven't properly explained, I will no doubt continue to make the same 'mistake'.

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect you are a bit of a pedant. But as I am still unaware of exactly what I have done wrong, which you haven't properly explained, I will no doubt continue to make the same 'mistake'.

If pointing out the inaccuracy of a claim to have asked for something to be explained makes me a pedant, then I am happy to be one. Further, as pointed out, we have already had the discussion about your error on a previous thread, but you ignore that point, just as you have ignored the previous discussion, and just as you ignore it every time when your misuse of liar that you trot out every couple of weeks.


Your current error is that it makes no sense to describe a species as more evolved since evolution does not have a set path that would allow that description. Further since evolution is defined as the change in alleles over time, then humans in that sense change slower than bacteria. That doesn't mean that they are 'more evolved' either just illustrates the issue of what evolution is.

That many people will take the position that Sassy is wrong, isn't a justification that you want a citation of qualifications when you are challenged but don't think it should apply when Sassy is.
 That's simple double standards.

[ippy]

If pointing out the inaccuracy of a claim to have asked for something to be explained makes me a pedant, then I am happy to be one. Further, as pointed out, he have already had the discussion about your error on a previous thread, but you ignore that point, just as you have ignored the previous discussion, and just as you ignore it every time when your misuse of liar that you trot out every couple of weeks.


Your current error is that it makes no sense to describe a species as more evolved since evolution does not have a set path that would allow that description. Further since evolution is defined as the change in alleles over time, then humans in that sense change slower than bacteria. That doesn't mean that they are 'more evolved' either just illustrates the issue of what evolution is.

That many people will take the position that Sassy is wrong, isn't a justification that you want a citation of qualifications when you are challenged but don't think it should apply when Sassy is.
 That's simple double standards.

Perhaps we should all put our posts past you before we put them out for general reading on the forum just in case there's a comma or a full stop out of place.

The fact we don't all use exactly similar terms when we write is overcome by most of people that recognise these slight errors but still have the ability to easily understand the intended meaning of whoever wrote the post; why the need to be so picky of people that are writing to this forum and not trying to set out important legal documents. 

Even then the larger amount of us are still able to know when we need the use of a professional with important documents etc, just in case.

I can understand picking at people that have a history of picking on others.

No matter how good your written English is N S, you will make a mistake sometime or another, someone will pick it up N S, I like to see that kind of thing happen from time to time, none of us are bullet proof.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps we should all put our posts past you before we put them out for general reading on the forum just in case there's a comma or a full stop out of place.

The fact we don't all use exactly similar terms when we write is overcome by most of people that recognise these slight errors but still have the ability to easily understand the intended meaning of whoever wrote the post; why the need to be so picky of people that are writing to this forum and not trying to set out important legal documents. 

Even then the larger amount of us are still able to know when we need the use of a professional with important documents etc, just in case.

I can understand picking at people that have a history of picking on others.

No matter how good your written English is N S, you will make a mistake sometime or another, someone will pick it up N S, I like to see that kind of thing happen from time to time, none of us are bullet proof.

ippy

Except this isn't about English, it's about a basic misunderstanding of evolution. It's the sort of stuff that you don't criticise people for when they pick up Sriram or Sassy for but you want to ignore non theists when they get it wrong. Tedious tribal double standards

[ippy]

Except this isn't about English, it's about a basic misunderstanding of evolution. It's the sort of stuff that you don't criticise people for when they pick up Sriram or Sassy for but you want to ignore non theists when they get it wrong. Tedious tribal double standards

 "criticise people for when they pick up Sriram or Sassy for but you want to ignore non theists when they get it wrong. Tedious tribal double standards".

You're having another pick but going by the context I think you've got the wrong person this time.

I would explain but I may well put yet another comma in the wrong place, you know, I'm a devil for doing that.

There's nothing we discuss here on this forum where our views on their own are of world shattering importance so take it easy N S, just be a little more laid back, we've all got something we do wrong, the pillock I make of myself with howlers of spelling mistakes, have a good day N S.

I enjoy most of your posts and I suppose all of us should be as accurate as we can.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

"criticise people for when they pick up Sriram or Sassy for but you want to ignore non theists when they get it wrong. Tedious tribal double standards".

You're having another pick but going by the context I think you've got the wrong person this time.

I would explain but I may well put yet another comma in the wrong place, you know, I'm a devil for doing that.

There's nothing we discuss here on this forum where our views on their own are of world shattering importance so take it easy N S, just be a little more laid back, we've all got something we do wrong, the pillock I make of myself with howlers of spelling mistakes, have a good day N S.

I enjoy most of your posts and I suppose all of us should be as accurate as we can.

ippy

I didn't pick anyone up about their spelling, and given this is the second time picking you up on the misrepresenting what I was saying, I will point out that you are lying, being stupid, or wumming.

Whatever of the three, you are happy to promote double standards because you don't say anything similar about criticisms about theists.

[ippy]

I didn't pick anyone up about their spelling, and given this is the second time picking you up on the misrepresenting what I was saying, I will point out that you are lying, being stupid, or wumming.

Whatever of the three, you are happy to promote double standards because you don't say anything similar about criticisms about theists.

My post would be like that to you, perhaps next time I post I'll put it all in a P M to you first so that you can edit and make whatever you will from my post and the I can submit my revised post to the forum confident in knowing I haven't broken any of your rules.

I don't recognise your critique of my former post, wish I did, I have no idea whatever it is you're rambling on about, it looks to me that you've lost control of that Arch Mr Pick that resides inside your head.

I genuinely have no idea, as I have said, what you're on about?

ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

If pointing out the inaccuracy of a claim to have asked for something to be explained makes me a pedant, then I am happy to be one. Further, as pointed out, we have already had the discussion about your error on a previous thread, but you ignore that point, just as you have ignored the previous discussion, and just as you ignore it every time when your misuse of liar that you trot out every couple of weeks.

Hello Nearly Sane

The thing that puzzled me about this matter is why Floo should have such a remarkable degree of brass neck in challenging you over it.. It's pretty clear that Floo knows bugger all about evolutionary theory (other than believing it to be true because 'scientists' say it is, and biblical creationism is obviously nonsense). She has neither qualifications nor has apparently read any of the well-known big names who have written on the subject of evolution - on her own admission, the only book she ever reads is the Bible - and that for the peculiar reason of simply finding new things in it to demonstrate how evil God is.
So why has she been so concerned with getting you to demonstrate that you are in any position to make statements about evolution?  I suspect it boils down to merely personal feelings. You did not only try to explain why her understanding of the matter under discussion was flawed - you had the temerity to point out the same thing to her hero Leonard, on whose coat-tails she's been hanging for quite a number of years. Now Leonard is quite a hero of mine too - ever since I've known him over the Internet, he's come across as a highly intelligent, warm-hearted man and a true gentleman (I've never had cause to change my opinion on this). He's also well-read on the subject of evolution. That doesn't make him infallible - and on the point in question, I believe that you have expressed the truth of the matter, and Leonard (and certainly Floo) are in error.

[Dicky Underpants]

So the definition of "well informed" is "read the same books as Dicky U"? 

In similar vein, I'd say the same thing about you, Jeremy . However, the way I phrased it comes across as bloody pompous. Nonetheless, there are some well-known big names out there who have written on evolutionary theory whose books I'd expect to be familiar to anyone who is prepared to challenge another poster as 'not being qualified enough' (Dawkins, Gould, Steve Jones, Wolpert, Dennett, the Leakeys, even Bristol's own Prof. Alice Roberts on human evolution) . . Floo has admitted that the only book she reads is the Bible - in order to find fault with it so why does she stick her neck out on something about which she knows bugger all?