People reject evolution

The last one got me sending checks to NARAL. Maybe more will do the same next time.

do the bit with "adjust your beliefs accordingly"

don't worry its only funny when its not your belief

If any lesson can be learned from Karl Rove and his political strategies, its that an opponent is most easily neutralized by making their position seem ridiculous. Ulrika has achieved this to stunning effect on the topic of evolution with her Kevn alt. *bravo* I applaud you.

its not a powerstruggle, "neatralizing the other side" only polarizes people even more. You should try something a little more oh I don't know respectful and try using empirical reasoning to make your points instead of making people angry. Angry people don't want to listen they just want to retaliate against their opponents. I don't think she deserves applause for this. In fact I think Ulrika is just as bad as her Kevn alt in this regard. Instead of just accepting that people might have different belief than her, she insists on trying to piss people of by making such inflammatory statements as

Tell me, what good does that do when you are trying to convince christians that evolution is true. All that is going to do is destroy your efforts by making the otherside angry. Instead of trying to convince people that they are categorically wrong, why not just let them continue to believe in God. It makes them happy, why does it bother you? No don't worry its ok to applaud intolerance.

Is Ulrika bi-polar?

This thread makes me sad. Why have you rejected me?

because you are the red headed stepchild

No fair coming back when i'm off the clock, slinky!



we can play more tomorrow!

Actually the foul here is when you suggest that you are right because a poll says the majority of the people polled agree with you. If that were the case, then the earth used to be flat until we voted it round.

Uh, no. Sorry. There are no scientific facts. The definition above is not the definition of the word "fact." All scientific data, unlike religious doctrine, is subject to revision and correction as the evidence arises.

"True" science? Actually, current scientific thought postulates that life arose from nonliving matter. That is what science says today. I don't know where you get your "true" science, but it's obviously not from a science text book.

That is by far the most ignorant thing you have ever written about evolution. And that's really saying something. Where on earth did you get this idea? "It changes by losing data"? Natural selection comes about because of random mutations. Mutations are not losses of "data". Mutations are when the "data" is changed, not lost. How could you even suggest that DNA is lost? Like a species slowly loses all its DNA? Do you even think about the stuff you post?

A plain? Like the Great Plains? How is it that Kevn is so informed on what other people in the forums can or cannot conceive of?

So, Kevn, give us some proof of this plane. Show us some proof that there are "creatures" that exist in another "plane." Of course that would entail defining what a "plane" is. Showing evidence that other "planes" exist. And then showing evidence that there are living beings in those "planes."

So, just a little evidence for your hypothesis. Can you give us any?

Untestable metaphysical speculation combined with a misspelling? It's one step short of having the word "Moron" tattooed on one's head. Absolutely priceless.

~Ulrika~

You know that the unnecessary hyphenation of Latin prefixes makes me loco, ese.

~Ulrika~

Lets put the whole "god does not exist" thing on hold here, that was a running joke going back to a series of threads in which Kevn tried to scientifically show the exisitance of god.

However, the creationist vs. evolution "debate" is not a debate over two logical choices, its a political-religous attack on science. The religious aspect is something you really can't touch, but the poltical aspect is important and is a place where such tactics are valid. Despite the logical flaw of using an opinion poll to support a position in a "debate", that is really what the goal is: to win popular political support for the idea.

What we have is:
Creationism in all its various forms is religion based -- any non-religious version can be shown to be invalid very quickly
Creationism fails at being science -- the best it can do is show the uncertainties that the scientific method has as a matter of course. This may shock those who don't understand science, but it doesn't make Creationism any more valid.
Creationism is politics -- This is really the whole reason that this topic is so heated and the reason that exposing the logical flaws in the Creationist argument, such as has been done in this thread is a worthwhile exercise.

hence the applause
(oh and the "Kevn is Urika's alt" is a running joke too)

they may be valid tactics, but they are not effective, all they have accomplished is polarizing people into their respective camps. The evolution/creationist theory is not what I was getting at. I was trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to explain why these tactics are not as effective as you think. These haven't won "popular support" all it has done is made people angry and irritated, and we all know angry and irritated is not conductive to reasoning and understanding. You view these as a means to an end, but the "means" are what is flawed just as much as the creationist position.

P.S. I know it is a running joke

When DNA mutates, it generally loses information. The mutation that makes Strep pneumo resistant to penicillins is the loss of a protein (called, in the usual utilitarian manner, penicillin-binding-protein).

I have the distinct impression that we're not talking about the same thing. What do you mean when you say "these tactics"? My point was to say that Kevn's ranting and our pointing out the logical flaws in his reasoning drive people away from the creationist viewpoint. Of course I said it in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner.

the Karl Rove tactics you mentioned in your second post is what I am talking about. I hope that helps clear it up. OH and most people are ignoring Kevn and his ideas

Yes, the Kevn's rants are the Karl Rove tactics I'm speaking of.

Then we are discussing the same thing, kinda. You are adding Kevn by name. I am just stating the flaws in the tactics

O.O Okay, That was *not* one of the things in my heaven and earth...or hopefully in any galaxy far, far away.

Yes. And that mutation is useful. It allows the virus to thrive in a human population where antibiotics are used. Just like how rejecting condoms and rational thought helps some human cultures spread like viruses. =)