Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 A disturbing trend, 'er no?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 17

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24978 Posts

Posted - 02/19/2012 :  21:44:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

So you did not read the links I provide to help you understand what all those models mentioned are and how they are used in the labs and tested with computer simulations.
You haven't demonstrated that you understand that Axe didn't run any computer simulations for the paper in question. He would have discussed the results if he had done so.
They are all mathematical models built on existing knowledge of the dynamics in each field it is applied to.
Duh.
Making statements like model does not mean computer simulation just shows you have never been to a molecular biology/chemistry facility or seen how scientific algorithms are developed and used in computer generated analysis.
And making that statement means you're just using big words to try to sound smart, and failing. A model is not a simulation. E=mc2 is a model. Running a computer simulation of Special Relativity based on that model is something entirely different. That you don't know this means you're just talking out your ass.
And obviously the papers I provided as links to help you were beyond your comprehension.
No, they're obviously beyond yours, since you don't grok the difference between stochastic migration and stochastic tunneling.
But you are a skeptic...
And you're a religious nut.
...why should we expect more.
We don't expect more from you.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/20/2012 :  04:17:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Axe wrote:
This study provides a mathematical framework for interpreting experiments of that kind, more of which will needed before the limits to functional divergence become clear.


That is in the first paragraph of Axe's introduction. Note mathematical framework.

Axe wrote: Assessing Lynch and Abegg’s treatment of the neutral case.


Axe was analysing Lynch's work.

Axe wrote: Modeling complex adaptation in large structured
populations
Approach. Turning now to the problem of deriving a satisfactory expression for the overall time for appearance and fixation
of an arbitrarily complex adaptation, we begin by considering appropriate ways to define the problem. In the first place, since
our primary interest is to place reliable limits on what is evolutionarily evolutionarily feasible, we will focus on the kinds of populations that are most apt to produce complex adaptations, by which we mean those providing the most opportunities for chance events to accomplish something of significance. In this regard, bigger populations are definitely better. We will therefore consider a global bacterial population where the effective population size may be on the order of 109, which is much higher than estimated sizes formore complex forms of life.


As you can see Axe actually used a higher population size. He was aware and used a larger size bigger populations are definitely better

Axe use of Maruyama and Kimura's island model where severe bottlenecks have already been proven incompatible with the findings. Most of the criticism of Axe's use of methodology are issues that were raised with the island model and explained. away. That is why Axe's work has not been peer criticized. Island model and stochastic tunneling are the accepted standards. They are often used and form the basis for the modeling and statistical calculation since they are standard approved templates.

You cannot even get past Axe's introductory. Have no idea of mathematical modeling. Criticizing Axe's work without understanding how the models he used were developed, and what they deal with, and why they have to be modified to fit the subject under consideration, is just pure DaveW like.

What surprises me is you list software developer in your profile and yet you have the foggiest clue about modeling software used in scientific(biology/chemistry), engineering, etc. So what are you? A web developer. You couldn't possibly develop software in the advance fields without a foundation in academics.

Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/20/2012 04:29:26
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24978 Posts

Posted - 02/20/2012 :  08:54:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

Note mathematical framework.
Note that math has existed for far longer than have computers. A mathematical framework (or model) is not a computer simulation.
Axe wrote: Assessing Lynch and Abegg’s treatment of the neutral case.
Axe was analysing Lynch's work.
In the first section of Axe's paper. In the latter section, Axe presents his own model, which he claimed to be more "realistic" than Lynch and Abegg's.
Axe wrote: Modeling complex adaptation in large structured
populations
Approach. Turning now to the problem of deriving a satisfactory expression for the overall time for appearance and fixation
of an arbitrarily complex adaptation, we begin by considering appropriate ways to define the problem. In the first place, since
our primary interest is to place reliable limits on what is evolutionarily evolutionarily feasible, we will focus on the kinds of populations that are most apt to produce complex adaptations, by which we mean those providing the most opportunities for chance events to accomplish something of significance. In this regard, bigger populations are definitely better. We will therefore consider a global bacterial population where the effective population size may be on the order of 109, which is much higher than estimated sizes formore complex forms of life.
As you can see Axe actually used a higher population size. He was aware and used a larger size bigger populations are definitely better
Lynch and Abegg considered populations up to 100 times larger than Axe's. If bigger is better, why didn't Axe use a population of 1025 (the number of E. coli in human guts) or even more? Why did he use a population of only one billion?
Axe use of Maruyama and Kimura's island model where severe bottlenecks have already been proven incompatible with the findings.
That sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. To which findings are you referring?
Most of the criticism of Axe's use of methodology are issues that were raised with the island model and explained. away.
Provide evidence to support this contention.
That is why Axe's work has not been peer criticized. Island model and stochastic tunneling are the accepted standards. They are often used and form the basis for the modeling and statistical calculation since they are standard approved templates.
And nobody, not even me, is criticizing Axe for using an island model and stochastic tunneling. I'm criticizing him for using the wrong island model and setting it up in such a way as to defeat stochastic tunneling. That was Axe's whole conclusion: that stochastic tunneling cannot be responsible for the evolutionary creation of complex adaptations from neutral mutations within a "reasonable" (his word) time-frame. But he created an island model in which stochastic tunneling won't occur, and instead only sequential fixation can provide evolutionary change, but we already know from Lynch and Abegg that sequential fixation only works well in small populations of less than 105 or so individuals (a conclusion that Axe did not even attempt to refute). So yeah, Axe created an island model and then either deliberately or ignorantly hamstrung it so that it could only produce the results that he wanted to see.
You cannot even get past Axe's introductory.
No, it is apparently you who can't get past the introduction and read what Axe did in detail. Hell, you can't even figure out what my criticisms of Axe really are, since you're arguing for things I haven't criticized.
Have no idea of mathematical modeling.
I've done more mathematical modeling than you, that's for sure.
Criticizing Axe's work without understanding how the models he used were developed, and what they deal with, and why they have to be modified to fit the subject under consideration, is just pure DaveW like.
I read Axe's description of his model, and it's clear that Axe used a modified island model with simplified assumptions to make the equations easier to deal with. Those assumptions also ensured that the model could only possibly show what Axe wanted it to show, which is how pseudoscience works in general.
What surprises me is you list software developer in your profile and yet you have the foggiest clue about modeling software used in scientific(biology/chemistry), engineering, etc. So what are you? A web developer. You couldn't possibly develop software in the advance fields without a foundation in academics.
Axe's paper could have been written without the use of any computers, simply by solving the equations he developed by hand (something that people like Einstein did before the advent of cheap and fast computers). So because comprehending Axe's paper requires no knowledge of computer simulation, this personal attack is nothing more than another attempted distraction away from your own failures to understand the subject under discussion. You obviously don't grok my criticisms of Axe's paper, and so you flail about, trying to make it look like I'm criticizing something that you do (barely) understand. It's a pathetic strawman.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/20/2012 :  16:38:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
There is absolutely no evidence nor any peer criticism of Axes work.
Axe stated " I use an explicit model of a structured bacterial population, similar to the island model of Maruyama and Kimura, to
examine the limits on complex adaptations during the evolution of paralogous genes—genes related by duplication
of an ancestral gene."

Axe had to make an explicit model to address known bottlenecks though not sever bottlenecks already expresses in other journals.

I am reviewing a few of your postings in other threads so I can determine your strong resistance to being corrected.
Can you tell me how many active and participating members (posted withing 6 months) you have on this forum and list the admins and moderators engaged in discussions in the last 6 months. What I am trying to analyze is the tremendous pressure you are under to impress and deliver.

I cannot see after reading so many unqualified responses by a few which upon checking are all designated moderators, that this site provides independent critical thinking. Do you have any contributing members who do not have to maintain or support a moderators position. A list of active non administrative participating members should be available. Thanks.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12772 Posts

Posted - 02/20/2012 :  16:57:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
jamalrapper:
I am reviewing a few of your postings in other threads so I can determine your strong resistance to being corrected.


Once again you resort to ad hominem. Can you direct us to any post in this or the other thread you are active on that shows any willingness on your part to being corrected?




Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1862 Posts

Posted - 02/20/2012 :  19:14:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

I cannot see after reading so many unqualified responses by a few which upon checking are all designated moderators, that this site provides independent critical thinking. Do you have any contributing members who do not have to maintain or support a moderators position. A list of active non administrative participating members should be available. Thanks.
You have said nothing to counter the legitimate criticisms. Most of your sources have less than a stellar reputation for honest science reporting. Axe is not doing science, his work has never been replicated, nor published in a credible journal. It is unlikely that a serious scientist will bother refuting the work of a god-bothering hack. You need to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24978 Posts

Posted - 02/20/2012 :  22:57:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

There is absolutely no evidence nor any peer criticism of Axes work.
Once again, you are relying on other people's credentials, instead of original critical thought.
Axe stated " I use an explicit model of a structured bacterial population, similar to the island model of Maruyama and Kimura, to
examine the limits on complex adaptations during the evolution of paralogous genes—genes related by duplication
of an ancestral gene."
And "similar to" does not mean "exactly the same as."
Axe had to make an explicit model to address known bottlenecks though not sever bottlenecks already expresses in other journals.
Axe's bottlenecks were as severe as possible, with a single cell being picked to fill any empty niche. Maruyama and Kimura's island model allowed for multiple cells from different lines filling suddenly empty niches.
I am reviewing a few of your postings in other threads so I can determine your strong resistance to being corrected.
Can you tell me how many active and participating members (posted withing 6 months) you have on this forum and list the admins and moderators engaged in discussions in the last 6 months. What I am trying to analyze is the tremendous pressure you are under to impress and deliver.
Yawn. If you can't find the data you want on your own, I'm going to be less than impressed with your analyzing ability, since it is all readily available to anyone who looks.
I cannot see after reading so many unqualified responses by a few which upon checking are all designated moderators, that this site provides independent critical thinking.
But you are firmly opposed to independent critical thinking, since you insist that a peer of Axe must respond to him, implying that my criticisms aren't good enough (even though you - a peer of mine - are unable to respond to most of them in any substantive way).
Do you have any contributing members who do not have to maintain or support a moderators position. A list of active non administrative participating members should be available.
Why? Because you can't be bothered to determine the difference in the two sets? Do your own homework.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  08:10:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
1. Asking you for a list of active participating members was to determine how many independent critical thinkers actually post on this forum. If you read the post again.

I wrote: Can you tell me how many active and participating members (posted withing 6 months) you have on this forum and list the admins and moderators engaged in discussions in the last 6 months. What I am trying to analyze is the tremendous pressure you are under to impress and deliver.

I cannot see after reading so many unqualified responses by a few which upon checking are all designated moderators, that this site provides independent critical thinking. Do you have any contributing members who do not have to maintain or support a moderators position. A list of active non administrative participating members should be available. Thanks.


It was just a list of participating members not designated as moderators posting here(on this forum) in the last six months including all the threads combined. I don't see a current list of active members maintained but there is one for site staff.

I checked some of the shorter threads and one that appeared extremely long something titled Haircut2. What was strikingly odd about the thread was the number of moderators assigned to the thread. I found what looked like 6 moderators/admins attacking 2 individual members.

It is very unusual on forums to have so many moderators assigned to a thread and then to see 6 of them ganging up on 2 members because they happened to show a superior knowledge about the subject under debate.

There is demonstrable conspiracy and collusion between the moderators to silence free critical thinkers. The math will support my analysis of the situation. But since I don't have a total number of actively participating independent members to compare with the number of banned members for disagreeing with the moderators engaging in the same debate I cannot be exact about the proportionality of abuse and unethical exercise of position to silence/muzzle and dissenting voice or opinion.

It is a shame. Skeptic forums are the avenues to deal with contentious topics. But the highhanded retaliatory actions by the moderators/admins go counter to the noblest of human activity.

I cannot get to the why this forum suffers from such lopsided indiscretions. But their lack of professionalism is a major contributing factor. That happens when you have amateurs trying to a grasp what is way beyond their reach.





Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12772 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  08:59:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
jamalrapper:
It was just a list of participating members not designated as moderators posting here(on this forum) in the last six months including all the threads combined. I don't see a current list of active members maintained but there is one for site staff.

There is a member’s icon you can click on. It would be silly to keep a list of active members. They come and they go. Some have been here for a very long time. Why does it matter?
jamalrapper:
I checked some of the shorter threads and one that appeared extremely long something titled Haircut2. What was strikingly odd about the thread was the number of moderators assigned to the thread. I found what looked like 6 moderators/admins attacking 2 individual members.

Not all our moderators are actively moderating. But even so, those who are moderators obviously spend more time here. Moderators are not assigned to threads. They are assigned to folders. It would be impossible for 6 moderators to be working on a single thread. But because they are moderators of other folders doesn’t mean they can’t post on any thread they want to. They are also members, same as you.
jamalrapper:
It is very unusual on forums to have so many moderators assigned to a thread and then to see 6 of them ganging up on 2 members because they happened to show a superior knowledge about the subject under debate.

I can’t believe that anyone could read the haircut thread and think that MuhammedGoldstein had “superior knowledge” on the subject. At least one of our members arguing with him is a working biologist. He was only banned after he admitted he was a troll. We also had two other trolls in there who are following each other around one internet forum after another. So the debate about phenotypes was irrelevant. They were just trying to make points. It was a crazy thread. And if you are talking about Crux, he was banned for lying about Dave altering threads to make himself look good. Whatever you think of Dave that is not something he or any one of us would do. It was a vicious attack on our ethics, and until he went there, he wasn't in danger of being banned. Come to think of it, you have been accusing us of ethical violations. And you are still here. Think about it, because this sour grapes shit gets old.
jamalrapper:
There is demonstrable conspiracy and collusion between the moderators to silence free critical thinkers. The math will support my analysis of the situation. But since I don't have a total number of actively participating independent members to compare with the number of banned members for disagreeing with the moderators engaging in the same debate I cannot be exact about the proportionality of abuse and unethical exercise of position to silence/muzzle and dissenting voice or opinion.

Nonsense. Sometimes a lot of us disagree with someone because they are wrong. There is no conspiracy and we are very generous about allowing even idiots to make their case. Compare that with Christian forums, or Uncommon Descent. I wrote one polite reply there to ask a question and I was banned and they never allowed my question. It wasn’t posted. That has happened to other members of this forum. Christian forums are notorious for banning anyone who doesn’t agree with whoever is moderating. They prefer preaching to themselves. You are still here. If I made the kind accusations that you have repeatedly made against us on ANY Christian forum, I would have been banned long ago.
jamalrapper:
It is a shame. Skeptic forums are the avenues to deal with contentious topics. But the highhanded retaliatory actions by the moderators/admins go counter to the noblest of human activity.

We are probably the most open skeptic forum on the web. It’s pretty hard to get banned here but we do have our limits. You’re still here, aren’t you? Your accusations are baseless. What you haven’t considered is that everyone disagrees with you because maybe you’re wrong.
jamalrapper:
I cannot get to the why this forum suffers from such lopsided indiscretions. But their lack of professionalism is a major contributing factor. That happens when you have amateurs trying to a grasp what is way beyond their reach.

What is your degree in, again?

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  10:05:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I am not at liberty to disclose the type of work I do, or the academic institution I work for, or any other background information. All I can say is this is a project not related to my profession (which is added here as a disclaimer). I am researching skeptics and their philosophical beliefs, starting from its early history to its current place in modern society. How skeptics can function when many may even doubt the reliability of their own senses.
Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1862 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  10:41:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

I am not at liberty to disclose the type of work I do, or the academic institution I work for, or any other background information. All I can say is this is a project not related to my profession (which is added here as a disclaimer). I am researching skeptics and their philosophical beliefs, starting from its early history to its current place in modern society. How skeptics can function when many may even doubt the reliability of their own senses.
Bull

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24978 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  10:55:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So, you're still avoiding the discussion of substantive issues within the thread, and are intent on personal attacks against the staff. Okay. Let's see how that goes...
Originally posted by jamalrapper

1. Asking you for a list of active participating members was to determine how many independent critical thinkers actually post on this forum. If you read the post again.
I wrote: Can you tell me how many active and participating members (posted withing 6 months) you have on this forum and list the admins and moderators engaged in discussions in the last 6 months. What I am trying to analyze is the tremendous pressure you are under to impress and deliver.

I cannot see after reading so many unqualified responses by a few which upon checking are all designated moderators, that this site provides independent critical thinking. Do you have any contributing members who do not have to maintain or support a moderators position. A list of active non administrative participating members should be available. Thanks.
It was just a list of participating members not designated as moderators posting here(on this forum) in the last six months including all the threads combined. I don't see a current list of active members maintained but there is one for site staff.
You can re-order the member list by last post date.
I checked some of the shorter threads and one that appeared extremely long something titled Haircut2. What was strikingly odd about the thread was the number of moderators assigned to the thread. I found what looked like 6 moderators/admins attacking 2 individual members.

It is very unusual on forums to have so many moderators assigned to a thread and then to see 6 of them ganging up on 2 members because they happened to show a superior knowledge about the subject under debate.
We don't "assign" moderators to threads.
There is demonstrable conspiracy and collusion between the moderators to silence free critical thinkers.
Bwahahahahaha! Yeah, like we have the power to stop them from speaking. Tell me how you think we are able to "silence" them? Preventing them from posting here doesn't mean they can't post anywhere else. Just because they can't be bothered to figure out how to run their own free forums, blogs or websites doesn't mean that we are obligated to provide them with an outlet for whatever nonsense they wish to spew.
The math will support my analysis of the situation.
Yeah, right.
But since I don't have a total number of actively participating independent members to compare with the number of banned members for disagreeing with the moderators engaging in the same debate I cannot be exact about the proportionality of abuse and unethical exercise of position to silence/muzzle and dissenting voice or opinion.
Provide evidence that even a single person has been banned for merely disagreeing with the staff here.

Here's a list of everyone who has been banned in the last six months, and why:
  • justintime - Banned for very nasty sexist comment
  • CRUX - Banned for making and refusing to retract baseless accusations against staff
  • flanagan1000 - Couldn't follow simple instructions
  • aphrodites child - Sockpuppet of flanagan1000
  • three llions - Sockpuppet of flanagan1000
  • Kaka - Sockpuppet of flanagan1000
  • The Great - Sockpuppet of flanagan1000
  • Albijawy - Spammer
  • Weishe - Spammer
  • WestpalmRoofing - Spammer
  • ericjacke - Spammer
  • sign00 - Spammer
  • lemotry - Spammer
  • juhuagood - Spammer
  • selina300 - Spammer
  • zina - Spammer
  • tayllor - Spammer
So we've banned 13 different people in the last six months, out of 97 people who have posted during the same time period. Ten of the 13 were spammers not interested in discussing anything. Zero out of the 13 were banned simply for disagreeing with anyone else here.

Any theory which attempts to explain this as a pattern of oppression of ideas with which we disagree will also have to explain why the following members (just examples) still have posting privileges, even if they don't use them: darwinalogos, Michael Mozina, Bill scott, Robb, verlch, Doomar, Storm, On fire for Christ, KingDavid8, hippy4christ, coberst, byhisgrace88, jamalrapper, teched246, Bibleland and lbiar.
It is a shame. Skeptic forums are the avenues to deal with contentious topics.
And this one is.
But the highhanded retaliatory actions by the moderators/admins go counter to the noblest of human activity.
There have been no "highhanded retaliatory actions by the moderators/admins."

Want to get back to defending ID and Douglas Axe, now? Or are you going to keep goofing off?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15821 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  11:16:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

I am not at liberty to disclose the type of work I do, or the academic institution I work for, or any other background information. All I can say is this is a project not related to my profession (which is added here as a disclaimer). I am researching skeptics and their philosophical beliefs, starting from its early history to its current place in modern society. How skeptics can function when many may even doubt the reliability of their own senses.
Yet you ask for the credentials of your opponents (as well as question their honesty). That's hypocrisy, clear and simple. What's good for our geese, your gander is "not at liberty to disclose."

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  11:59:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I have never asked for the credentials of anyone. I only checked a few profiles and took what information was voluntarily made available. I respect the privacy of anonymous members. But have always questioned moderators qualifications because they usurp the power to silence critical expressions. They should be held to a higher standard.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24978 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  12:05:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

But have always questioned moderators qualifications because they usurp the power to silence critical expressions.
We've never done so, because we actually lack any such power. We are not gods.
They should be held to a higher standard.
Like one in which people are held accountable for their actions?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 17 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 3.05 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000