411 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
Nice try. Therefore no bridge

Nice try. There is no bridge, this is creationist propaganda. And you have still offered naught but subjective opinion, which is at odds with all the data and the entire scientific community.

So that guff about a rampage is just another dishonest ad hominem to avoid addressing the content of my posts. Let's face or in hardly alone in noticing your MO.

Sheldon's picture
""I get the impression that

""I get the impression that you think..."

As I've said: "All I've stated in regards to the micro vs macro distinction is that it is not a false dichotomy, specially not one motivated by Christian propaganda."

Rubbish, your bias against this scientific fact is based solely on your religious beliefs. If there were valid objections to species evolution that Darwin managed to miss, and in over 150 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny that every scientist on the planet, including the resources of the RCC and the creationist propaganda movement, had also failed to find, but that the mighty polymath John Breezy had found, then why the fuck would you be one here, telling us, and not on every fucking news channel or on the balcony over st Peter's square receiving the approbation of a grateful Pope and the massed throngs of the superstitious?

Sheldon's picture
While you're here Breezy, how

While you're here Breezy, how many scientific facts do you deny that in no way refute any part of your religious beliefs?

You never answer this and it's obvious why. It's because your pretence of valid scientific objections in denying the scientific fact of species evolution is a lie. You're motivated by your religious beliefs, and this bias is reflected in your cherry picking only scientific facts you know destroy the creation myth your religion has held as an immutable fact in the bible.

Sheldon's picture
"Evolution at different

"Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team

Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of the gene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaur lineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change"


Now when they say vastly different scales, are they excluding timescales?

Dear oh dear...

Dave Matson's picture
And, we could add that God is

And, we could add that God is not needed. Adding God to the mix, as in theistic evolution, is adding an unnecessary layer of fat--the very thing that Occam's Razor rules out!

Sheldon's picture
Precisely correct, Occam's

Precisely correct, Occam's razor seems to apply precisely to adding an unevidenced claim of this sort to scientific facts. Also the bias of needing to tack on their own beliefs facts established by the most rigorous process of evidence gathering and testing, should cause some sort of epiphany in any remotely objective person.

Sheldon's picture
"Creationists act as if there

"Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a ***long period of time***"



Dave Matson's picture


I believe there are actual examples where microevolution was observed to eventually create not only new species but new genera! Such a continuous, well preserved, record over millions of years would be most likely found in tiny sea creatures that died and fell to the bottom of the ocean in an accumulating ooze. That's the environment least likely to be disturbed over long intervals, and many generations of tiny creatures would not require too much sediment for burial. I remember reading about one such study, but offhand I don't have the details.

Sapporo's picture
The arising of new species of

The arising of new species of multicellular organisms from a single-celled ancestor has been observed in laboratory conditions. Such a change is certainly at least as significant as the creation of a new genera.

Sheldon's picture
There is no scientific

There is no scientific objection to the fact of species evolution. Any attempt to claim there are is too absurd. Does Breezy really think we view the facts no one has managed to get one shred of evidence peer reviewed and published against species evolution in over 150 years is a coincidence, and it is equally a coincidence that he is a theist, and has brought his claims to an atheist forum?

He really does think we're dumber than a bucket of fucking hair.

CyberLN's picture
John, do you think evolution

John, do you think evolution is the cause of all speciation? If not, what other cause(s) do you think there were?

Sheldon's picture
Is it me or is he cherry

Is it me or is he cherry picking which questions he'll address again?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Here's Johnny's theme song....https://youtu.be/4Dx5QQfWRuU. Every time I read one of his posts I start humming the chorus

Sheldon's picture
The semantics are awful, note

The semantics are awful, note he's interpreting the word bridge in the text as some sort of barrier rather then how the processes combine as part of the same process of species evolution. Of course the text is only quoted where he thinks he can misrepresent it to support the absurd idea that species evolution isn't a scientific fact. So this is very simple.

John, quote the text from Campbell's where it denies species evolution through natural selection occurs, then cite some peer reviewed papers that do the same Then explain why every news channel I have looked at is not mentioning that the bedrock of everything we know about biology has been reversed / falsified?

I believe John you are pissing down my leg and trying to tell me it's raining.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Before I respond, what is

Before I respond, what is your definition of spamming Mrs. Cyber? When Neel Skelton asked a question twice, Nyar called it an act of spamming the forum.

I personally don't respond to spam. I have an entire folder in my email account, as I assume you do as well, dedicated to disposing of it. So how is it that Neel can barely ask a question twice, and have it be called spamming; whereas Sheldon is allowed to copy/paste entire paragraphs, not only multiple times on a single thread, but throughout the forum on irrelevant threads? Does ideological bias play a role in the decision making process?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Breezy - When Neel Skelton

Breezy - When Neel Skelton asked a question twice, Nyar called it an act of spamming the forum.

Sorry John, I typically don't diff user's posts. Neal posted his question back to back by using edits; so it was painfully obvious.

CyberLN's picture
Oh, John, sometimes questions

Oh, John, sometimes questions get lost in long strings. I repeated it thinking that might be the case. Now it is obvious that, based on your lack-of-response response to it, you simply refuse to answer. I guess that is because you haven’t any way of doing so without painting yourself into a corner. Come to think about that, you’ve done so, not despite, but because of your attempts to avoid it.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Hmmm in most threads I

Hmmm in most threads I participate, I quickly become the highest posting member. You're free to double check my math, but as of this comment, I lead the charge with 50 posts on this thread. In second place comes Sheldon with 46, and keep in mind half of his posts are him spamming the forum with the same comments.

You've only posted 8 times; 7 if we disqualify your own spamming. Match my level of engagement and participation on the thread, then I'll think about answering your questions.

Sheldon's picture
Argumentum as populum fallacy

Argumentum ad populum fallacy, you're making a bare appeal to numbers. Your participation doesn't become more valid or even honest because you've posted more than anyone else. Repetition of a question is not necessarily spamming either, especially when engaging someone as obviously duplicitous as you John.

Perhaps the forum needs to insist people post with integrity? I think you're given a fair amount of latitude all things considered, so this latest tactic of crying to the mods is pretty pathetic given everyone has noted at some point how dishonestly you avoid questions and posts. I also can't help but notice this is another dishonest attempt to skip past citations that show your religious beliefs on evolution are at odds with the scientific facts. Even the text you cited doesn't support your position, and you're forced to cherry pick parts of it to pretend that your religious objections to evolution are somehow validated by the text.

Instead of quantity try focusing on some honesty in your responses.

CyberLN's picture
Ok, John, I think I

Ok, John, I think I understand now. I think you are simply afraid of the answers you would have to give to these questions and so won’t provide them.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
There would be merit to your

There would be merit to your claim, if it wasn't because calling people afraid was an overused strategy to come out on top. You can observe it in children, one child wants the other to do something, the other doesn't for X or Y reason, so the first states the reason is fear, hoping the other child is afraid of being called afraid.

Match my level of engagement with the forum, and I'll respond to your question.

Now, are you going to fix the spamming problem, or am I allowed to start spamming too?

CyberLN's picture
We do indeed take care of

We do indeed take care of spamming in these forums, John. You, however, seem to have an erroneous definition of it.

Consider the following, “Spamming is sending the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet.”

Asking the same question of you here twice is neither indiscriminate nor being sent to multiple recipients.

mickron88's picture
MOTHER SUPERIOR: "john always

MOTHER SUPERIOR: "john always remember these things ok?"


Attach Image/Video?: 

mickron88's picture
yeah and one more thing, tell

yeah and one more thing, tell them to "fuck off" like michael did...very clever michael, very clever indeed...

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I see, so Sheldon's posts

I see, so Sheldon's posts aren't indiscriminate, since they're aimed at me, and they don't have multiple recipients, because once again, they're aimed at me.

Don't mind if I play by those rules then.

Armando Perez's picture


I what pertains to me, I am in no way, shape or form trying to spam or troll the discussion. On the contrary, I am trying to make it productive and clear. Maybe, having this discussion taken so many meandering turns, it has been difficult for you to find my simple, but very useful question among all the comments. Excuse me if I repeat it once again so I can understand where you are coming from.

Do you believe there is a divine agent that directly created the diversity of nature (or as theists say "the different kinds of animals")?

I would really appreciate if you can give a short and to the point answer using your ample communications and knowledge of the learning process so that I can understand.

Or you can say you do not want to answer and let me make my own assumptions about your position, something I have been trying to avoid. If there is only silence as a response I will have to make additional assumptions about you to understand your position and behavior.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
You're free to make all the

You're free to make all the assumptions you want to make about me, because none of them will logically affect my arguments. If the objections I have raised are invalid, then they're invalid. I could be motivated by money, fame, or pride; I could be rational or delusional, and it wouldn't affect the validity of my objections.

If you want to understand my position on evolution, the best I can do is mention that even if I were an atheist my objections wouldn't change.

If instead of trying to understand my position on evolution you're interested in my religious beliefs, restate your question in such a way that it moves away from the topic of evolution, and into a new topic of religion.

Otherwise, your question sounds like a strawman to me.

Armando Perez's picture


Well, I see you do not want to answer my simple question straight away but almost did. For considering yourself such an intellectual you have a hard time being straightforward. Maybe because you are ashamed of being a theist? But I could at least tease an answer. I knew it would work. Reverse psychology works well with children.

Now, if you were an atheist your position would not be ignoring all the evidence supplied and sticking to the false claim that the fossil record is almost the only evidence for evolution. You are allowing your religion to cloud your reasoning. I tried not to assume you were a creationist but I could not understand you going around and around, without even knowing much about the subject, objecting to everything and anything being told, evading information and not trying to analyze practically anything. (for example, II was puzzled about how could you come to think that codon degeneracy was bad news for evolution. Now I get it came from religion nor allowing you to interpret the phenomenon correctly and grasping at straws maybe thinking that "degeneracy" in this case had the layman connotation of something going bad. ).

So, your position with respect to creationism is important. It explains a lot of your behavior in this discussion if you add a dose of arrogance.

(Edited for spelling)

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
"I knew it would work.

"I knew it would work. Reverse psychology works well with children."

You knew it would work lol? So let me get this straight. You're not even trying to hide the fact that you were attempting to strawman my arguments lol. At least this validates my decision to ignore your question three times. My position on evolution would not change if I were an atheist, unfortunately, that's why your argument is a straw man.

Although you're right about my dose of arrogance, after all, English isn't my first language either. So, unless you're from the Philippines with a name like Perez, I'll gladly explain to you in Spanish why the straw man is considered a lapse in logic.

(Assuming the admins are ok with non-English posts the way they are with spamming).

Sheldon's picture
"My position on evolution

"My position on evolution would not change if I were an atheist, unfortunately, that's why your argument is a straw man."

So it's just a coincidence you only deny scientific facts that refute part of your religious beliefs, and another coincidence you chose to bring your denials to an atheist forum, rather than a scientific forum filled with experts on evolution. You must be getting dizzy on that high horse by now John.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.