Like I pointed out (and you even
quoted and yet still don't understand), it don't mean a thing if you ain't got the right math model (doo-wah, doo-wah, doo-wah).
You're nothing but a bullshitting creationist who knows nothing more than your script. Most creationists are completely incapable of functioning outside of their scripts because they don't even begin to understand any part of their scripts. Maybe you are marginally better off than they are.
Part of the problem is that while typical creationist scripts are almost trivially easy to expose as bullshit, IDiot scripts are a tougher nut to crack. Yes, they are still bullshit, but they are a better quality of bullshit (though it still doesn't smell like sandalwood). Mainly they are couched in non-trivial math and mathematical concepts (eg, information theory) that most people are not intimately familiar with, which requires refuters to have training in those esoteric fields in order to expose that bullshit for what it is. As Fred Edwords said nearly half a century ago about creationist nonsense (slightly paraphrased from memory):
quote:
Of course it is nonsense and you can see that it is nonsense. But you can't just say "Why, that's nonsense!" You have to be able to explain why it's nonsense. (implied: which can very rarely be done in the middle of a debate -- also refer to the all-too-common creationist debate tactic, the Gish gallop)
So it's not enough to know your evolution well. You must know your creationism better!
It doesn't matter even a single fetid dingo's kidney, let alone a load of them, how good your math is
if your math model is total bollocks. I would be a fool to use my mortgage spreadsheet to figure out my income tax, or to try to solve the Kepler problem with my greenhouse control software, so why do you think that
you can do the same thing and get the right results in violation of all the laws of Nature?
Seriously, Littleman, unlike physics (which is rather simple to model)
biology is not simple! If it would help, think of "biology" as a euphemism for sex (though judging by your apparent ignorance of sexual reproduction, it seems that your father never had
The Talk with you). Biology is complicated and messy.
Very messy. And very wet. When my general contractor father first tried to explain a
sex bolt to me, I assumed it was called that because it was incomprehensible.
If you use a bogus math model than it doesn't matter a single fetid dingo's kidney how good your math is. Why does that simple truth repeatedly fly over your head? In computer science we have an acronym for that: GIGO -- "garbage in, garbage out" (or in your case, "garbage in, Gospel out" -- also, GIGO played a part in my former rating symbol for Data Systems Technician,
DS (not apparent in the graphic, on the rate badge the inbound arrows were filled in and the outbound was empty, so "unprocessed garbage in, processed garbage out").
Half a century ago (c. 1970) I read Jesus Freak proselytizing training materials in which their tactic was to hit their victims with non-trivial questions intended to throw those victims off balance in order to either make them vulnerable to conversion or else to make on-lookers lose confidence in them.
It is all dishonest bullshit! For the past few decades of trying to deal with creationists, they just keep using those same old bullshit tactics of the Jesus Freaks
half a century ago! (so they/you haven't learned anything at all in the meantime?) Nothing that you have done here has been any different.
Nu? (if you don't know any Yiddish, just refer to your Russian, ну?)
™ Version 4.2
