|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
But I have an IQ of only 9 and I'm also mentally ill ... you can't expect much from someone like that. What we expect from you is for you to put your protective helmet back on and crawl back into your crib for your mommy (or gov't designated care-giver) to keep you safe. You should not go out in public without adult supervision. You might wander out into traffic and get run over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
What do you hope to gain by annoying these guys? Apparently, his goal is to thoroughly discredit the Christian god and all Christians. In that, he is succeeding, as do all Christian trolls. The Matthew 7:20 Test:
quote: I once shared a Korean BBQ lunch with a friend from Unitarian-Universalist church(UUA), Gary. He loved Korean BBQ, but it's a communal thing Touching on another topic about whether God exists or not, in my own atheist experience who gives a flying fig about that question? Anti-atheism Christians keep harping on that question, but in my own atheist experience we do not care since that is not why we are atheists. "Atheism" is commonly presented as "having no belief in gods", whereas it's more a matter of "being with a theism, a religion." It's not the gods themselves that we object to and reject, but rather the elaborate and oppressive religions associated with them. "God" is just part of the bath water that we toss out. Theists keep trying to misrepresent our atheism as "rejecting God" or as "hating God and fighting against Him". Laughably wrong! There's a local YEC activist (who in two decades of my email correspondences with him has steadfastly avoided and refused to ever discuss any young-earth claim -- even he knows how bad they are while still believing them to be true (such incredible mental gymnastics!)). He claims that he used to be an atheist, but it's all a lie. He grew up Christian and was taught that morality was only being responsible to God. Then as a teenager with "bubbling hormones" just dying to be able to sin, he found the legalistic loophole his religion dangled in front of him (like a shiny object): Your moral obligation is based solely on your responsibility to God, but atheists can sin away freely because they refuse to be responsible to God, ergo ("therefore" in geometry class proofs) if you "become an atheist" you will be responsible to no one and can sin freely. Impeccable logic! Now for the great irony. In his own writings, he freely admits that he "became an atheist" in order to service his "bubbling hormones", yet he blames the evolution being taught in school and not his own religious training which is the real culprit -- he's just using the teaching of evolution as a scapegoat. Furthermore, in his emails with me he admitted that while he "was an atheist" he did continue to believe in God and would pray to God every single night. Like any actual atheist would do ... NOT! And based on his own faux-atheist experience, he claims to "know what atheists think and why they are atheists" and is so laughably wrong on all counts. But then Dredge is a creationist, so there is no possibility of ever being able to reason with him ... at any possible level (I know; I've tried).Edited by dwise1, : last line, just to remove any ambiguity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
AZPaul3's reply was to your absolutely idiotic statements about cetacean spines in respect to ancestral pelvises which have all been shown to be complete bollux. If you have any doubts whatsoever on that point, do please refer to my Message 759 which you have so far chosen to ignore. And in spite of that information showing your bullshit nonsense ideas to be exactly that, you have the audacity to post this complete and utter bollux:
Sludge writes: Nor does DNA explain how natural selection and what environmental pressures acted to disconnect the tail from original pelvis and attach it to the spine (as in a modern whale or dophin). You lying piece of evil creationist shit![/size As far as I know, there is no evidence whatsoever of a pelvis between the spine and tail of any modern whale or dolphin. Uh, the sacral vertebrae in cetaceans which are still fused ; from my Message 759:
quote: Not only do whales still have their sacral vertebrae, but according to that source they are still fused. Why would they still have that vestigial remain (ie, the sacral vertebrae still being fused)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Referenced quote from my Message 802 lifted so rudely out of context by the scum-sucking bottom feeder:
DWise1 writes: IOW, Dredge's entire whale pelvis argument is complete bollux (do they say that there in his Upside Down?). His only "retort" after an entire month is to quibble over the spelling of a foreign term? (I'm an American making use of a British-ish term) Such incredible weakness! Wow! What a complete fucking loser!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
What a fucking stupid idiot! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Fucking stupid idiot! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
But seriously:
DWise1 writes:
Well of course it's easy to tell - according to Darwinist theory, every (alleged) evolutionary change is the one "selected for! we can easily tell which would be selected for and which against Everything comes at a cost and so must be selected for to be retained. If it is no longer needed (hence no longer selected for) then that extra cost is no longer needed and becomes a detriment, so that feature will be "selected against" and lost. Anybody who knows anything at all about evolution can see that. But you are such a fucking stupid idiot that you will forever be completely clueless. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Fucking stupid idiot! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
I noticed a very odd thing about your "sources". They don't seem to exist.
Neither link you provide goes anywhere except to an error message that that page could not be found. Did you just make all that stuff up? Normally, we should give someone the benefit of the doubt, but then you are a creationist. Decades of experience with creationists has consistently shown that creationists are always thoroughly dishonest and that they lie almost constantly. And you yourself stated explicitly that all creationists are evil.
Please explain how the FUSED sacrum of a modern whale's (alleged) evolutionary ancestor effectively "disappeared" and was replaced by the modern whale's NON-FUSED vertebrae, replete with intervertebral discs. Just when we hope that you could not be even more stupid than you already are, you show us that you can indeed be far more stupid. Please stop it. If not for your own sake, then at least for the sake of stupid idiots everywhere who cringe when they see you making them look bad. (paraphrasing) "The FUSED sacrum disappearing and being replaced by NON-FUSED vertebrae"??? Really? That is so completely and utterly STUPID! I am literally laughing out loud at how stupid you are! No vertebrae disappeared nor got replaced. Same vertebrae, you fucking stupid idiot! Whether they fuse or not fuse is a matter of development, which is known to happen a very long time post partum (ie, long after the individual is born). The human sacrum is fused in adults, but not in infants nor in children -- the vertebrae of the human sacrum fuse between ages 18-30. You are so utterly stupid that you have no clue how anything works. Learn something! And stop making the stupid idiots of the world look so much worse than they already are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Admin, don't restore any privileges for this troll. He's just as bad as ever. Worse even.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
One of the things us humans have to wrestle with is our inability to properly conceptualise big numbers. A good example of this is asking people how long it would take them to construct a cubic metre out of cubic centimetre Lego pieces. A lot of people just reply that it would take them maybe an afternoon of work. Then you do the maths. There are 100x100x100 square centimetre pieces in a square metre. Assume it takes you a second a piece (and that's working fast, with no breaks and no mistakes). It would take you one million seconds. That works out to 278 hours. Assuming you put in an 8 hour day, that's just under 35 days. It's the same thing with evolution. Unless you do the maths, your head just assumes that it can perceive billions of years - but, (unless you're wired unusually), it can't. The handlers of the world's creationists rely heavily on this to sell them their snake oil. Case in point is Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim. 5 million tonnes per second for all the seconds in about 5 billion (American and British billion, not European, so 109) years worth of seconds. That works out to about 7.88923×1023 tonnes of solar mass lost in 5 billion years. Really big number. Astronomical even! Yet compared to the sun's overall mass of 1.98855×1027 tonnes, that total mass loss over five billion years amounts to only 0.03965755%, a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's total mass. Certainly nothing to write home about. Interestingly, as Kent Hovind continues to parade this particular claim about, he also admonishes his audience to not only not do the math, but also to ignore anybody who has actually done the math. Hmmm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
[qs=each ... You can repair that by replacing the equal sign (=) with a right square bracket (]). Oh yeah, you can't, can you? Because you've lost your editing privileges. Because you had abused that privilege so egregiously. Well, it's your own damned fault for being such a horrible troll! If you were to at least try to act like a person, then things would have been different, but they could never happen, could it? Because you are a troll and you refuse to be anything other than a troll. To quote from Marcus Lycus' beratement of an employee for not trying to improve himself (last quoted regarding you in my Message 678):
quote: xongsmith writes: So goes the story, at least. According to Darwinist theory, every part of every living thing is the result of survival advantages. each step in the evolution of the less-than-perfect human eye had its survival advantages. So are you now going to blather trollish nonsense about the evolution of the vertebrate eye? (NOTE: most of the evolution of the human eye happened long before any hominids existed) I'm curious to see whether you try to use the usual absolute nonsense "arguments" creationists typically use for this one, including their egregious misquoting of Darwin on the subject. So go ahead and describe how you think the evolution of the vertebrate eye would have worked and what you think the problems with that would be that would make it impossible. Of course, you are much too stupid an idiot and hence too much of the proverbial swine to be able to learn from these pearls. Therefore, this is more for the benefit of the lurkers (called "visitors" on this forum).
NOTE:
I'm reminded of a university professor's explanation for why he engages in debates with creationists. Those "debates" are creationist-run circuses designed to place their opponents at as much of a disadvantage as possible in order to deceive the audience.
This professor knows that he will never be able to convince a creationist (it's difficult enough just to get a creationist to listen). And yet there he is in an audience full of people who are listening intently to every word he says (even if just to try to find fault). That is far more attention than is paid by his students to his classroom lectures. So he sees these debates as an excellent educational opportunity, perhaps the only opportunity most in that audience would ever have to hear what evolution really is (as opposed to creationists gross misrepresentation (AKA "lies"), which Dredge and I have taken to calling "evilution" and which Dredge credits with making all creationists evil (see his Message 341). At another debate, the opponents canvassed all the vehicles in the parking lot and determined (eg, from church and Christian school buses, ΙΧΘΥΣ fishes and bumper stickers on cars) that about 90% of the audience were pro-creationism going into the debate. At the end of the debate, the creationist organizers had the audience cast their votes on who had won, as is very common at these events. Since about two-thirds of the votes were for creationism, the creationists declared victory. But the audience had gone from 90% to only 66% creationist, losing about a quarter of the audience. Doesn't look like a victory to me.
Darwinist? Are there still Darwinists? Anybody who actually studies evolution or would works with it would be much more likely to be a neo-Darwinist than an outdated out-of-touch Darwinist. Darwin published On the Origin of Species (1859) over one hundred sixty (160) years ago. You're undoubtedly too stupid to understand how long a time that is in terms of the human lifespan, but that's a helluva long time ago. Darwin didn't know anything about genetics so he failed in his attempts to describe how inheritance works. Because Darwinism is wrong about how inheritance works, a Darwinist would also be wrong about how inheritance works. But neo-Darwinism solved that problem circa 1940 by integrating Mendelian genetics with Darwinism. And in the subsequent eight (8) decades we have learned even more often at an exponential rate. So by miring yourself in an outdated discipline like Darwinism while ignoring the advances made by neo-Darwinism, you are keeping yourself out-of-touch with current science. And you are doing that deliberately and even stubbornly (AKA "willful stupidity"). Of course you will never understand anything because you refuse to ever learn anything. And it's not just mere refusal, but rather you actively prevent yourself of ever learning anything. But then that is the evil nature of creationism.
According to Darwinist theory, every part of every living thing is the result of survival advantages. Perhaps, but we have learned a lot in the past 160 years. Try to learn something about neo-Darwinism. For example, there's genetic drift, there are neutral mutations, "coattail riders" (ie, traits that are on the same chromosome as another trait that is being selected for so these other traits are retained as they "ride on the coattails of those other traits being selected for"), etc. Yes, I know that your simple mind wants very simplistic explanations, but reality is not simplistic and biology in particular is very complex and complicated -- and very messy and can be very wet. Even just thinking through what life does and how life works should be enough to figure some of this out, not that you would ever consider doing that. For example, a simple listing of the Circle of Life (as I presented to "Little Man" Kleinman in Message 45):
DWise1 writes: Adaptation is an iterative process (I'm a retired software engineer, so I know something from iterative processes), which simplified goes something like:
Please note that the closer an individual is to the optimal mean for its population in their environment (it may help to visualize this as a bell curve with the optimal mean in the center) then the more fit it is. Now consider a change in the environment where that optimal mean is no longer in the center, but rather off to one side (or even beyond the curve in the most extreme cases). In those cases, the fringe individuals closest to that new optimal mean will be the ones most fit for the new environment and will have their genes represented more in the next generations. That is adaptation. So here's a question for you, Littleman. All that expresses change to changing environments. For that matter, many common definitions of "evolution" involve change, but not stasis.
But what about statis? How does evolution explain stasis, the absence of change? I know the answer, but do you? I've even already given you the answer. The answer to that last paragraph is that the exact same evolutionary processes that lead to change also drive stasis, as we observe in every negative-feedback control loop. OK, selection is how we describe what's happening, but it does not imply a "Selector". The overall effect of what we call "selection" is the simple small set of facts:
So then, if you truly believe that survival has nothing to do with passing on a trait, then do please explain that position of yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
That's right ... I can't correct any editing mistakes bcoz, unlike every other poster here, I don"t have any editing privileges. A gross miscarriage of justice, to be sure. Not in the least. Your outrageous and egregious misconduct actually called for much stronger disciplinary actions. You got off much lighter than you deserved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
So that lucky snake's parents lacked any connection between gland and fangs and then ... poof! ... said lucky snake was born with it all magically connected up? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! No! You fucking idiot! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! {BTW, I am quite literally laughing out loud at your complete and utter idiocy!} HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Is that really how you think that evolution works? You stupid creationists are unbelievable! Every single creationist "objection to evolution" has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution! All your "objections to evolution" are based on nothing but your extremely stupid misunderstanding and misrepresentations of evolution which have nothing to do with evolution. And you cannot understand us when we try to explain your misunderstanding to you, because your ignorance of evolution is so complete -- it literally numbs your brain. That is why you and I call your misunderstanding and misrepresentations "evilution" and that is also what makes you and all creationist evil (as you yourself pointed out in an extremely rare moment of clarity of thought -- too bad you cannot repeat that state of mind). Now I really want to see how you explain the evolution of the vertebrate eye. I can already see you regurgitating the typical "creationist model of the evolution of the vertebrate eye", but I need to hear it from you before I respond. We all already know what a fucking stupid idiot you are, so what do you have to lose?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Yep, the sure sign of a brain numbed asleep by creationist "evilution" idiocy.
Point proven. To quote Emperor Joseph II:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Pull your head out of your ass, you fucking stupid evil-creationist troll!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
I've been studying "creation science" since about 1981. My first conversations with a creationist was in person with a co-worker circa 1985 (when we met again six years later, he had remained a Christian but was thoroughly disgusted by creationists and never wanted to have anything to do with them ever again. That was especially after we went to a debate to see his heroes, the master debaters (play with that word pair however you want) Gish and H. Morris, in an actual debate with Thwaites and Awbrey. As we were departing he kept muttering in shock: "But we have mountains of evidence. Why didn't they present any of it? But we have mountains of evidence ... ". After that, I pursued discussion online starting around 1987 with the creationists on CompuServe.
I have learned a few things about the total BS that creationists engage in. Part of their schtick is to try to bog us down with their "impossible questions", basically like that uppity Gentile who c. 20 BCE challenged Pharisee Rabbi Hillel to recite from memory the whole of the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament, as they were trained to be able to do -- far worse, for millennia at Yeshiva the students memorized the entire Talmud which is the size of an entire encyclopedia without any indexing or even a table of contents to be able to look anything up anyway. The proselytizing training materials of the Jesus Freaks circa 1970 were filled with "witnessing dialogues", often in cartoon form (we've seen a number of them in Chick Pubs tracts) in which you, the SAVED ONE, are to bombard your intended victim with huge "unanswerable questions" that will leave him confused and vulnerable for your soul-saving coup-de-grace. Half a century later, that is still their pathetic model. So in typical dishonest creationist fashion, Sludge wants to keep us on the defense trying to explain evolution to him in response to his highly specious "challenges". Well, shouldn't we be asking him what he thinks the actual problem is that he is "presenting" to us? For example, his latest foil in re the Trinity, candle2, challenged us to explain how a dog could give birth to kittens (or something equally stupid). The real answer to that one is that that is not how it works -- it's not how any of it works. So instead we need to ask them why they think that there's any problem. For example, a creationist recently asked me to explain how sexual reproduction evolved, something that I had already gone over with him back in 1998 (to which he had no response at the time except to run away), so I countered with asking him what kind of problem he thinks that that poses for evolution. I think that is a very reasonable question -- unless I know what part of that he seems to be having a problem with then how can I respond in a constructive manner?Predictably, no response from him. For example, consider the old joke (usually cast as racial) of a dumb person pondering the thermos bottle. "It keeps hot things hot and cold things cold, but ... how does it know which to do?" You could explain the heat transference aspects of the thermos bottles over and over again, but as long as that guy has fixed in his mind that the thermos bottle must be making a conscious decision of which to do, he will resist all your efforts in the most stubborn manner possible ... and beyond! That is what we are faced with. Therefore, we cannot afford to take any creationist's questions at face value. There are always some kind of assumptions that creationists are making about evolution or anything else which are misguiding them. If we make the mistake of assuming that that their basic assumptions and understandings are normal, then that just sent us off on a fool's errand. Also trust all creationists to never tell you what their assumptions are nor what they are actually talking about. Confusion is their only friend whom they would never abandon. A local YEC activist (who in all of 20 years worth of email correspondence always refused to ever discuss any young-earth claims -- my evidence that even he knows them to be crap (similar experiences with other YECs)) would repeatedly hurl one "unanswerable question" after another at me and I would respond to each and every one of them. But there was one question that he not only could never respond to, but he would also run away from terrified (one time he was so terrified that he immediately cancelled his email account and did not publish his new one for two years thereafter). That question? "What are you talking about?" In more than four decades, I have yet to meet even one creationist who is able, let alone even willing, to even attempt to approach that question. Think maybe it's time to hit Sludge with it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024