How to control the people : Keep them stupid and uninformed

[buckshot24]

Everything I have posted in this thread has been useful.
Maybe not to you, but to others.

"on the subject" is the key phrase. I'll consider that a no.

 

[buckshot24]

I sense something like this going on myself. What I find interesting is the reaction it provokes. I find it interesting, for example, that you simply identified what you think the problem is without calling for his burial under a pile of contempt. I note that your second point, the one that I felt I see, irreducible complexity,, has this characteristic: personal incredulity and unwarranted assumptions. Why would I allow somebody else's personal incredulity and thus their unwarranted assumptions, the ones I see in one way or another in everybody bother me. People seem to not be able to tolerate them when they see them in others which, in my opinion, is why they do not want to see them in themselves. You didn't do that.in this post. There is seeing and then there is what we feel about what we see.

Perhaps you might sense there is something radically wrong with the world, that mysteriously evades fixing. I think it is that we do not see who we are and don't know why. But if we hate ourselves, it would explain a lot of things, things one could observe in others without actually having to directly feel those feelings oneself. The things, for example that absolutely yank our chain might be mirrors.

The reason they get so angry is that I'm challenging their religion.

 

[esquared]

"on the subject" is the key phrase. I'll consider that a no.

I just won't play that game that you so very desperately want to play, Mr. Gish Galloper.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The reason they get so angry is that I'm challenging their religion.

lol, so that's what you're telling yourself. good to know.

 

[buckshot24]

I just won't play that game that you so very desperately want to play, Mr. Gish Galloper.

I'm not playing games. But Ok, I won't ask you again.

 

[Moonbeam]

If he's a troll, why is he allowed to post here? Rule #1 of this subforum states:

1. No thread-crapping, thread-derailment, off-topic posting, trolling, the intentional posting of logical fallacies or misinformation.

Why demand someone else to act when you have an ignore function? I have no wish to influence what any forum monitor might think about this in any way. They have a job and a function that isn't mine. My words are directed specifically at you. Do you feel at all that when push comes to shove, you sound like a conservative asking a safe space?

 

[esquared]

I'm not playing games. But Ok, I won't ask you again.

See, you just cannot, not respond. I know its part of your training.

Do you have a mentor for this exercise?

 

[abj13]

Why demand someone else to act when you have an ignore function? I have no wish to influence what any forum monitor might think about this in any way. They have a job and a function that isn't mine. My words are directed specifically at you. Do you feel at all that when push comes to shove, you sound like a conservative asking a safe space?

Your white knighting is punishing it rather far. I asked the question because a moderator called him a troll, hence the "If he's a troll..."

 

[buckshot24]

Ah, so you have no argument to defend yourself other than to post a Gish Gallop.

Defend myself from what? Your utter dishonesty? I don't need IC to reject mutation and selection as adequate.

You said it: "I reject mutation and selection as being able to eventually produce sexual reproduction, crebs cycles and echolocation." That is the very argument of irreducible complexity (small changes cannot result in a complex system). You might as well as steal Behe's mousetrap argument.

My statement is true without IC. You're lying.

-------------------------------------------
For those interested, I've already posted a paper on the change of enzyme activity by a single mutation and review of biochemical systems developing from mutations. Not only does the above posted use irreducible complexity, his points are further refuted by:

Shi D, Yu X, Cabrera-Luque J, Chen TY, Roth L, Morizono H, Allewell NM, Tuchman M. A single mutation in the active site swaps the substrate specificity of N-acetyl-L-ornithine transcarbamylase and N-succinyl-L-ornithine transcarbamylase. Protein Sci. 2007 Aug;16(8):1689-99.

Nobody but your lying misinterpretation said that this was impossible.

 

[buckshot24]

See, you just cannot, not respond. I know its part of your training.

Do you have a mentor for this exercise?

I so can not respond...

doh

 

[esquared]

I so can not respond...

doh

But you did respond, Mr. Gish Galloper.

 

[abj13]

Defend myself from what? Your utter dishonesty? I don't need IC to reject mutation and selection as adequate.
My statement is true without IC. You're lying

I'll map it out again for you, since you don't bother to read posts:

Irreducible complexity: small changes cannot form a complex system.
Buckshot: small changes (mutations and selection) cannot form a complex system (sexual reproduction, crebs cycles and echolocation).

But like always, your argument is nothing but denial.

Nobody but your lying misinterpretation said that this was impossible.

"changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site"
"Changing an active site's shape is trivial"
"and these sorts of changes cannot be realistically extrapolated out into the creation of multi part molecular machines we find in cells."
"I reject mutation and selection as being able to eventually produce sexual reproduction, crebs cycles and echolocation."

Haha. Both publications refute your false statements and there are plenty more I can bring up from this thread. So, when are you finally going to read those papers?

 

[zinfamous]

Which part? I didn't bring up IC. You find stories about eyes convincing?

The scientific method is convincing. Peer review is convincing. Evolution is thoroughly convincing. The museum of Comparative Oracular Pathology at the University of Wisconsin is thoroughly convincing.

You, buchshot, are an uneducated, non-curious, maroon. you are unconvincing. You haven't brought a single argument to this thread. You haven't even tried to present a corpuscle of evidence against the things that confuse you. You rave and gnash. In your entire history on these forums, you have copy pasted the nonsense raving of Duane Gish, a failed biochemist that hadn't published a single paper in 25 years when he started raving about evolution--a field that he knew nothing about. You argue, nonsensically, in single sentences that repeat the very same nonsense phrases about active sights over and over and over--the exact type of thing that an unpublishable biochemist, 3 decades divorced from actual advancements in discovery, would say.

You are simply a funnel for the idiotic, uninformed, irresponsible ravings of the roundly discredited Duane Gish. You are his simplist lunatic thoughts rote out on these forums, because unlike Gish, you don't even understand the basic foundation of biochemistry, let alone the language of biology.

You are a poseur, buckshot. you are useless. You really only belong in your corner, flicking matches into a diorama of Noah's Arch, that you built in your Sunday School kiddie pool, locked away in your mega church's servant quarters, some dark and lonely Tuesday evening.

You're a fucking lunatic and a clear and present threat to humanity. Humans do not progress when you and your ilk walk this earth.

 

[zinfamous]

What does any of this have to do whether mutation and selection is an adequate mechanism for the biodiversity we see on earth?

lol,. the personification of a fallacy. good job, buckshot. you are the Gish Gallop. in a meta way, no less.

 

[zinfamous]

This is the big shebang though. If mutation and selection isn't adequate then the theory can't work as described. This isn't some minor point.

Do you have anything useful to say on the subject?

It is beyond adequate, though.

you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence that it isn't.

also: you're a piece of shit.

 

[Moonbeam]

The reason they get so angry is that I'm challenging their religion.

Almost, I think. You are challenging my religion too but I don't have that reaction and I think it's because I have faith in my religion. I believe in science and the scientific method and am quite sure that the theory of evolution is extremely solid and factual. As I said, I have faith because I have experience. I have lived a life in which I have witnessed human progress and am willing to transfer the faith produced by my own eyes over onto areas where no human was alive to witness on the basis of the belief that how things work now is how they worked before anybody came on the scene.

So what I believe is that it's isn't that you challenge a religion per se but that you are a direct threat to the good they believe and in which they have no real faith. They must have control because you cause them to feel that something evil is hunting them. I just think it's not hunting them but haunting them, that what they fear is memory, the damage that can be done to an innocent open mind by lies. If you believe in any lies they bought into but consciously reject, you will be a monster in their eyes. This is the damage that is done by repression of what we feel. We create what we fear so we can feel it. Repression is hate and good people need justification to express it. Welcome to Monsterville.

The wonderful thing about fear is that you don't have to have it yourself to be affected by it.

 

[zinfamous]

The reason they get so angry is that I'm challenging their religion.

this isn't religion.

this is why you are confused. math is hard. science is hard. ...very simple biology is even hard to you. This is your problem: you're a fucking idiot, so you run to accusations of "belief," that reject your unfounded, completely unobservable beliefs.

fuck you, buckshot, you Galloping jackass. stop spreading cancer to this country.

 

[Paratus]

@buckshot24

I think what Zin is trying to say:

You've been checkmated bud.

 

[buckshot24]

But you did respond, Mr. Gish Galloper.

Yeah, that was the joke.

 

[buckshot24]

@buckshot24

I think what Zin is trying to say:

You've been checkmated bud.

I guess its over.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your white knighting is punishing it rather far. I asked the question because a moderator called him a troll, hence the "If he's a troll..."

I know that. My question therefore had to be, why, if he is a troll, did you ask?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This is the big shebang though. If mutation and selection isn't adequate then the theory can't work as described. This isn't some minor point.

If you do not have a better-working model, then you must concede that is the best model available.

 

[brycejones]

This is a worthless assertion.

derp

 

[abj13]

I know that. My question therefore had to be, why, if he is a troll, did you ask?

I am interested in the choice and context of that selected word. Just like how you are interested in the choice and context of my question.

 

[buckshot24]

this isn't religion.

this is why you are confused. math is hard. science is hard. ...very simple biology is even hard to you. This is your problem: you're a fucking idiot, so you run to accusations of "belief," that reject your unfounded, completely unobservable beliefs.

fuck you, buckshot, you Galloping jackass. stop spreading cancer to this country.

All you have to do is DEMONSTRATE that mutation and selection is adequate, all this personal nonsense is irrelevant. Insulting me does not help your case.