buckshot24
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 9,916
- 85
- 91
"on the subject" is the key phrase. I'll consider that a no.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.Everything I have posted in this thread has been useful.
Maybe not to you, but to others.
The reason they get so angry is that I'm challenging their religion.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.
I just won't play that game that you so very desperately want to play, Mr. Gish Galloper."on the subject" is the key phrase. I'll consider that a no.
lol, so that's what you're telling yourself. good to know.The reason they get so angry is that I'm challenging their religion.
I'm not playing games. But Ok, I won't ask you again.I just won't play that game that you so very desperately want to play, Mr. Gish Galloper.
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?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.
See, you just cannot, not respond. I know its part of your training.I'm not playing games. But Ok, I won't ask you again.
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..."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?
Defend myself from what? Your utter dishonesty? I don't need IC to reject mutation and selection as adequate.Ah, so you have no argument to defend yourself other than to post a Gish Gallop.
My statement is true without IC. You're lying.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.
Nobody but your lying misinterpretation said that this was impossible.-------------------------------------------
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.
I so can not respond...See, you just cannot, not respond. I know its part of your training.
Do you have a mentor for this exercise?
But you did respond, Mr. Gish Galloper.I so can not respond...
doh
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
Nobody but your lying misinterpretation said that this was impossible.
Which part? I didn't bring up IC. You find stories about eyes convincing?
What does any of this have to do whether mutation and selection is an adequate mechanism for the biodiversity we see on earth?
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?
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.The reason they get so angry is that I'm challenging their religion.
The reason they get so angry is that I'm challenging their religion.
Yeah, that was the joke.But you did respond, Mr. Gish Galloper.
I guess its over.
I know that. My question therefore had to be, why, if he is a troll, did you ask?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..."
If you do not have a better-working model, then you must concede that is the best model available.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.
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.I know that. My question therefore had to be, why, if he is a troll, did you ask?
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.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.