How are people like this getting elected?

[abj13]

Cerpin Taxt needs elite status.

He truly is ATP&N's most successful idiot shepherd. You assume a thread is long dead; but no, here he is all this time, patiently corralling our greatest idiots for weeks at a time lest they pollute other threads.

Dirty jobs like this need more recognition around here.

 

[Paul98]

If you want to see how random changes or simple equations give unexpected results. Check out work by Alan turing and others after. You can see how specific parts of nature come about and self organize.

 

[buckshot24]

It's relevant because you're the one claiming that there's something in the process of addition that creates an upper boundary to how high it can count...

...but of course you can't tell us what that is.

The changes aren't linear. Some changes are much more unlikely than others.

That's not what evolution says.

This is what it must have accomplished. New stuff had to have been added to the biosphere.

No, it isn't. We can identify the obstacles which must be surmounted to reach the moon.

We can identify the obstacles in getting a man from a microbe.

In contrast, you cannot identify the obstacles that you claim prevent the formation of higher taxa.

Can you show that genetic copying errors can build things like Krebs cycles? Not sure how it is my job to refute your articles of faith.

Of course not. There's gravity in the way. See how easy that is?

There are complex interdependent molecular machines in the way. Simple.

What does 100 trillion have to do with anything? Do you think infinity is just a "really big number" like 100 trillion?

No, but plugging in 100 trillion to the integral of a function gives you an idea of what is going on. Take an integral of x^2 and plug in 100 trillion, pretty obvious that this diverges.

Yeah, and you also said you didn't believe that I was an atheist when I told you I was. You seem quite ready to believe what you want in spite of evidence.

You could have been lying, which I lean towards given your repeated misrepresentations of what I've been saying.

Again, the only "fairy tale" is the idea that a magical being of unlimited powers and inscrutable motives just *poofed!* these things into existence. Let's see you examine that idea for its evidential basis. We won't hold our breath for that analysis.

I don't consider engineering poofing things into existence. Remember, whatever I believe this has zero bearing on the truthfulness of your dogma.

You don't have an "alternative explanation." You have "MAGIC! YAY!" It's absurd.

I don't need an alternative. This isn't Perry Mason where the defense must prove another theory of the case.

We've all examined the evidence, and we thus have apprehended the correspondence of the evolutionary model to reality. It isn't conjecture anymore.

The dogma is strong in this one.

Since I've had you on ignore and I may have missed the evidence you've provided, please post it again before I put you back on the list.

 

[buckshot24]

What we have here is evidence that you don't know what evidence is.

Evidence isn't absolute proof. You think the brain "mistaked" itself into existence. haha.

 

[fskimospy]

Evidence isn't absolute proof. You think the brain "mistaked" itself into existence. haha.

Prove your case otherwise.

 

[buckshot24]

ES won't be coming off the list....

 

[WelshBloke]

You do realize you were on ignore, right? You're the one yelling at a person who wasn't listening to you and acting as if my silence meant anything other than I didn't see your tripe.
There has been hardly any interaction because you were on ignore! haha.

It's so cute!

You actually think that the discussion stops because you're not paying any attention to it.

You're like a baby that thinks people disappear because it can't see the faces of the people playing peekaboo!

 

[buckshot24]

It's so cute!

You actually think that the discussion stops because you're not paying any attention to it.

You're like a baby that thinks people disappear because it can't see the faces of the people playing peekaboo!

He was making fun of me for not responding to him. Make more sense now?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Oh boy this looks entertaining. Unfortunately I'm fighting a bit of the flu so I probably won't manage comprehensive responses till tomorrow.

 

[WelshBloke]

He was making fun of me for not responding to him. Make more sense now?

Oh, we are making fun of you for a multitude of reasons. I wouldn't get hung up on just that one.

 

[Jeff7]

We are still awaiting your analysis of this review article that discusses multiple new genes and new genetic systems.

Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution:little did we know. Annual Review of Genetics. 2013;47:307-33.

But you've already started your game of ignoring evidence repeatedly and then putting people on ignore just to avoid obvious data that runs counter to your assumptions of life.

You might be on Ignore too.

 

[DrDoug]

It's so cute!

You actually think that the discussion stops because you're not paying any attention to it.

You're like a baby that thinks people disappear because it can't see the faces of the people playing peekaboo!

It's really remarkable to see an adult behave like this...lol! Wait, he is an adult, right?

All bow to the mighty logic of the List. Tremble and quake in abject fear if your name is on it for if it is then you have been judged by someone whose Savior recommends not judging others unless they themselves be judged and you have been found to be asking tough questions that cannot be answered by a True Christian.

What everyone needs to do is quote everyone they respond to. If we're lucky he'll put most of the members of P&N on ignore...lol!

 

[buckshot24]

Oh boy this looks entertaining. Unfortunately I'm fighting a bit of the flu so I probably won't manage comprehensive responses till tomorrow.

So that's your excuse for misrepresenting me so often?

 

[buckshot24]

Oh, we are making fun of you for a multitude of reasons. I wouldn't get hung up on just that one.

Great, but how does that make your accusation correct?

 

[buckshot24]

You might be on Ignore too.

Yeah, he went back. I don't need to make an analysis of that paper, he needs to explain why that paper proves his case or supports his case giving examples from the paper.

 

[abj13]

It's really remarkable to see an adult behave like this...lol! Wait, he is an adult, right?

All bow to the mighty logic of the List. Tremble and quake in abject fear if your name is on it for if it is then you have been judged by someone whose Savior recommends not judging others unless they themselves be judged and you have been found to be asking tough questions that cannot be answered by a True Christian.

What everyone needs to do is quote everyone they respond to. If we're lucky he'll put most of the members of P&N on ignore...lol!

This is why he's a troll. He makes single posts about who is "on his list" as if anyone cares. Nobody does. It is violating rule #1 around here:

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


But if people do care about facts he ignores, here is the abstract from the aforementioned paper

Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution:little did we know. Annual Review of Genetics. 2013;47:307-33.

Genes are perpetually added to and deleted from genomes during evolution. Thus, it is important to understand how new genes are formed and how they evolve to be critical components of the genetic systems that determine the biological diversity of life. Two decades of effort have shed light on the process of new gene origination and have contributed to an emerging comprehensive picture of how new genes are added to genomes, ranging from the mechanisms that generate new gene structures to the presence of new genes in different organisms to the rates and patterns of new gene origination and the roles of new genes in phenotypic evolution. We review each of these aspects of new gene evolution, summarizing the main evidence for the origination and importance of new genes in evolution. We highlight findings showing that new genes rapidly change existing genetic systems that govern various molecular, cellular, and phenotypic functions.

 

[WelshBloke]

Great, but how does that make your accusation correct?

Which accusation?

 

[buckshot24]

Which accusation?

The one you just made. You're smarter than this.

 

[zinfamous]

Yeah, he went back. I don't need to make an analysis of that paper, he needs to explain why that paper proves his case or supports his case giving examples from the paper.

No, you need to read it.

that is your job.

In all of your history of pappy posting in these forums, you have not once began to even engage actual discussion. Certainly not debate.

I think this is because you simply do not understand the scientific method, much less very simple scientific terms, such as "observation." It is apparent that the widely-accepted observational data verified in thousands of papers, through countless studies, is not what you consider acceptable observational data.

You begin with the premise: "I do not believe that the mountains of evidence that refute my belief represent adequate standards of evidence."

You know, that is a fine scientific challenge, from where much investigation starts. You actually start OK there (well, except for the "belief" part; but we can ignore that). The problem is that you stop here. You claim that the evidence is inadequate by your standards, yet demand further evidence based on your own undefined standards; standards that are not acceptable, much less necessary, within the field that you claim to be challenging.

Science works when you challenge these standards and then suggest an alternative theory, with adequate evidence, that can be verified independently. You've yet to do this. Not once.

You sit on your hill of mud, flinging your poo at passersby demanding that they accept your poo as adequate evidence for your insightful knowledge on whatever subject you claim to have a greater grasp than those which actually study this on a daily basis.

It's completely pointless to engage you in this, because you refuse to engage in it yourself. It is with great evidence of your posting history that you are properly branded around here as a moron.

 

[fskimospy]

No, you need to read it.

that is your job.

In all of your history of pappy posting in these forums, you have not once began to even engage actual discussion. Certainly not debate.

I think this is because you simply do not understand the scientific method, much less very simple scientific terms, such as "observation." It is apparent that the widely-accepted observational data verified in thousands of papers, through countless studies, is not what you consider acceptable observational data.

You begin with the premise: "I do not believe that the mountains of evidence that refute my belief represent adequate standards of evidence."

You know, that is a fine scientific challenge, from where much investigation starts. You actually start OK there (well, except for the "belief" part; but we can ignore that). The problem is that you stop here. You claim that the evidence is inadequate by your standards, yet demand further evidence based on your own undefined standards; standards that are not acceptable, much less necessary, within the field that you claim to be challenging.

Science works when you challenge these standards and then suggest an alternative theory, with adequate evidence, that can be verified independently. You've yet to do this. Not once.

You sit on your hill of mud, flinging your poo at passersby demanding that they accept your poo as adequate evidence for your insightful knowledge on whatever subject you claim to have a greater grasp than those which actually study this on a daily basis.

It's completely pointless to engage you in this, because you refuse to engage in it yourself. It is with great evidence of your posting history that you are properly branded around here as a moron.

It's pretty awesome that someone who keeps ranting about how people won't show him the evidence then stubbornly refuses to read the evidence once it's given to him.

It's like talking to an eight year old.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So that's your excuse for misrepresenting me so often?

What an odd question. I simply have the flu. Do you suppose that "frequent misrepresentation" is among the symptoms of influenza infection? Where would you get the idea that it is?

You do realize you were on ignore, right?

You do realize your supposed "ignore" list is a joke to the rest of us, right?

It clearly didn't stop you from finding something to respond to in my previous posts, so I don't really think anyone is buying that your "ignore" list is anything but a fig leaf that you use to justify to yourself your avoidance of challenges to your silly ideas.

You're the one yelling at a person who wasn't listening to you and acting as if my silence meant anything other than I didn't see your tripe.

I don't buy that, and nobody else does either. You've responded to carefully selected excerpts of my posts plenty of times since I've supposedly been on your ignore list, so peddle your petty excuses somewhere else.

Who is acting as if creation is a scientific theory? I haven't been. I haven't put forth any arguments FOR creation at all. Perhaps you should read my words instead of listening to the voices in your head.

But this is the crux of the issue, and the reason everyone knows you're a lying hypocrite not to be taken seriously. You believe in something which does not withstand the absurd scrutiny to which you subject the theory of evolution. You have no intellectual integrity.

What have we observed self replicating...

Every living thing that has ever existed.

...and how is this relevant to the origin of life anyway?

What origin of life? We're talking about evolution.

Never suggested any such thing, again, listen to my words instead of that bogeyman telling you these things in your head.

Nothing about what I believe has any bearing on the claims you or any other dogmatic Darwinist make. Your claims are independent and your burden is yours.

But this is false, naturally.

Our burden, collectively, is to determine a model of reality that best coincides with our observations and explains their relationships. This entails a comparison of different models to evaluate which is the most explanatory and predictive. You cannot evaluate a model in isolation, but only by comparing it to the performance of competing models in terms of explanatory and predictive power do you determine it's value.

Obviously, you do not like this fact, because there is literally zero explanatory or predictive power in creationism, whilst the theory of evolution undergirds every advancement in the biological sciences.

That genetic errors can build complex structures.

That isn't evolution.

No I'm suggesting that genetic errors and selection as a viable "creator" of molecular machinery is a fairy tale.

Again, that isn't evolution. Get. A. Fucking. Education.

No you don't.

Yes, we do.

You have complete blind faith. You have faith that mutations can do things we don't observe them doing.

You are mistaking your wanton ignorance of the evidence for somebody else's ignorance. I repeat: We know, but you don't -- more appropriately: you don't want to.

Then kindly show how it is the inherent properties of the organic molecules involved that make things living. Please.

How what is the what? What do you think "life" is? Submit your most rigorous definition.

haha, you got me except you didn't. Do you think this quibble is significant? But you're wrong anyway.

Meaningless gainsaying.

You do realize that your opinion on this matter means nothing to me?

I don't think anyone believes that, but you just keep on lyin' fer Jesus like we know you will...

Lets go slowly here, maybe the voices in your head will allow you to hear and maybe even understand what I'm saying instead of this misrepresentation you're applying to my argument.

Oh, my feelings. So much hurt. :'(

If crystals have any relevance to the origin of life and/or complexity...

I must repeat my question from earlier: What origin?

...then we need to be able to look at the properties of the molecules that make up life and see that they come together naturally.They don't. They go the other direction.

A highly dubious claim without any evidence from a demonstrated scientific ignoramus.

Yeah, that's about as useless as tits on a bull.

A crystal forms all on its own BECAUSE of the properties of the parts that it is made of.

And...?

I am perfectly aware of how all the different fields of science fit together. Your rebuttal is bizarre to be honest with you. The voices in your head again?

If the above were true, then you would not make some of the silly claims you've already made. But of course, you would suggest that you are more scientifically literate that you are in reality -- it fits perfectly in your dishonest, bluff and bluster character.

The fact that we have people pimping this response as meaningful is astounding to me. This guy is a complete hack. He takes everything I say in the worst possible way just to try and make me look bad.

Oh poor widdle buckwheat. :'(

I didn't say biology and physics have no relationship, that was an invention in this guys head.

I didn't say you said that, so maybe you should be reflecting on the contents of your own imagination, hmm?

He also acts as if I was reading his garbage and simply unable to respond to it instead of having him "on the list". I am famous for having a list yet that possibility didn't cross his mind? Pure hackery.

Nobody is buying that.

The changes aren't linear. Some changes are much more unlikely than others.

Irrelevant to the point.

This is what it must have accomplished. New stuff had to have been added to the biosphere.

Completely and totally false. Evolution simply reconfigures things that were already here. No "new stuff" at all.

You see? Your problem is that you are too stupid to understand what evolution is, and then you're surprised when we mock your silly diatribes against this caricature you've manufactured. A person with intellectual integrity would take the time to understand an idea in order to critically evaluate it honestly, accepting the fact that it may in actually be true.

This is not you, however. As pointed out several times previously, your ideological commitment to your religious superstition has corrupted your integrity.

We can identify the obstacles in getting a man from a microbe.

This would be a really handy place to identify those. So... ?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Can you show that genetic copying errors can build things like Krebs cycles?

Why would I? That isn't what evolution describes.

Not sure how it is my job to refute your articles of faith.

Here's even more evidence that you do not understand how science works. Please educate yourself on falsifiability and empirical epistemology because clearly you have literally no idea what either of those things mean.

But of course, despite that, we all predict you will do some cursory googling and return to tell us that you are in fact well-versed in the philosophy of science. And none of us will buy it. This is the bed you've made for yourself.

There are complex interdependent molecular machines in the way. Simple.

What a peculiar response. You claim that we cannot arrive at complex molecular machines via evolution because there are complex molecular machines in the way. Is it then true that we cannot arrive at the moon by walking because the moon is in the way? That's the only way your response can be construed in light of the analogy you yourself constructed.

No, in fact what has happened here, and what we have come to expect from you, is that you have simply pulled a response directly out of your ass that has literally no contextual meaning or evidential support.

Frankly, I don't think "pathetic" even quite captures the failure of that response.

No, but plugging in 100 trillion to the integral of a function gives you an idea of what is going on. Take an integral of x^2 and plug in 100 trillion, pretty obvious that this diverges.

Again, so what?

You could have been lying, which I lean towards given your repeated misrepresentations of what I've been saying.

I'm comfortable letting the readers-along decide for themselves who has made the more reasonable choices in this matter. I'm not concerned for my reputation, but then again, I don't know how yours could get much worse.

I don't consider engineering poofing things into existence.

That's great, but what does that have to do with your imaginary friend magically poofing things into existence? Do you have some kind of evidence that any "engineering" actually took place? What were the methods? The tools? The materials?

In other words HOW do you propose your imaginary friend could have accomplished the creation of biological organisms?

You see, biologists are actually busy answering the question of "how" biological diversity has developed. If you cannot answer that question, your ideas are worse than false -- they're useless.

Remember, whatever I believe this has zero bearing on the truthfulness of your dogma.

What dogma? You are pretty clearly projecting.

I don't need an alternative.

Uh, yeah you do. Evolutionary theory works. If you intend to convince anyone that it isn't true, you must supplant it with an idea that works better. Good luck -- you're gonna need it.

Since I've had you on ignore and I may have missed the evidence you've provided, please post it again before I put you back on the list.

You have not missed the evidence, and it isn't a secret in the first place. It's out there for anyone to find for themselves, and it isn't my job to spoonfeed you when you have shown no evidence whatsoever that you are debating in good faith.

In short, go fuck yourself.

 

[buckshot24]

What an odd question. I simply have the flu. Do you suppose that "frequent misrepresentation" is among the symptoms of influenza infection? Where would you get the idea that it is?

You blamed the flu for you not being able to post. And yes the flu can make one not think properly. I once had the flu as a child and ended up outside with my dog to escape the herd of buffalo I was dreaming about.

I was hoping it wasn't because you were a dishonest person and looking to find an excuse for your dishonesty. Maybe you're just deliberate.

You do realize your supposed "ignore" list is a joke to the rest of us, right?

Couldn't care less.

It clearly didn't stop you from finding something to respond to in my previous posts, so I don't really think anyone is buying that your "ignore" list is anything but a fig leaf that you use to justify to yourself your avoidance of challenges to your silly ideas.

Somebody quoted it. Pretty simple. Anyway, I'm here now and responding so this is a non-issue.

I don't buy that, and nobody else does either.

May I see your data on that point?

You've responded to carefully selected excerpts of my posts plenty of times since I've supposedly been on your ignore list, so peddle your petty excuses somewhere else.

Well, I'm here now so shall we continue?

But this is the crux of the issue, and the reason everyone knows you're a lying hypocrite not to be taken seriously. You believe in something which does not withstand the absurd scrutiny to which you subject the theory of evolution. You have no intellectual integrity.

Not that what I believe has anything to do with your claims. The problem with this is that I am not the one saying what I believe about the origin of biological complexity is self evident and that one is a nut for not believing it. That's all you guys. You claim to have mountains of evidence, I don't. I am holding you to your standard.

Every living thing that has ever existed.

Have these self replicating things ever not existed? If so, how did they start to self replicate?

What origin of life? We're talking about evolution.

Evolution comes in many flavors and chemical evolution is just another way to describe the origin of life.

But this is false, naturally.

If I believed Daffy Duck made us all yesterday with our memories and a false history intact how does this make your claims about reality any more true? Your claims are your claims and must be evaluated on their own merits.

Our burden, collectively, is to determine a model of reality that best coincides with our observations and explains their relationships. This entails a comparison of different models to evaluate which is the most explanatory and predictive.

Why?

You cannot evaluate a model in isolation, but only by comparing it to the performance of competing models in terms of explanatory and predictive power do you determine it's value.

You'd make a perfect jury member for the prosecution.

Going to lunch...

 

[Moonbeam]

You blamed the flu for you not being able to post. And yes the flu can make one not think properly. I once had the flu as a child and ended up outside with my dog to escape the herd of buffalo I was dreaming about.

I was hoping it wasn't because you were a dishonest person and looking to find an excuse for your dishonesty. Maybe you're just deliberate.
Couldn't care less.
Somebody quoted it. Pretty simple. Anyway, I'm here now and responding so this is a non-issue.
May I see your data on that point?
Well, I'm here now so shall we continue?
Not that what I believe has anything to do with your claims. The problem with this is that I am not the one saying what I believe about the origin of biological complexity is self evident and that one is a nut for not believing it. That's all you guys. You claim to have mountains of evidence, I don't. I am holding you to your standard.
Have these self replicating things ever not existed? If so, how did they start to self replicate?
Evolution comes in many flavors and chemical evolution is just another way to describe the origin of life.
If I believed Daffy Duck made us all yesterday with our memories and a false history intact how does this make your claims about reality any more true? Your claims are your claims and must be evaluated on their own merits.
Why?
You'd make a perfect jury member for the prosecution.

Going to lunch...

Out to lunch for sure. Evolution is a fact. None incapable of or unwilling to see scientific facts can be made to see them.

 

[buckshot24]

No, you need to read it.

that is your job.

I did.

In all of your history of pappy posting in these forums, you have not once began to even engage actual discussion. Certainly not debate.

Now make the arguments based on that paper and we can begin. Posting a link with no comment on what it means isn't a valid form of argumentation either. How do the observations from the paper make genetic copying errors and selection any more capable of doing what you think they can do?

You begin with the premise: "I do not believe that the mountains of evidence that refute my belief represent adequate standards of evidence."

Show me the mountains of evidence. Remember I'm asking for evidence that mutation and selection is capable of building complex interdependent molecular machines. Where is the evidence?

 

[Monk5127]

buckshot, I have a question for you.
How did life come to be?