How are people like this getting elected?

[fskimospy]

I don't think Jones has evidence that genetic copying errors actually built the molecular machines in cells either.

Stop trying to use this straw man. Again, I suggest you read the decision. If it helps, I will once again quote to you the relevant part that directly relates to your attempts to argue against evolution:

Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin...

...[Professor Behe] was presented with fifty-eight peer reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not ‘‘good enough.’’

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.

He was provided with --literally-- reams of evidence, and he simply hand waved it away as not good enough. An impartial third party, a churchgoing Republican no less, pointed out how poorly constructed Behe's arguments were.

You mean like vs Ken Miller? Miller argues against a strawman every he opens his mouth about IC. If you are impressed with lying then Miller is your man.

I am most certainly not impressed with lying, which is why Behe's arguments carry no weight with me. I mean that Behe has been shown to be hopelessly inept at even the basics of evolutionary theory and geneology repeatedly, by multiple sources. Again, if you read the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision you'll see that he considers his arguments to be scientific in the same way that he would consider astrology to be scientific.

You've been listening to a fool, and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

Behe hasn't garnered a penny from me.

Trust me, he relies on useful idiots such as yourself to make his money.

So what we have here in this thread are countless comments about me instead of any evidence for your blind faith in the power of mutation and selection to produce what we see in living things.

Nope, we have comments about your inability to evaluate evidence and your dishonest and illogical style of argumentation. You should note that this only happened after you were presented with huge amounts of evidence that you hand waved away. People tried to treat you like an adult and you made them regret it. That's why you're treated with universal contempt now.

It's very important for you to realize that you blithely declaring evidence as not good enough in no way makes it not evidence. If you can take one thing away from all these threads where you've flailed like this, it should be that point there.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Stop trying to use this straw man. Again, I suggest you read the decision. If it helps, I will once again quote to you the relevant part that directly relates to your attempts to argue against evolution:



He was provided with --literally-- reams of evidence, and he simply hand waved it away as not good enough. An impartial third party, a churchgoing Republican no less, pointed out how poorly constructed Behe's arguments were.



I am most certainly not impressed with lying, which is why Behe's arguments carry no weight with me. I mean that Behe has been shown to be hopelessly inept at even the basics of evolutionary theory and geneology repeatedly, by multiple sources. Again, if you read the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision you'll see that he considers his arguments to be scientific in the same way that he would consider astrology to be scientific.

You've been listening to a fool, and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.



Trust me, he relies on useful idiots such as yourself to make his money.



Nope, we have comments about your inability to evaluate evidence and your dishonest and illogical style of argumentation. You should note that this only happened after you were presented with huge amounts of evidence that you hand waved away. People tried to treat you like an adult and you made them regret it. That's why you're treated with universal contempt now.

It's very important for you to realize that you blithely declaring evidence as not good enough in no way makes it not evidence. If you can take one thing away from all these threads where you've flailed like this, it should be that point there.

You're better than this, don't feed this moronic troll.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're better than this, don't feed this moronic troll.

There is nothing wrong with eskimo. I would only say that care must be taken in suggesting what is meant by important. It makes no difference to me what b thinks. It is not important to me that he see. What is important to b is Thant he see what e suggests if b wishes ever to see the facts. One may offer. One can't demand or insist. b is free to chose delusion if he wants to.

 

[buckshot24]

There is nothing wrong with eskimo. I would only say that care must be taken in suggesting what is meant by important. It makes no difference to me what b thinks. It is not important to me that he see. What is important to b is Thant he see what e suggests if b wishes ever to see the facts. One may offer. One can't demand or insist. b is free to chose delusion if he wants to.

How about you disabuse me of my delusion and present some evidence that demonstrates this mythical power of mutation and selection? Because you can't provide any such demonstration and you know it.

 

[DrDoug]

Why do you think a bunch of errors eventually built your brain?

Because you exist and you're one big fucking error.

 

[buckshot24]

Because you exist and you're one big fucking error.

Not very convincing evidence.

 

[Moonbeam]

How about you disabuse me of my delusion and present some evidence that demonstrates this mythical power of mutation and selection? Because you can't provide any such demonstration and you know it.

You seek demonstration because you can.t or are unwilling to think in a scientific manner. Evolution is a fact the factualness of which does not depend on demonstration. Evolution is a theory that is supported by tons of evidence that fits a pattern of deductive reasoning. You have to have the capacity or the willingness to deduce to understand it. You have to understand that the predictive power it confers is born out by an endless acquisition of physical evidence that perfectly fits. Provided there is a capacity to reason and a willingness to do so plus a educated foundation in the evidence itself, the truth of evolution is self evident. This power to convince any rational mind of the factualness of evolution is what makes evolution a fact. It matters not that some folk like yourself are either ill trained, incapable, or unwilling to see. Your failure properly deduce from evidence is why no proof can be had by you. You are asking over and over to be shown the paper bag you find yourself in. Only you can do that.

You did mention there is more than one way to explain the complexity we see without evoking a godly designer. Would you care to back that up with an example or two?

 

[buckshot24]

You seek demonstration because you can.t or are unwilling to think in a scientific manner. Evolution is a fact the factualness of which does not depend on demonstration. Evolution is a theory that is supported by tons of evidence that fits a pattern of deductive reasoning.

Why won't you simply provide some of this evidence instead of asserting there is a ton of it? Aren't you getting tired of spouting platitudes?

You have to have the capacity or the willingness to deduce to understand it.

Provide some examples out of the tons you believe exist and we'll see?

You have to understand that the predictive power it confers is born out by an endless acquisition of physical evidence that perfectly fits.

Such as?

Provided there is a capacity to reason and a willingness to do so plus a educated foundation in the evidence itself, the truth of evolution is self evident.

Examples?

This power to convince any rational mind of the factualness of evolution is what makes evolution a fact.

No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy. How about some actual evidence?

It matters not that some folk like yourself are either ill trained, incapable, or unwilling to see.

How about some evidence?

Your failure properly deduce from evidence is why no proof can be had by you.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy and you are adding a bit of no true Scotsman for good measure. Not sure why you won't provide any of this tons of evidence you say you have.

You are asking over and over to be shown the paper bag you find yourself in. Only you can do that.

I'm demonstrating that you're full of hot air and don't have the evidence to make the grand statements that you have been making.

You did mention there is more than one way to explain the complexity we see without evoking a godly designer. Would you care to back that up with an example or two?

If you can't invest enough into this to provide me any of the tons of evidence (whatever that means) why should I invest time in answering your questions? If you want this to go both ways you have to do your part. Spouting talking points based on platitudes isn't doing your part. I've asked you many questions that you have ignored so I will ignore your questions until you put a chip on the table and answer mine.

 

[buckshot24]

At this stage, if you make any more personal comments about me I'll just place you on the list as you have nothing useful to say.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

At this stage, if you make any more personal comments about me I'll just place you on the list as you have nothing useful to say.

DUN.. DUN.. DUN..

you have been warned

 

[Brainonska511]

At this stage, if you make any more personal comments about me I'll just place you on the list as you have nothing useful to say.

"And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire..."

 

[realibrad]

Why won't you simply provide some of this evidence instead of asserting there is a ton of it? Aren't you getting tired of spouting platitudes?

Provide some examples out of the tons you believe exist and we'll see?
Such as?
Examples?
No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy. How about some actual evidence?
How about some evidence?
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy and you are adding a bit of no true Scotsman for good measure. Not sure why you won't provide any of this tons of evidence you say you have.
I'm demonstrating that you're full of hot air and don't have the evidence to make the grand statements that you have been making.
If you can't invest enough into this to provide me any of the tons of evidence (whatever that means) why should I invest time in answering your questions? If you want this to go both ways you have to do your part. Spouting talking points based on platitudes isn't doing your part. I've asked you many questions that you have ignored so I will ignore your questions until you put a chip on the table and answer mine.

B: Provide me with evidence.

*gets evidence.

B: That is not evidence.

*what is evidence?

B: Don't shift the burden, you tell me what the evidence is!

*how can I provide something if I don't understand what you want me to provide?

B: You are now on the list!

 

[buckshot24]

"And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire..."

Funny movie but how does this demonstrate that mutation and selection is capable of producing molecular machines?

 

[realibrad]

Funny movie but how does this demonstrate that mutation and selection is capable of producing molecular machines?

 

[Moonbeam]

buckshot24: Why won't you simply provide some of this evidence instead of asserting there is a ton of it? Aren't you getting tired of spouting platitudes?

M: No, I'm not tired. Your incapacity to deal with evidence makes providing evidence already presented useless. You ask a question for which you are incapable of understanding the answer.

b: Provide some examples out of the tons you believe exist and we'll see?

M: We have already seen.

b: Such as?

M: The such as has been given

b: Examples?

M: They have been given

b: No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy. How about some actual evidence?
How about some evidence?

M: You are incapable of or unwilling to understanding scientific reasoning. This is a fact not a logical fallacy.

b: Ad hominem is a logical fallacy and you are adding a bit of no true Scotsman for good measure. Not sure why you won't provide any of this tons of evidence you say you have.

M: Leave it to you to wonder why I don't present the tons of evidence I say I have when I have answered this question for you a thousand times.

b: I'm demonstrating that you're full of hot air and don't have the evidence to make the grand statements that you have been making.

M: What you have demonstrated, again, is that you are incapable of or unwilling to see the evidence.

b: If you can't invest enough into this to provide me any of the tons of evidence (whatever that means) why should I invest time in answering your questions?

A huge effort has been made to provide the evidence to you, but you are unable to see it for whatever reason.

b: If you want this to go both ways you have to do your part. Spouting talking points based on platitudes isn't doing your part. I've asked you many questions that you have ignored so I will ignore your questions until you put a chip on the table and answer mine.

M: I don't care if it goes both ways or not. My task is to verbalize why you, who have been given much in order to explain things to you reject that help and insist we give you more. Tons of chips are on the table, a table to which you have yet to ante up. Your turn is long past due.

The charge of ad hominen attack is silly. You are what you are and have only been described as that. If you find the facts of how you are insulting, that's your feeling about yourself, not mine. You are perfectly entitled to your delusions in my book. My only obligation is to offer you a look into your condition.

 

[fskimospy]

Breaking news: Buckshot now playing defensive end for the St. Louis Rams:

http://deadspin.com/rams-defensive-end-william-hayes-is-a-dinosaur-truther-1750166574

“No, I don’t believe dinosaurs existed,” Hayes said last month. “Not even a little bit. With these bones, it’s crazy because man has never seen a dinosaur, we can agree on that, right? But we know exactly how to put these bones together? I believe there is more of a chance you will find a mermaid than you will a dinosaur because we find different species in the water all the time.

“I don’t understand how [Long] just believes in dinosaurs. That’s just crazy to me. We know they died. We know what a T-Rex eats? That don’t sound crazy to you? We have never seen a dinosaur before but we know exactly where every single rib [was] and which rib goes where. That’s crazy to me.”

Who would have thought?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Breaking news: Buckshot now playing defensive end for the St. Louis Rams:

http://deadspin.com/rams-defensive-end-william-hayes-is-a-dinosaur-truther-1750166574



Who would have thought?

at least he as the 'concussion' excuse. poor bucky is just an ignorant troll

 

[buckshot24]

The charge of ad hominen attack is silly. You are what you are and have only been described as that. If you find the facts of how you are insulting, that's your feeling about yourself, not mine. You are perfectly entitled to your delusions in my book. My only obligation is to offer you a look into your condition.

I'm not insulted, you're confused on what an ad hominem is. Instead of arguing your case you're making personal comments about me instead. As promised, goodbye.

 

[DrDoug]

Not very convincing evidence.

It's small but at least you can admit that you're not very convincing.

Baby steps... you'll eventually evolve.

 

[buckshot24]

It's small but at least you can admit that you're not very convincing.

Baby steps... you'll eventually evolve.

I would hope I'm not very convincing about genetic copying errors and selection building cells from nothing since I don't believe that it can do it. Do you have anything meaningful to say or do you want to try and zing me endlessly?

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not insulted, you're confused on what an ad hominem is. Instead of arguing your case you're making personal comments about me instead. As promised, goodbye.

Oh my golly, this is a tragedy. b never quoted me and I didn't see the warning and now I'm on the list. Somebody please beg him to give me a another chance.

 

[DrDoug]

I would hope I'm not very convincing about genetic copying errors and selection building cells from nothing since I don't believe that it can do it. Do you have anything meaningful to say or do you want to try and zing me endlessly?

Would you like to buy a clue?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Would you like to buy a clue?

I'd like to see him buy a few books.

 

[realibrad]

I'd like to see him buy a few books.

All lies and stories. Show him evidence.

 

[Moonbeam]

All lies and stories. Show him evidence.

Won't help. He's a hominem who can't use it.