How are people like this getting elected?

[UberNeuman]

No I won't. You can always place me on ignore if I bother you so much.

Look in the mirror and see your bio-history before you...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'll cut a deal with buckshot. See, I've been secretly hiding the evidence he's been demanding. So I will be happy to supply it to him on one condition: he demonstrates that he is a real person.

Once he presents evidence which will convince me that he is a real person, I will take that as a sign of good faith that he's actually interested in considering the evidence I have reserved from him.

If he does not demonstrate to me that he is a real person, then we know that he's just trolling the forum, and in fact he never intended to consider the evidence for evolution. Instead, we will know what is already obvious: he's dogmatically opposed to evolution, and will reject any and all of the evidence despite its overwhelming persuasiveness.

So somebody quote me so that little shit-sipper reads this.

 

[UberNeuman]

I'll cut a deal with buckshot. See, I've been secretly hiding the evidence he's been demanding. So I will be happy to supply it to him on one condition: he demonstrates that he is a real person.

Once he presents evidence which will convince me that he is a real person, I will take that as a sign of good faith that he's actually interested in considering the evidence I have reserved from him.

If he does not demonstrate to me that he is a real person, then we know that he's just trolling the forum, and in fact he never intended to consider the evidence for evolution. Instead, we will know what is already obvious: he's dogmatically opposed to evolution, and will reject any and all of the evidence despite its overwhelming persuasiveness.

So somebody quote me so that little shit-sipper reads this.

bio-history primer

 

[fskimospy]

How about presenting some evidence then instead of this dodge of yours? You realize this is a public forum and I wouldn't be the only one reading it, right? Do it for the lurkers if not for me. Your comments are interesting since all you've given us are useless platitudes.

People already have. Repeatedly.

Your response is always the same. Try and redefine the terms of debate whenever you've been cornered and declare all the evidence presented to you as 'not good enough'. It's exactly the same sort of embarrassing behavior that got Behe laughed out of the courtroom. I still strongly recommend you read the decision and ponder how his bad behavior and yours might be related.

As for lurkers, I doubt many, if any people lurking are convinced by your nonsense. You make creationism look worse than we ever could.

 

[Moonbeam]

How about presenting some evidence then instead of this dodge of yours? You realize this is a public forum and I wouldn't be the only one reading it, right? Do it for the lurkers if not for me. Your comments are interesting since all you've given us are useless platitudes.

Evidence is not something you can evaluate. You see a complexity that is beyond your comprehension, a common error that results in a natural human inability to mentally process the vastness of time over which random mutations have had to alter life. In billions of years almost any thing that can happen with the chemicals of life will happen. What would be odd is stasis. The notion that there is some design behind complexity is a complication which is totally unnecessary. The nature of the universe made life in the right conditions inevitable. If you seek design, it is in that inevibility. The nature of the universe is such as to lead to consciousness.

 

[Victorian Gray]

How about presenting some evidence then instead of this dodge of yours? You realize this is a public forum and I wouldn't be the only one reading it, right? Do it for the lurkers if not for me. Your comments are interesting since all you've given us are useless platitudes.

Evidence?

 

[DrDoug]

Please place me on ignore, for your own good.

I have a better idea; since you love to wallow in ignorance why don't you just do the ignoring yourself?

 

[buckshot24]

Evidence is not something you can evaluate.

Especially when none is provided. You keep going on about me personally.

You see a complexity that is beyond your comprehension, a common error that results in a natural human inability to mentally process the vastness of time over which random mutations have had to alter life.

What happens to a sin function as you go out billions of rads? What happens to a convergent function as it goes to infinity? Time isn't sufficient what you need is a valid mechanism (or function) that will make use of that time.

In billions of years almost any thing that can happen with the chemicals of life will happen.

Even if there was a protein generator spitting out a billion 100 amino proteins per second for 15 billion years you'd only form 7.9x10^24 proteins out of the possible 1.3x10^130 100 amino acid proteins. Your statement is patently absurd.

What would be odd is stasis.

I certainly don't think stasis is what we see.

The notion that there is some design behind complexity is a complication which is totally unnecessary.

With some of your posts I would agree while others are harder to believe weren't designed.

The nature of the universe made life in the right conditions inevitable. If you seek design, it is in that inevibility. The nature of the universe is such as to lead to consciousness.

How about some evidence?

 

[buckshot24]

I have a better idea; since you love to wallow in ignorance why don't you just do the ignoring yourself?

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

 

[buckshot24]

Look in the mirror and see your bio-history before you...

I look in the mirror but I don't see how genetic copying errors could add up to build molecular machines. Do you have any other evidence, I'm sure looking into mirrors isn't why you believe a self replicating molecule eventually turned to elephants, jelly fish, and pine trees.

 

[buckshot24]

bio-history primer

The video says our DNA stays the same throughout our life. This is simply false and one of the reasons we age and eventually die. Every cell division will bring errors of replication where we probably don't have 2 DNA molecules exactly the same in our entire body. Thankfully germ lines don't replicate as often or we'd be in real deep trouble.

But I fail to see how this video has anything to do with how genetic copying errors build molecular machines. Why did you post it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally Posted by Moonbeam
Evidence is not something you can evaluate.

Especially when none is provided.
How about some evidence?

When I say that evidence is not something you can evaluate, I mean that it is something you can't evaluate because you can't or won't recognize it when it is before you. You have blinded yourself to the facts that rational minds see by placing in front of your eyes an assumption that the complexity of organic life can have no natural explanation. You postulate instead that there must be a secondary explanation for what you can't or won't understand, thereby adding an unnecessary complexity to the explanation, some ghost phenomena of such complexity that it is capable of complex design, but the complexity of which you now have to explain. This goes hand in hand with the belief that God is to be found outside you by faith rather than within you by self recognition. When you suggested I was an idolater, you suggested to me that your relationship with God is one of fear. I would suggest then, that you placate your god by assigning him all power, that he has to be behind these complex machines. Your faith seems to be lacking in intellectual courage.

 

[buckshot24]

When I say that evidence is not something you can evaluate, I mean that it is something you can't evaluate because you can't or won't recognize it when it is before you.

Yeah, you've said this a few times now. Repeating it doesn't make it any more valid. You can't produce any evidence about mutation and selection that is valid so you make it about me.

You have blinded yourself to the facts that rational minds see by placing in front of your eyes an assumption that the complexity of organic life can have no natural explanation.

You calling me irrational is neat. How about some evidence?

You postulate instead that there must be a secondary explanation for what you can't or won't understand, thereby adding an unnecessary complexity to the explanation, some ghost phenomena of such complexity that it is capable of complex design, but the complexity of which you now have to explain.

What has your god done? How do you explain your god? How does this make mutation and selection any more capable of building the complexity we find in cells? It doesn't. God isn't the only alternative to the idea that the complexity was created by genetic accidents.

This goes hand in hand with the belief that God is to be found outside you by faith rather than within you by self recognition.

So your accidentally created brain leads you to believe in your god? The god you have created within your accidentally created mind, what has he done?

When you suggested I was an idolater, you suggested to me that your relationship with God is one of fear.

Your idolatry has nothing to do with my belief in God.

I would suggest then, that you placate your god by assigning him all power, that he has to be behind these complex machines. Your faith seems to be lacking in intellectual courage.

This has nothing to do with genetic copying errors and selection building molecular machines. How about you produce some evidence?

 

[ivwshane]

The master troll strikes again! What's the topic of this thread?

 

[brycejones]

The master troll strikes again! What's the topic of this thread?

This thread has been buckshot.

 

[fskimospy]

I for one am shocked that buckshot ignored the indictment of his debate tactics from the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision and just decided to continue on using them anyway.

By the way, there are plenty of articles on Michael Behe and his attempts to argue with actual scientists. A lot of them are really, really funny. The only sad part is how much money that huckster has grifted out of easy marks like buckshot.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah, you've said this a few times now. Repeating it doesn't make it any more valid. You can't produce any evidence about mutation and selection that is valid so you make it about me.
You calling me irrational is neat. How about some evidence?
What has your god done? How do you explain your god? How does this make mutation and selection any more capable of building the complexity we find in cells? It doesn't. God isn't the only alternative to the idea that the complexity was created by genetic accidents.
So your accidentally created brain leads you to believe in your god? The god you have created within your accidentally created mind, what has he done? Your idolatry has nothing to do with my belief in God.
This has nothing to do with genetic copying errors and selection building molecular machines. How about you produce some evidence?

I produce the evidence every time you ask for it. I tell you that you can't handle the fact that two plus two is four and you reply by asking where's my proof that two plus two is three. We can't talk math because you won't allow yourself to count.

 

[buckshot24]

I produce the evidence every time you ask for it. I tell you that you can't handle the fact that two plus two is four and you reply by asking where's my proof that two plus two is three. We can't talk math because you won't allow yourself to count.

I have asked for it multiple times and you respond by telling me I can't process the evidence.

This should be simple if this theory is so true that you have to be nuts to not believe it.

Your "evidence" seems to be that time is going to perform miracles. I suggest that time isn't sufficient and gave examples of when going to infinity doesn't produce unlimited results.

You ridiculously said that everything chemically possible has already happened and I give you the maths that suggest you're wrong.

You haven't rebutted any of those points. All you do is tell me I can't process the evidence.

 

[Moonbeam]

I for one am shocked that buckshot ignored the indictment of his debate tactics from the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision and just decided to continue on using them anyway.

By the way, there are plenty of articles on Michael Behe and his attempts to argue with actual scientists. A lot of them are really, really funny. The only sad part is how much money that huckster has grifted out of easy marks like buckshot.

In a world full of people trained to fear damnation, the notion that God despises them because they are evil, you will find many people with powerful ego needs to differentiate themselves as special. One form this can take is the flat earth syndrome. By insisting they believe what is clearly absurd they raise their hands for special attention. They come to hold to the abnormal because negative attention for a self hater is better than none. To be noticed is to have meaning.

When this swimming against the current latches onto the theory of evolution, such people will only likely believe in it in the unlikely case it is scientifically disproven.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Still no evidence that buckshot is a real person.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have asked for it multiple times and you respond by telling me I can't process the evidence.

This should be simple if this theory is so true that you have to be nuts to not believe it.

Your "evidence" seems to be that time is going to perform miracles. I suggest that time isn't sufficient and gave examples of when going to infinity doesn't produce unlimited results.

You ridiculously said that everything chemically possible has already happened and I give you the maths that suggest you're wrong.

You haven't rebutted any of those points. All you do is tell me I can't process the evidence.

You reply with your delusional version of events because you can't or won't deal with the reality. The theory of evolution is the explanation that satisfies the scientific communities search for the origin of species. Those who can be satisfied are satisfied. Those who are not don't want to be or can't be. Yell for proof all you want, but the proof is in. You have been led to water but you won't drink. That is your condition. You have taken up residency in a paper bag and demand to be shown the bag. You don't see the bag because what you see is the bag and you don't know what a bag is.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You don't see the bag because what you see is the bag and you don't know what a bag is.

This is particularly evident in his caricatures of evolution. For example, there are no copying "errors" or "accidental" brains or any such nonsense in evolution. To describe something as a "mistake" or an "accident" presumes to know that a "correct" version of events is intended. This is a woefully ignorant and baseless presupposition that is not any tenet of science.

Buckshot stands here demanding someone fill his cup when it is already overflowing with false presuppositions.

 

[buckshot24]

I for one am shocked that buckshot ignored the indictment of his debate tactics from the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision and just decided to continue on using them anyway.

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

By the way, there are plenty of articles on Michael Behe and his attempts to argue with actual scientists.

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.

A lot of them are really, really funny. The only sad part is how much money that huckster has grifted out of easy marks like buckshot.

Behe hasn't garnered a penny from me.

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.

 

[buckshot24]

You reply with your delusional version of events because you can't or won't deal with the reality. The theory of evolution is the explanation that satisfies the scientific communities search for the origin of species. Those who can be satisfied are satisfied. Those who are not don't want to be or can't be. Yell for proof all you want, but the proof is in. You have been led to water but you won't drink. That is your condition. You have taken up residency in a paper bag and demand to be shown the bag. You don't see the bag because what you see is the bag and you don't know what a bag is.

More useless platitudes with some ad homs thrown in for good measure.

You don't have the evidence this is becoming clearer with every post.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You don't have the evidence this is becoming clearer with every post.

You don't have any evidence that you're a real person. This is becoming clearer with every post.

What's the point of debating with a bot programmed to gainsay everything?