On the Origins and Development of Life

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
simply an attention whore looking for pats on the back for your aborted attempts at logic and a backpedaling to your appeal to authority

Snicker.

BTW, I'd be happy to post something of substance if you're through looking for pats on the back for arriving at a 'duh' conclusion, as has already been pointed out.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Snicker.

BTW, I'd be happy to post something of substance if you're through looking for pats on the back for arriving at a 'duh' conclusion, as has already been pointed out.

So you had nothing to add to the thread from the beginning and agreed with my conclusions. Why the hell did you ever post in this thread?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Tab
So, is PyschoWizard going to ignore posts directed at him? I distinctly remember him not answering any of my posts in a past abortion thread... Now, he's ignoring Bowfinger... coincidence? I think not...

Another good example of why I don't take him seriously (see also the South Dakota abortion thread). When one offers a substantive response to his comments, he scurries away. I think that's why so many people have given up trying to talk to him and move straight to the attacks. He doesn't really want discussion. He wants a pulpit and a bunch of fawning admirers. Pretty pathetic IMHO, but some people are like that.

I'll leave it with another of my newly-favorite CW quotes: "Just more of your pissing contest that you lost and will promptly flee from now that evidence to the contrary has been presented."

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Snicker.

BTW, I'd be happy to post something of substance if you're through looking for pats on the back for arriving at a 'duh' conclusion, as has already been pointed out.

So you had nothing to add to the thread from the beginning and agreed with my conclusions. Why the hell did you ever post in this thread?

To laugh at your highfalutin' jackassery & effete pseudointellectual shenanigans. For all your drivel & whining about people not addressing your points, you surely do a fantastic job of sleazing around everyone else's.

I'd love to have you as a student in my critical thinking class, so 30 other people could laugh at the absurdity of your argumentative style, which amounts to nothing more than poorly effected, turgid bluster & supercilious, dismissive rebuttals. But then, you probably wouldn't be interested in attending a University that doesn't have a top ten US News & World Report ranking, haha... They're below someone who mastered biology with one book, because it's so easy compared to chemical engineering!

Cue: "I feel sorry for the students in your class, but they're probably all idiots because they're biology majors!"

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: piasabird
How is accidental design a valid theory. Most mutations end in death by Cancer.

The problem with that theory is how did life begin?

Try making DNA from Scratch and you will see my point. Do you really think DNA is a random chemical accidental occurrence? The likelihood of such an event is so slight it would probably require a new branch of math and statistics.

First of all, it's not "design." "Design" implies intent. Don't make assumptions.

Second, the fact that YOU find something incomprehensible may well mean (and very likely DOES mean) that you have a lack of knowledge and simply do not understand the problem fully. In particular, the fact that YOU consider vanishingly small the likelihood of DNA being created naturally quite likely means that you have no understanding whatsoever of the natural processes involved.

But rather than acknowledging your own limitations (indeed, the current limitations of human knowledge in this matter) you instead assume that your confusion - based on ignorance - is data in support of the supernatural.

Wow.

My problem is that while he wishes to think that DNA must be a vanishingly small, random chance possibility he turns around and assumes an infinitely complex and intelligent Being must exist with 100% certainty. It's Occam's Razor again.

 

[totalcommand]

rofl this thread is destined for the lock.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
To laugh at your highfalutin' jackassery & effete pseudointellectual shenanigans. For all your drivel & whining about people not addressing your points, you surely do a fantastic job of sleazing around everyone else's.

I'd love to have you as a student in my critical thinking class, so 30 other people could laugh at the absurdity of your argumentative style, which amounts to nothing more than poorly effected, turgid bluster & supercilious, dismissive rebuttals. But then, you probably wouldn't be interested in attending a University that doesn't have a top ten US News & World Report ranking, haha... They're below someone who mastered biology with one book, because it's so easy compared to chemical engineering!

So, you admit that the only reason you posted in this thread is to personally attack me? At least you're honest. Maybe the mods can take care of the riff raff.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Snicker.

BTW, I'd be happy to post something of substance if you're through looking for pats on the back for arriving at a 'duh' conclusion, as has already been pointed out.

So you had nothing to add to the thread from the beginning and agreed with my conclusions. Why the hell did you ever post in this thread?

To laugh at your highfalutin' jackassery & effete pseudointellectual shenanigans. For all your drivel & whining about people not addressing your points, you surely do a fantastic job of sleazing around everyone else's.

I'd love to have you as a student in my critical thinking class, so 30 other people could laugh at the absurdity of your argumentative style, which amounts to nothing more than poorly effected, turgid bluster & supercilious, dismissive rebuttals. But then, you probably wouldn't be interested in attending a University that doesn't have a top ten US News & World Report ranking, haha... They're below someone who mastered biology with one book, because it's so easy compared to chemical engineering!

Cue: "I feel sorry for the students in your class, but they're probably all idiots because they're biology majors!"

I think it's defensiveness and emotional reactiveness that makes people make idiots of themselves. I don't see much in this post that speaks otherwise of you. The point was made in the OP that the OPer was interested little in the how but rather the why? Exactly what, with all your critical thinking skills, does biology have to do with that? What you call the 'duh points' he made, was not his point it seems to me. What you ache to laughingly call "poorly effected, turgid bluster & supercilious, dismissive rebuttals" were pretty much responses to exactly the same thing, except of course neither were rebuttals because no rebuttal to the real point of the OP was ever made to rebut. Now if you want to say that CW could maybe find more tactful ways to express this I might agree.