Debunking Calilasseia, part I

Let's do it, shall we?

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#781  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Aug 27, 2014 8:20 am

Calilasseia wrote:DBD as Statler. Now we need a Waldorf side kick. :mrgreen:

Hey! I resemble that remark! :grin: :grin:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#782  Postby patient zero » Aug 27, 2014 3:40 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
Byers Polar Bear Post Preserved.jpg

It still shocks me that someone as rock stupid as byers can survive in today's world. Maybe his unshakable ignorance will lead to his accidental end sooner or later.
Calilasseia wrote:...WHY DO PROFESSIONAL PROPAGANDISTS FOR CREATIONISM HAVE TO LIE FOR THEIR DOCTRINE?
patient zero
 
Posts: 493
Age: 49
Male

Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#783  Postby Onyx8 » Aug 27, 2014 3:56 pm

There's more bears in Churchill, Manitoba than you could shake your keys at. Never mind the zoo.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#784  Postby Arnold Layne » Aug 27, 2014 4:02 pm

I've missed all 40 pages of this thread.

Can someone point me to the debunking, please?
I'm a Pixiist
User avatar
Arnold Layne
 
Posts: 2711

Country: France
France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#785  Postby KeenIdiot » Aug 27, 2014 4:06 pm

Calilasseia got forced out of his bunk one morning.

That Byes person... wow, I feel dumber having read that. Being already pretty dumb, I think I'll avoid googling him.
KeenIdiot
 
Name: Mike
Posts: 924
Age: 32
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#786  Postby Weaver » Aug 27, 2014 4:24 pm

Byers was a force of nature. His posts exuded stupidity in galactic proportions. I don't think he ever met a dumb idea he couldn't support if he could make it support the Babble in some way.

Of course, he's still technically a member here (though he's been absent for over 4 years) so I won't extend my remarks ...
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#787  Postby Greyman » Aug 27, 2014 6:20 pm

KeenIdiot wrote:Calilasseia got forced out of his bunk one morning.

That Byes person... wow, I feel dumber having read that. Being already pretty dumb, I think I'll avoid googling him.
Then you'll miss Robert's essay on how various placental mammals migrated from the Ark's landfall in North Africa to Australia, by way of the Americas (where they dropped off the Opossum)--this was after the Flood had separated the continents, mind you--where on arrival they all became marsupials in order to breed faster.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 53

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#788  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 27, 2014 10:15 pm

Greyman wrote:
KeenIdiot wrote:Calilasseia got forced out of his bunk one morning.

That Byes person... wow, I feel dumber having read that. Being already pretty dumb, I think I'll avoid googling him.


Then you'll miss Robert's essay on how various placental mammals migrated from the Ark's landfall in North Africa to Australia, by way of the Americas (where they dropped off the Opossum)--this was after the Flood had separated the continents, mind you--where on arrival they all became marsupials in order to breed faster.


Seen that "document". In fact it should still be available online, for those who want to see something truly bizarre.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#789  Postby KeenIdiot » Aug 27, 2014 10:50 pm

No... no, I think just that bit alone caused a few braincells to implode. Upshot is I may find Family Guy entertaining again.
KeenIdiot
 
Name: Mike
Posts: 924
Age: 32
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#790  Postby jamest » Aug 28, 2014 12:43 am

Cali doesn't have a fucking clue when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of metaphysics/ontology/epistemology. Neither do most of you. But most of you aren't pretending that you do have a clue, unlike himself. I've chatted to him a fair bit, so I don't make that judgement lightly. Indeed, a present conversation between us suffices to expose the level of his expertise:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... l#p2070835
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18548
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#791  Postby Onyx8 » Aug 28, 2014 12:57 am

There's a 'nitty-gritty' to metaphysics? Wow. Always comes across as kinda grit-free to me.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#792  Postby KeenIdiot » Aug 28, 2014 1:39 am

only one person here is demonstrating their lack of a clue.
KeenIdiot
 
Name: Mike
Posts: 924
Age: 32
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#793  Postby Nicko » Aug 28, 2014 3:45 am

jamest wrote:Cali doesn't have a fucking clue when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of metaphysics/ontology/epistemology. Neither do most of you. But most of you aren't pretending that you do have a clue, unlike himself. I've chatted to him a fair bit, so I don't make that judgement lightly. Indeed, a present conversation between us suffices to expose the level of his expertise:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... l#p2070835


My, how vigorous of you.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#794  Postby hackenslash » Aug 28, 2014 3:58 am

jamest wrote:Cali doesn't have a fucking clue when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of metaphysics/ontology/epistemology. Neither do most of you. But most of you aren't pretending that you do have a clue, unlike himself. I've chatted to him a fair bit, so I don't make that judgement lightly. Indeed, a present conversation between us suffices to expose the level of his expertise:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... l#p2070835


It's amusing that you link to such an asinine post to advertise your competence. I'll post the response there.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#795  Postby Scar » Aug 28, 2014 7:14 am

Dunning-Kruger at its finest
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 34
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#796  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 28, 2014 7:34 am

jamest wrote:Cali doesn't have a fucking clue when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of metaphysics/ontology/epistemology.


Oh really? This is hilarious coming from someone whose posts manifestly display rampant incompetence in the very fields I'm being accused of "having no fucking clue" about. Got anything to bring here, apart from yet another blind assertion packaged as an ad hominem ... ???

So much for your "rebuttal" thus far.

jamest wrote:Neither do most of you.


Another assertion and ad hominem. Lovely. Some ""rebuttal" this is turning out to be.

jamest wrote:But most of you aren't pretending that you do have a clue, unlike himself.


Actually, what most of us here are doing, is asking YOU to provide something other than the usual asserionist cant, to demonstrate that YOU know what you're talking about. Thus far YOU are the one who has manifestly failed to meet this challenge.

jamest wrote:I've chatted to him a fair bit, so I don't make that judgement lightly.


Bollocks. You tossed these ad hominems into your posts as casually as he rest of us toss litter into the bin. Which is an apt analogy on the basis of the evidence you've provided thus far,with respect to your failure to meet even elementary challenges.

jamest wrote:Indeed, a present conversation between us suffices to expose the level of his expertise:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... l#p2070835


You rang?

Looks like you're the one exhibiting the fail here.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#797  Postby Sciwoman » Aug 28, 2014 7:31 pm

Still waiting on some debunking of the Blue Butterfly. :yawn:
Religion is not the answer-it is the problem. Everything considered, we would be better off without it.~Baubles of Blasphemy~Edwin F. Kagin
User avatar
Sciwoman
RS Donator
 
Name: AKA Ayaan
Posts: 916
Female

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#798  Postby Arnold Layne » Aug 28, 2014 8:34 pm

Sciwoman wrote:Still waiting on some debunking of the Blue Butterfly. :yawn:

Me too.

And why is this only Part 1. Where's Part 2? :ask:
I'm a Pixiist
User avatar
Arnold Layne
 
Posts: 2711

Country: France
France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#799  Postby tolman » Aug 28, 2014 9:03 pm

It's part I - you missed parts A-H.

Though Cali was unusually verbose in those, and Hack got uncharacteristically aggressive.
Suffice to say that several servers burst into flames as a result.
We tend not to talk about it. It was rather distressing.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#800  Postby Arnold Layne » Aug 28, 2014 9:22 pm

tolman wrote:It's part I - you missed parts A-H.

Though Cali was unusually verbose in those, and Hack got uncharacteristically aggressive.
Suffice to say that several servers burst into flames as a result.
We tend not to talk about it. It was rather distressing.

Fuck! I missed all that debunking? :nono:
I'm a Pixiist
User avatar
Arnold Layne
 
Posts: 2711

Country: France
France (fr)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests