One bang one process.

Evolution.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: One bang one process.

#401  Postby campermon » Jun 16, 2011 9:47 pm

:lol:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17444
Age: 54
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#402  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 16, 2011 9:52 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Yeah whatever Paul.

It's manifestly apparent to everyone reading your dross that you haven't really got a fucking clue what you are talking about.

Who you think you are fooling is anyone's guess.


The shape and dimentions of the rain cloud, an example of chaotic uniqe random interractions, or simply a case of cause and selected effect?

An attempt at an answer would be nice.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#403  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 16, 2011 10:22 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Yeah whatever Paul.

liberally spewing your prejudiced assertions about other people's characters



You pop up from time to time, have a go and then disappear, that's all you do. Your one of the 'everything new must be woo mind set'. Your character weakness [as you put it]is also a strength in the larger game of 'cause and effect'. Because you, your type of thinker, character exists i must fight tooth and nail for everything i utter, every innovation.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#404  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 17, 2011 11:40 am

Regurgitation without any substance....

One day Paul, you might want to consider whether your post-hoc deterministic vantage point were really an adequate methodology for making assertions.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#405  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 17, 2011 11:52 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Yeah whatever Paul.

liberally spewing your prejudiced assertions about other people's characters



You pop up from time to time, have a go and then disappear, that's all you do.


That's right Paul - the entire universe revolves around you. It wasn't that I was away for a week in Hong Kong, or that I don't always feel I have the requisite patience or humour to come and post in your thread. Now I am somehow morally lacking because I do not respond to each of your regurgitated flatulent assertions?

I have already posed very serious challenges to many of your claims. You not only failed to answer or address them substantively, you continually sought ways of responding with an ad hominem, trying to make the argument about me/us and the supposed limits of my/our ability to process your poorly constructed prose. That you continually seek to shift the target onto EVERYONE else really sums up the issue here. You're too close-minded to genuinely inspect your beliefs. You think it's right, so it is, and anyone who says otherwise or even raises a question is clearly deficient in some way. Nice way to protect weak assertions!


pfrankinstein wrote: Your one of the 'everything new must be woo mind set'.


Again, ad hominem. It's not that I have put forward robust criticisms of your claims, it is my assumed ideological preconceptions that you have decided blocks me from garnering the obvious knowledge and insight of your baseless assertions.


pfrankinstein wrote:Your character weakness [as you put it]is also a strength in the larger game of 'cause and effect'.


Ad hominem. Your conjecture's weakness has nothing to do with my character.


pfrankinstein wrote:Because you, your type of thinker, character exists i must fight tooth and nail for everything i utter, every innovation.


Ad hominem. Again you assert that it is some kind of deficiency in your interlocutor rather than simply addressing the challenges presented to you.

It's pathetic Paul. Did you set out to find random strangers on the internet to insult when they didn't unquestioningly accept your claims? Why don't I speculate on the character of someone who would behave in the idiotic fashion you have done both here and at RDF? Oh I know why - because I don't give a rat''s chuff about you or your character - your claims are still idiotic dross whatever your impetus for demanding their veracity and berating complete strangers who disagree with you.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#406  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 17, 2011 12:20 pm

In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you may well first need to create the universe, but that does not in any way, imply that the processes used for creating a universe are the same as those used for making apple pies, nor that the 2 processes are linked in any greater way than that one requires the other's existence.

We are all perfectly well aware that for there to be biological evolution, a universe is required. Our point, as we have made numerous times, is that a) biological evolution in the universe is not predetermined by the state of the initial universe. Even if the universes' evolution results in a universe that may potentially allow for the genesis of life, it still does not mean it is a guaranteed outcome. There are chains of simple events occurring with entirely unpredictable results - and that is unpredictable regardless of the knowledge of the system. While we may well be able to track a water molecule's path down a mountain stream, it doesn't mean that molecule was always determined to follow that course. Your claims rest on an undeclared deterministic postulate that you will not permit people to challenge, and in fact barely seem to recognise.

b) there must be a mechanism for your claims to make any sense. It is manifestly apparent that you neither understand nor care why this is, and so it will therefore remain a point of contention and a weakness to any and all of your claims. It's no good simply stating that something is, you need to show how it occurs for it to have scientific merit, as then your claim can be tested. You are effectively asserting that somewhere in the initial quark–gluon plasma there was a process that is directly linked to biological evolution. As with the apple pie, there is an obvious post-hoc means of viewing this, but to view it from that moment and assert that biological evolution was an unavoidable result of that state is to make a claim about a mechanism that must ratchet up through various other stochastic states towards a predetermined goal. You repeatedly shy from offering any substance to your simplistic assertions.... let's face it, they aren't even assertions, they are merely titles; a couple of words strung together as if they provide adequate support for you to once again drone 'one bang one process'. It's all smoke and mirrors Paul.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#407  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 17, 2011 8:26 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Yeah whatever Paul.

liberally spewing your prejudiced assertions about other people's characters


Where did i do that, everybody can see that you are the essence, the embodiment of what it is to be 'rationally skeptical'.


It wasn't that I was away for a week in Hong Kong, or that I don't always feel I have the requisite patience or humour to come and post in your thread. Now I am somehow morally lacking because I do not respond to each of your regurgitated flatulent assertions?


You make my case, 'regurgitated flatulent assertions', an insult. Nothing specifically wrong with the concept, just all of it.

My oh my, when are you going to get off first base. 1 bb 3>>>

I have already posed very serious challenges to many of your claims.You not only failed to answer or address them substantively, you continually sought ways of responding with an ad hominem, trying to make the argument about me/us and the supposed limits of my/our ability to process your poorly constructed prose.


No serious challengers has ever, evver come from your lips. Perhaps you could mount a challenge now, perhaps you would like to explain why the 'one bang one process of evolution' organon is beyond contemplation.

Traditionalism is not/does not count as an excuse/a logical counter argument when new concepts emerge.
Are you beyond mutation Mr Thrower?
Mind set, boiled egg, humpty dumpty, dip your bread. ;)

Paul.

lost interest, could't be botherd to responding to the rest of you garbage. Yawn.................
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Jun 17, 2011 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#408  Postby laklak » Jun 17, 2011 8:36 pm

For you sairorboy one bang five Yankee dorrar. You like joe me very good bang-bang.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 70
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#409  Postby patient zero » Jun 17, 2011 9:47 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:No serious challengers has ever, evver come from your lips.


Of course not, it came from his keyboard. Duh!
Calilasseia wrote:...WHY DO PROFESSIONAL PROPAGANDISTS FOR CREATIONISM HAVE TO LIE FOR THEIR DOCTRINE?
patient zero
 
Posts: 493
Age: 52
Male

Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#410  Postby Scar » Jun 17, 2011 9:58 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:

Where did i do that, everybody can see that you are the essence, the embodiment of what it is to be 'rationally skeptical'.




You make my case, 'regurgitated flatulent assertions', an insult. Nothing specifically wrong with the concept, just all of it.

My oh my, when are you going to get off first base. 1 bb 3>>>



No serious challengers has ever, evver come from your lips. Perhaps you could mount a challenge now, perhaps you would like to explain why the 'one bang one process of evolution' organon is beyond contemplation.

Traditionalism is not/does not count as an excuse/a logical counter argument when new concepts emerge.
Are you beyond mutation Mr Thrower?
Mind set, boiled egg, humpty dumpty, dip your bread. ;)

Paul.

lost interest, could't be botherd to responding to the rest of you garbage. Yawn.................


Of course you wouldn't want to quote and respond to the rest of his post - given it accurately predicts your response to it.

Pathetically dishonest.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 37
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#411  Postby LucidFlight » Jun 17, 2011 11:25 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Mind set, boiled egg, humpty dumpty, dip your bread. ;)

One egg, three processes: fried, scrambled, boiled.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10805
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#412  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 18, 2011 6:12 am

pfrankinstein wrote:You make my case, 'regurgitated flatulent assertions', an insult. Nothing specifically wrong with the concept, just all of it.



Look at the object of that statement. The object is 'assertions'. If I am insulting anything it is those assertions. As assertions are incapable of having an emotional response it's really odd that you consider my attack on them to be an insult. The answer is because you have personally invested yourself into your cherished opinions, therefore you feel as if you are being attacked and aren't noticing that everyone else in this thread is directing their remarks and criticisms at your argument.

You, on the other hand, have spent a considerable amount of time and effort on insulting every person on this thread, casting aspersions on their intelligence, honesty, and close-mindedness.

Had you spent that time and effort putting up some substance under your transparently vacuous assertions, you might have achieved something here. However, it's becoming rather obvious from your desire to spend 20+ pages trotting out the same vapid one liner that you aren't really interested in actually discussing the ideas, but seem rather more interested in flame-baiting.



pfrankinstein wrote:My oh my, when are you going to get off first base. 1 bb 3>>>


Repeating idiotic claims do not make them stronger, it just means you are incapable of engaging other people in substantive discussion.

If I have failed to 'get off first base' then the failure is yours for not providing anything of substance.



pfrankinstein wrote:No serious challengers has ever, evver come from your lips. Perhaps you could mount a challenge now, perhaps you would like to explain why the 'one bang one process of evolution' organon is beyond contemplation.


Morton's Demon.

Pages of challenges have been presented to you. Your response was to ignore them, regurgitate the same vapid nonsense, then sidetrack to attack their personalities.

Do you think people are too stupid to notice this? The only reason more people haven't commented is because they've got bored seeing you repeat the same shit for the 50th time and have left the thread. That's right Paul, they're ignoring you and this thread because its value is precisely zero. It was relegated into Pseudoscience, and to be honest, it doesn't even deserve to be here. We need a subforum for posts like yours because then we'd be better able to compare how proponents of vapid bullshit always fall back on the same tactics. I have no idea why you come to a critical thinking forum when you are not prepared to display any, I can only assume that your Morton's Demon is strong enough to ensure that you actually think you're doing a good job defending your speculation.


pfrankinstein wrote:Traditionalism is not/does not count as an excuse/a logical counter argument when new concepts emerge.


Straw man and red herring. I am not arguing from a traditionalist perspective. You have merely attempted to caricature the detractors of your claims by pushing them into a category you can dismiss. That's simply so you can evade the substantive criticisms you have repeatedly failed to address.


pfrankinstein wrote:Are you beyond mutation Mr Thrower?
Mind set, boiled egg, humpty dumpty, dip your bread. ;)

Paul.


Ad hominem. The merit, or lackthereof, of your claims is nothing to do with me, my character, my abilities. The onus is entirely on you to present substance. Your incapacity to do this tells us one thing, your attempts to confuse the issue by attacking the characters of your interlocutors tells us something else.

My suggestion from hereon Paul: stick to providing some substance, because if I see any more personal comments directed at me or anyone else, I am going to start hitting the mod button. You have shown no desire to engage in a substantive dialogue. You have shown repeated inclination to make personal comments on other members, and in fact that's what got you kicked at RDF. As you seem incapable of changing your behaviour or of maintaining a minimum of civility to your fellow members on your own behest, it appears you need to be instructed to do so by a moderator. Unsurprising really, I often see proponents of woo getting angry when people don't uncritically swallow their fabrications.


pfrankinstein wrote:lost interest, could't be botherd to responding to the rest of you garbage. Yawn.................


I'll quote Scar:

Scar wrote:Of course you wouldn't want to quote and respond to the rest of his post - given it accurately predicts your response to it.

Pathetically dishonest.


Everyone sees straight through your words, Paul. I wonder what you think you are going to achieve with your membership at this forum?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#413  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 18, 2011 6:03 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Look at the object of that statement. The object is 'assertions'. If I am insulting anything it is those assertions. As assertions are incapable of having an emotional response it's really odd that you consider my attack on them to be an insult. The answer is because you have personally invested yourself into your cherished opinions, therefore you feel as if you are being attacked and aren't noticing that everyone else in this thread is directing their remarks and criticisms at your argument.


Here is an example of a logical statement: 1+1= 2, here is another: 1+2=3.

Here is an example of one of my own statement :

1+1=2, The bb a single beginning denotes a single process, that process = Evolution.

Another:

1+2=3, The single chain process of 'cause and selected effect' can be cleanly dissected into three broad phases or chapters.

Crap prose to you eh thrower, 1+1=2 logic to me. It is a train of thought that i have, tracks for trains, logical statements for science theories. As can be observed by your attitude toward me, you can't get off first base and accept the 'The most basic premise,as a factual statement of truth, not even in principle.

Or can you?

All i utter is bound to be crap to you, now there is the rub, you your attitude and others of the same frame.
Not interested, can't get of first base, what's it all about, oh it's new, in pseudoscience, lets nail the sucker, blah blah blah music, colour, it's new it must be woo. So here we are..... Not me YOU.


Paul.

http://youtu.be/gte3BoXKwP0
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#414  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 18, 2011 6:30 pm

JayWilson wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
Mind set, boiled egg, humpty dumpty, dip your bread. ;)

One egg, three processes: fried, scrambled, boiled.


Gas, liquid, solid. Plausibility turns to stubbornness over time.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#415  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 18, 2011 6:41 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Everyone sees straight through your words, Paul. I wonder what you think you are going to achieve with your membership at this forum?


You don't see straight through anything Thrower, your fooling youself. Take my advice, run a bath, go have a think, ponder the implications 'One bang = one process, one process = evolution'.

Paul.


http://youtu.be/ho7796-au8U
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#416  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 18, 2011 7:09 pm

If we are all star stuff, then part of the process that went to make stars made us. Modification descent selection.

Hypothosis, theory or law?

The most interesting part of the 'puddle waking up cartoon' for me is that the puddle actually wakes.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#417  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 19, 2011 4:05 am

Boring regurgitation of titles without any substance.

Every time you metaphorically open your mouth Paul you show that you are incapable of rising to the challenges set here. As such, I ask again - what is your goal on this forum? People are not going to uncritically accept your vacuous claims, nor are they going to be persuaded by endless repetition of a couple of titles that don't even remotely support the postulate. I think you need to find a less discerning audience, then you might get the adulation and respect you think your 'theory' deserves.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#418  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 19, 2011 4:10 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Look at the object of that statement. The object is 'assertions'. If I am insulting anything it is those assertions. As assertions are incapable of having an emotional response it's really odd that you consider my attack on them to be an insult. The answer is because you have personally invested yourself into your cherished opinions, therefore you feel as if you are being attacked and aren't noticing that everyone else in this thread is directing their remarks and criticisms at your argument.


Here is an example of a logical statement: 1+1= 2, here is another: 1+2=3.

Here is an example of one of my own statement :

1+1=2, The bb a single beginning denotes a single process, that process = Evolution.

Another:

1+2=3, The single chain process of 'cause and selected effect' can be cleanly dissected into three broad phases or chapters.

Crap prose to you eh thrower, 1+1=2 logic to me. It is a train of thought that i have, tracks for trains, logical statements for science theories. As can be observed by your attitude toward me, you can't get off first base and accept the 'The most basic premise,as a factual statement of truth, not even in principle.

Or can you?

All i utter is bound to be crap to you, now there is the rub, you your attitude and others of the same frame.
Not interested, can't get of first base, what's it all about, oh it's new, in pseudoscience, lets nail the sucker, blah blah blah music, colour, it's new it must be woo. So here we are..... Not me YOU.


Paul.

http://youtu.be/gte3BoXKwP0




Everyone note that Paul quoted me quite specifically stating that no one has attacked him, only his argument.

What is his response to this point?

To regurgitate the same dogmatic nonsense again, as if it had anything to do with the citation.

Of course, it's topped off with the usual ad hominem that anyone who doesn't accept Paul's claims must be deficient in some respect.


It's not that it's 'new', Paul. It's that it's utterly vapid conjecture that fails to address the numerous problems pointed out across the pages, it doesn't have a mechanism, and is basically just a couple of titles and an unsupported assertion.

It is neither logical, from the perspective of formal logic, nor is it a scientific statement. Utterly clueless.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#419  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 19, 2011 4:15 am

pfrankinstein wrote:If we are all star stuff, then part of the process that went to make stars made us.


I already explained this one quite clearly just a couple of posts back. This is what happens when you have a Morton's Demon perched on your shoulder - it doesn't even let you see the criticisms of your dearly cherished notions.


pfrankinstein wrote: Modification descent selection.


False equivalence. Biological evolution, as you have been instructed numerous times, has an inheritable unit... the others don't. You can keep failing at this basic fact if you like - we can all continue laughing at the incompetence of your assertions.


pfrankinstein wrote:Hypothosis, theory or law?


Vapid conjecture that seeks to batter down its opponents rather than investing in developing its logical ground, adherence to known facts, and explanatory mechanisms.

Writing titles does not an argument make.


pfrankinstein wrote:The most interesting part of the 'puddle waking up cartoon' for me is that the puddle actually wakes.


It's not a cartoon, and the puddle doesn't really wake up, Paul. It's a metaphor reminding us to be careful when making statements about the universe claiming the inevitable arisal of intelligence.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#420  Postby LucidFlight » Jun 19, 2011 5:01 am

pfrankinstein wrote:Gas, liquid, solid. Plausibility turns to stubbornness over time.

Ice, water, steam. Crystal clarity moistens and then turns to vapour [... given a constant input of energy].

:dunno:
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10805
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests