rationalskepticism.org

asyncritus wrote:

asyncritus wrote:To all and sundry:

I presented a case one or 2 pages back, stating that the glass eels could not have got to the state of a 3000 mile migration in little steps of say, 500 miles. You have to invoke Lamarck to do that.

Vacuous trolling is vacuous. Answer given ,,,

You're lying. Prove otherwise.

The irony... the explanation has been given to you several times over even in links and quotes.
The only one lying here is you Async.
And ffs learn to use the quote function properly.

asyncritus wrote:
You say you have, and your blood-crazed mob is braying too

Who says so? You're failure to use the quote function properly makes it unclear who you are referring to and quoting here.
Pointless and childish ad-hominem that won't change the fact that the answer has been given, several times already.

asyncritus wrote:- but you're lying through your teeth.

You do know this is a reportable offence?

asyncritus wrote:Show us all where you have refuted this on this thread. I'm sure you know how to cut and paste and create links to other page, since you have mastered the quote function.

HAHAHAHA Yes he's mastered the quote function, unlike you, and, unlike you, he's also mastered addressing the arguments of other people.

asyncritus wrote:I say you're lying, and you keep on doing so.

And since this evidentially false, you're threading the FUA here.

asyncritus wrote:If you can prove that you're not lying,

That's not how it works Async, you claim he's lying therefore you have to show that he's not given an answer/explanation, in other words, you have to actually address his explanations.

asyncritus wrote:then prove it instead of this asinine braying of lying accusations. That's a picture of your case, by the way: dead as a dodo, and stinking just as badly..

Again, you really, really need to take a good long look in the mirror.

asyncritus wrote:So I'm waiting to hear, particularly from ST, who directed me to the paper in the first place.

asyncritus wrote:You're a liar. Prove otherwise, if you can. AND RELEVANTLY, if you know the meaning of the word.

Oh the hypocrisy.

asyncritus wrote:I have no such thing.

DOES NOT!

asyncritus wrote:But you have shown your complete inability to read a paper critically, and determine the relevance to a particular discussion. There's a word for that, but I'm not permitted to use it.

No because if anyone, it applies to you, not ST.

asyncritus wrote:Just quote a paper and hey presto, all your difficulties are gone!

Just ignore the paper or dismiss it out of hand and presto all your problems are gone!. See the stupidity of your behaviour yet Async?

asyncritus wrote:Yeah - here's a paper, and a long quote that proves anything!

And hand-waving still doesn't refute diddly squat. Unless you can refute the quote you're just dismissing things out of hand, but then that appears to be your MO.

asyncritus wrote:Yee har! Never mind what the paper says

Yes, that seems to be your instinctual reaction to any argument or piece of evidence that refutes your ludicrous notions.

asyncritus wrote:- but hey, it's a PAPER, A PAPER. Woo-hoo! Gotta be right!. Well, I've written a book! Not a paper.

Neither the quantity nor the difference in publication form between books and papers makes on more valid, true or accurate than the other. Your book could be a 1000 pages long and in hard-cover, if it contains nothing but logical fallacies it's. scientifically, worth as much as Playboy magazine.

asyncritus wrote:That's gotta be right too - but it slags off evolution theory.

Exactly how many successful peer-reviews did your book get again? O yes that's right, zilch.

asyncritus wrote:So do you believe what I say? It's a BOOK! A BOOK mind you!! Woo hoo!

Yes, your obtuse ranting does nothing to hide the fact that you have failed to address, much less refute the article or any of ST arguments and explanations, not the mention the questions and arguments posed by other members.