Posted: Jul 24, 2014 8:53 pm
by Calilasseia
So much shit, so little time, as I'm currently in the middle of some heavy lifting at work. But I'll take a look at some of this before I go to bed ...

Jayjay4547 wrote:“odour of discoursive duplicity and criminality that makes numerous organoselenium compounds seem florally fragrant by comparison.” It’s fair to call that frustrated spluttering.

Bollocks. It's invective. Usually deployed to indicate displeasure, not frustration. Do learn the elementary concepts here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Strange that you seem proud of it.

Why shouldn't I be proud of being able to hand-craft invective of this sort? After all, it takes rather more effort than "fuck you", which is what you'd receive at certain other forums I can think of.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That must be learned. Posters at Richard Dawkins.Net and now here have mutually groomed each other into treating spluttering as admirable.

Keep telling yourself these fantasies, JayJay, because you're the only one who thinks they're anything other than fantasies. Once again, your bullshit about "atheist ideology" has been subjected to so many discoursive carpet bombings, and demonstrated so many times to be bullshit and lies, that the only answer you have left to try and distract from said exposure of your bullshit and lies, is to make up fantasies about post style, then use said fantasies to indulge in some amateur armchair Freudian analysis. It's so transparently obvious what you're doing here, that the regulars can see it coming from several light years away. And like the rest of your diaphanous fabrications, it doesn't work on those of us who paid attention in class.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But like I said, if any outsiders do happen to come along, you won’t look so good to them.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Please, this is so amusing, JayJay, the idea that my pointing out your manifest bullshit and lies somehow makes me look bad. But then most people will come here and look at the substance being offered, JayJay, and won't worry too much about style. Substance that your posts manifestly lack.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You can change and the quality of argument here would improve if you did.

Matthew 7:5, anyone? I'm not the one peddling repeatedly destroyed bullshit and lies as fact, JayJay, and if you were really concerned about the state of discourse here, you'd address that gigantic deficiency in your own discoursive offerings, instead of bleating about the manner in which that deficiency is subject to the spotlight. But then I've noticed this about creationists, the manner in which they engage in entirely synthetic affectations of prurient offence, whenever someone decides to give their lies and bullshit the treatment said lies and bullshit deserve, trying to claim that the style chosen for this somehow negates the substance. Except that, oh wait, it doesn't. The substance remains valid regardless of the chosen mode of expression thereof. I could post my post in fucking Klingon, and it would still be superior to yours in this respect.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:There’s always a possibility that some members of the English intellectual elite might come here and whatever they think of my mangled sentences they won’t be impressed by your claim of almost papal authority for science.

Ah, more caricature. Quelle fucking surprise.

The mere fact that you describe allowing data to shape ideas as "Papal authority" speaks volumes about your own presuppositions here, JayJay. But that's the whole point - discarding ideas when the data says it's time for them to go, is the very antithesis of the sort of assertionist authority you're caricaturing science as with the above fatuous drivel. But I've long since ceased to be surprised at the manner in which supernaturalists resort to caricature of this sort.

Once again, what part of "the data shapes ideas in science, not unsupported assertions peddled as purportedly constituting fact", do you not understand?

It’s true that data is used to support ideas in science as in History but historians appreciate that alternative narratives can be constructed by highlighting different data

Well the problem here is that you're once again comparing apples to kiwi fruit. This is because, wait for it, photons, rocks, molecules, etc., are not sentient. As a corollary, they tend not to peddle lies. On the other hand, the output of humans, these being sentient entities, can frequently be duplicitous, your apologetics being a case in point, and one of the factors historians have to take into account, is that the humans they're studying as responsible for various historical events, might have been, shall we say, economical with the truth when it comes to reporting the thoughts driving their actions. This is why, JayJay, historians seek independent corroboration where possible, before advancing a hypothesis about the mindset of the various players, a lesson they've learned from scientists.

Jayjay4547 wrote:and that motivations at the social level guide that choice.

Except that, oh wait, you've been told repeatedly that the motivation of scientists is to find out what the data is telling them. So you can drop the attempt to sneak your "atheist ideology" bullshit into the arena via the back door you're manifestly launching here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Those motivations can derive from ideologies, for example atheism.

Bullshit. Once again, JayJay, and I'll post this in FUCKING HUGE LETTERS so you can't claim you haven't been adequately schooled on this ...


You've been told this so often, JayJay, that your above sentence is merely another instance of rampant and egregious discoursive duplicity on your part. Now fucking drop this bullshit and manifest lie once and for all.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Those guys aren’t in your pocket Cali.

They're not in yours either. Moreover, they'll almost certainly point and laugh at your above caricature if they happen to know how science actually works, as opposed to the caricature thereof you repeatedly peddle here.

That notion of “pointing and laughing” is used often here, it brings up an image of a jeering crowd which is your crowd; you-all act like a jeering crowd.

Oh, haven't you heard what Carl Sagan had to say on this matter? You know, a world famous scientist with over six hundred peer reviewed papers to his name, and who was therefore eminently qualfied to utter this statement? Here's what he said on the subject of dealing with bullshit:

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.[/quote]

You have three guesses which of the above four choices is considered the most apposite in relation to your posts.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But the danger you face is that an outsider will not join the jeering, but be put off.

Not if he's read Carl Sagan he won't, he'll understand exactly where I'm coming from, especially when he sees how many times you've peddled your "atheist ideology" lies and bullshit, after you've been thoroughly schooled on the matter. It's the fact that you have been schooled on the facts here over and over again, JayJay, that makes your continued peddling of this fabrication of yours suppuratingly dishonest. No matter how much you resort to yet more apologetic fabrications to try and polish this discoursive turd of yours, it ain't gonna shine.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The bias that I claim so see in the established human origin narrative is no more radical than they have been educated to accept in the respected discipline of History.

Pull the other one, JayJay, it's got fucking bells on. You're erecting your caricatures for one purpose and one purpose only, as I described above, namely, to try and erect a fake "symmetry" between evidence-based science and assertion-laden doctrine, for the purpose of dismissing any evidence that happens not to genuflect before your ideological presuppositions. It's a supernaturalist tactic that's been deployed so often here, JayJay, and not just by you, that it's transparently obvious to the point of having no refractive index. Your entire "atheist ideology" bullshit is erected for this specific purpose, just as it's erected for the same purpose by every other creationist who peddles it. No one who paid attention in science class is fooled by this discoursive elision.

Nope, I’m arguing that the understanding and presentation of evolution has been influenced and damaged by atheist ideology.

Bullshit and lies once again, JayJay, and every time you peddle this bullshit and lies, I will call you out on this bullshit and lies. Because yoru "atheist ideology" fabrication IS a manifest fabrication, and yo've been told repeatedly WHY it's a manifest fabrication. Once again, JayJay, sit down and take your schooling as I repeat the FACTS applicable here:

FACT NO. 1: Evolutionary biologists have arrived at their current view of the biosphere because THE DATA TELLS THEM THAT THIS VIEW IS IN ACCORD THEREWITH.

FACT NO. 2: Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. In short, it consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions". Asking someone else to support their assertions is NOT an "ideology", it's the proper conduct of discourse.

FACT NO. 3: Since genuine ideologies are all based upon unsupported assertions peddled as purportedly constituting fact, and atheism as constituted above presents no assertions of its own, but instead consists of a suspicion of the assertions of others, your "atheist ideology" fabrication is precisely that: a fabrication.

If you repeat your "atheist ideology" bullshit and lies after this piece of schooling, JayJay, then it won't be my posting style that will attract attention, it will be your manifest, egregious and rampant discoursive duplicity. It's so fucking rich seeing you posturing as being in a position to tell me to clean up my discoursive act here, JayJay, whilst engaging in a level of abuse of discourse that would make Yuri Andropov blanch. I'll give you three guesses what I think of your posturing here, as well as the lies and bullshit you keep peddling repeatedly whilst engaging in said posturing. Matthew 7:5 once again springs to mind here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That influence

Is a figment of your imagination. See above.

Jayjay4547 wrote:has been greatest in the human origin narrative, where that presentation is a fuck up, built by air-brushing out fossil evidence of the australopiths, specifically, their eye teeth.

Bullshit and lies again, JayJay. The only one doing the airbrushing out of evidence here is you, and this has been demonstrated repeatedly.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Considered together with the rest of their physiology, their predators, alternative prey and the distinctive abilities of their descendants.

Oh you mean the way that the authors of that paper did, despite your attempt to peddle the manifest lie that they didn't? In a paper that includes far more data than you've ever presented?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Though the natural history bias I’m claiming is particularly interesting.

Only a creationist could possibly describe paying attention to the real world evidence as "natural history bias". Congratulations on exposing your own manifest ideological presuppositions once more, JayJay.

To even propose a bias is to be ipso facto wrong?

Oh look, it's that other favourite creationist tactic, the putting of words into the mouth of an opponent, that said opponent never uttered.

What counts here, JayJay, is whether the FACTS point to any bias. When the facts DON'T point to any bias, it's perfectly legitimate to dismiss assertions to the contrary. Learn this sometime.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Only in the mind of someone blinded by the assumption of the rightness of “science”

Yawn, yawn, fucking yawn. Your sad attempt to emulate my discoursive style, when it suits your apologetic convenience in the hope of scoring some cheap points, is not only sad, but in the light of your above whingeing about that style when it also happens to be apologetically convenient, duplicitous.

I don't bother with "assumptions", JayJay, I leave those to mythology fetishists. Plus, scientists have provided evidence to support their hypotheses by the supertanker load, whilst you have merely provided fabrications accompanied by manifest cherry-picking. Guess who I'm going to pay more attention to, given a choice here?

Right, that should do before I hop into bed. Only I've an early start tomorrow, and a lot of paperwork to wade through, so I suspect many here will forgive my truncating my post at this point. The above should be enough, in any case, to destroy the specious fulcrum upon which your entire apologetics rests, and many will therefore consider this post a sufficiently executed one.