Posted: Jul 26, 2010 1:47 am
by Calilasseia
stevebee92653 wrote:Cali


You rang?

stevebee92653 wrote:The only person who is bitchslapped is you cali.


Oh I love it when people erect blind ex recto assertions such as this. Er, tell me, how many scientific papers did you present to support whatever weirdness you happen to subscribe to? Oh, that's right, zero. In the meantime, on the occasions I've been dealing, here and elsewhere, with the sad pretence at discourse you've been conducting, I've presented something like 11 scientific papers in detail, containing the hard empirical science that makes a mockery of your worthless assertions. In the real world, as opposed to whatever fantasy parallel universe you happen to believe mistakenly to be the real world, this means you're bitchslapped.

stevebee92653 wrote:You did it to yourself when you forfeited your skepticism and reason to some teacher when you were younger.


HA HA HA HA HA! It''s projection time again!

Let me tell you something about the teachers I was fortunate to have. They would have run rings around you with respect to their command of rigour. And I didn't "forfeit" anything, because my science teachers included empirical work in their teaching, which meant that we could see for ourselves that what we were being taught actually worked. You do know what an experiment is, don't you? That's one of the reasons why I was able to expose the lies propagated by Arsewater in Genesis, when they lied about 14C dating, because part of my physics classes included deriving the decay law empirically with real radioactive sources. Yes, that's right, when I was fifteen years of age, I was handling real plutonium in the physics lab. Did you have that level of education at your high school?

stevebee92653 wrote:You became locked in and fully wired so there is no turning back to objectivity for you.


Oh please, spare me the blatant projection, it's so farcical to behold!

Read the above and weep. Oh, and as for my biology classes, they involved such things as actual dissections that I and the other pupils in the class performed ourselves. So spare me the "indoctrination" bullshit, because once again, it IS bullshit, because I was able to see for myself what organisms looked like from the inside and out, and learn how they functioned. Plus, I've been a keeper and breeder of tropical fish for 30+ years, and in that time, I've seen dozens of mutations in fish, and watched the inheritance mechanisms at work. NONE of what I've seen in 30+ years of fishkeeping supports fatuous creationist/IDist assertions.

stevebee92653 wrote:You can’t recover your skepticism. It’s long gone.


HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Oh right, I'm the one "lacking scepticism" because I don't swallow uncritically bullshit assertions that evolution can't happen, despite the fact that I've seen the mechanisms at work first hand, and you're the "sceptic", because you think that it can't happen on the basis of zero understanding of what evolutionary theory actually postulates. Please, you should take this to a stand up comedy venue in New York, they'd be rolling in the aisles.

stevebee92653 wrote:You think that anything written in a peer reviewed paper is infallible, and 100% true


Do you know WHY those papers appear in peer reviewed journals? I'll tell you. It's because other scientists have expended labour trying to find errors in those papers, and have found none. It's because other scientists have determined that the empirical work in those papers is replicable. Those papers have passed peer review because the peer review process is aimed at weeding out those papers containing errors. As you would know if you had ever submitted a paper to one of those journals. Speaking of which, have you ever conducted any genuine empirical research?

stevebee92653 wrote:and that has become your weapon


No, what has become my weapon is the fact that those papers inform me how REALITY works, as opposed to the fantasies entertained by creationists and their ilk. My weapon consists of the fact that REALITY says that creationists and their ilk are wrong, and those papers document how wrong they are in exquisite detail because they deal with REAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCH, something creationists never perform.

stevebee92653 wrote:along with the huge amount of noise you make.


As opposed to the hot air, bluster, cheap ad hominems and complete absence of any real science contained in your posts? Oh please! That sound you hear is the sound of me rolling on the floor laughing.

stevebee92653 wrote:You can’t look at these papers and see how they don’t answer the questions I pose.


Your stance is exactly the same as Michael Behe's stance at the Dover Trial - erect fatuous blind assertions to the effect that evolutionary theory will never have answers to your questions, then when the scientific papers turn up in quantity, erect more blind assertions that they somehow don't answer your questions. We all saw how Behe's epic fail in this regard became the subject of much mirth and merriment amongst those of us who paid attention in science classes, and the same is happening to your vacuous eructations.

stevebee92653 wrote:You throw them at me and demand acceptance, and celebrate your great victory.


I don't "demand" anything. I simply point to the fact that those papers document REALITY. That's what brings me my victories, the fact that REALITY agrees with me, because I base my view of the world on REALITY, as opposed to whatever nonsense you've swallowed. Oh, by the way, since I asked you to provide me with details of what you actually believe in, any chance you're going to provide this, so that I can aim the JDAMs with even greater precision? Only thus far, you've avoided telling people what you actually believe in the way Kent Hovind avoided paying taxes, which says rather more about you than your asinine ad hominem comments say about me.

stevebee92653 wrote:Discussion is out.


Well if you showed the basic understanding necessary to comprehend what the authors of those papers were telling you, perhaps you might be in a position to discuss them. Since it is manifestly obvious that you do not possess even that basic understanding, it's hardly surprising you assert the above, because you're manifestly not capable of engaging in a genuine scientific discussion. Your combination of ex recto blind assertions and cheap ad hominems are a pathetic simulacrum thereof.

stevebee92653 wrote:The only real evolution here is that papers written ABOUT and supporting evolution become the evidence FOR evolution in your mind.


No, what I regard as the evidence for evolution is the empirical work that those papers document. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?

stevebee92653 wrote:Well, not mine. Sorry.


I'll leave the obvious retort unposted in the interests of decorum.

stevebee92653 wrote:Cali didn't answer my questions


Only in the television inside your head. What part of "the authors of that paper made explicit statements about the evolutionary origin of teeth, which refutes your assertion that they had ntohing to say on the subject" do you not understand?

stevebee92653 wrote:but y'all will of course say he did, as you did. I think the questioner has the right to satisfaction, not the cali team members or cali himself. But in this "science" the answerers grade themselves.What fun.


Well since some of the people posting in this thread happen to be tenured professional scientists, I think they're rather more likely to know what they're talking about than you.

stevebee92653 wrote:How could you possibly think bacteria that modify their diet is a good example of "good" mutations


Try because they are?

You do realise that nylonase was the product of a frameshift mutation that resulted in a complete new metabolic capability that was not present before? And I have the papers that document the hard empirical research investigating nylonase and its origins, and once again, it won't take me long to drop them on you from 40,000 feet with laser guidance.

stevebee92653 wrote:that demonstrate the invention, design, and assembly of complex bio-systems such as lung/heart/blood/vessel systems? That is unthinkable.


Tell you what, why don't you fire up Google Scholar and type in the words "heart evolution"? You'll find about 2.3 million results returned. A large proportion of these are medical papers devoted to clinical conditions, but a significant proportion cover the evolution of the heart. As for lungs, they began as swim bladders. The molecular phylogeny of lung expressed genes, which have homologies with those expressed in swim bladders, is merely one of the pieces of evidence for this - indeed, there are modern fishes that exhibit the characteristics expected to be found if lungs arose from swim bladders - the Family Polypteridae providing a nice example.

stevebee92653 wrote:You accept too easily. I don't.


Oh look, it's projection time again ... yawn ...

And how much comparative anatomy have you actually performed?

stevebee92653 wrote:Why would you yourself not question that. You can think.


We are also capable of looking at the experimental work of professional scientists and deducing that those scientists are on to something. You have yet to demonstrate a like capability.

stevebee92653 wrote:And your demenaing of my thinking and education is a good strategy for you as you can't respond to the questions I pose.


We've flogged your questions to death. The only person who doesn't realise this is you. Once again, try removing the ideological blinkers and looking at REALITY.

stevebee92653 wrote:So you go to the "you don't understand" card.


Since you manifestly don't understand even the basics of evolution, it's perfectly proper to comment on this.

stevebee92653 wrote:Good going. Also listing genetic changes is good. They have never been observed inventing and assembling complex bio-systems or even simple ones, but, again good strategy. Your only strategy.


And once again, your basic biological ignorance is showing. You do realise that there exist modern day living organisms that possess examples of simpler antecedent systems? Caenorhabditis elegans has been used as a model organism for research into such systems for decades.