Posted: Jul 28, 2010 10:43 pm
by Calilasseia
Oh dear. I see the in tray is full again, from two fetishists for mythology. Looks like it's time to load up on the JDAMs again ...

Robert Byers wrote:First its not scientists that are the problem.


For once, Byers, you've posted a sentence that isn't plain, flat wrong. But not for the pseudo-reasons you're erecting below. The problem is fetishists for mythology trying to claim, that Bronze Age nomads who couldn't count to six properly, knew more about biology than the present day world's most eminent professional biologists. A claim that results in much pointing and laughing on the part of those of us who paid attention in science classes.

Robert Byers wrote:Science has little or nothing to do with origin issues.


BULLSHIT.

Byers, you've been peddling this BLATANT CREATIONIST LIE for the whole of your posting career on several rationalist forums, a posting career that included such gems as this hilarious piece of idiocy that you posted over at the Richard Dawkins Forums, in which you said the following:

Byers over at RDF wrote:I don't like genetics as it requires too much basic study


Yes, the above is the post in which Byers admitted to being "Mr I Don't Do Genetics". He openly admitted with those words, that it required too much hard work to study, and as a consequence, anything he says on the subject is completely null and void. However, he compounded that nonsense by continuing that sentence with these words:

and is still primitive in its concepts.


Oh yes, Byers, a scientific discipline that has given us complete genome sequences of dozens of living organisms, and exquisite analyses of that data, is "primitive". What does that make your beloved Bronze Age mythology then, Byers?

This is too easy. Byers, I'm not even drawing extra breath in order to smack your apologetic excrement with the baseball bat of REALITY and send it not just out of the ballpark, but all the way to fucking Pluto. Just take a look at the above, Byers, and see how much your words constitute steamingly pungent and suppuratingly bubotic cortical faeces of the most noxiously odoriferous order.

As to your droolingly encephalitic claim that "science has little or nothing to do with origin issues", Byers, I have over one thousand, eight hundred peer reviewed scientific papers in my collection, from the cream of the world's research biologists, that all say your above claim is horseshit, because they contain DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL TEST AND VALIDATION OF THE RELEVANT POSTULATES. By contrast, Byers, your mythology has NOTHING of the sort to support it.

Moving on ...

Robert Byers wrote:Evolution can't claim the prestige of science or scientists.


BULLSHIT.

Once again, Byers, those ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED OR MORE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS BY THE CREAM OF THE WORLD'S RESEARCH BIOLOGISTS SAY YOU ARE TALKING HORSESHIT. What part of "these papers contain DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL TEST AND VALIDATION OF EVOLUTIONARY POSTULATES" do you not understand, Byers?
Which means, in case you don't understand this elementary concept, Byers, that EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS VALID SCIENCE BACKED BY HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, unlike your worthless Bronze Age mythology and the ideological masturbation fantasies erected around it.

Robert Byers wrote:This is not a good case.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

:lol: :rofl: :dielaughing:

Byers, once again, I HAVE ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED OR MORE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS CONTAINING DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL TEST AND VALIDATION OF VARIOUS EVOLUTIONARY POSTULATES. The idea that this is "not a good case" is yet another of your ideology-addled fantasies. Because that's all that you have here Byers.

All that you have, Byers, is a fantasy that an invisible magic man was needed to conjure up the biosphere, just because some ignorant and retarded Bronze Age nomads, who were too stupid to count to six properly, dreamt up this shit. Your ignorant and retarded Bronze Age nomads didn't even have the excuse that they were on drugs when they concocted this retarded fantasy, Byers, because they were anally retentive killjoys who thought that enjoying being human was cause for being stoned to death. Their mythology is replete with psychotic, anti-human rantings of a sort that would lead to any modern ideology containing such rantings being dismissed as the product of a diseased mind. And the modern political arena provides us with enough examples of people alive today with diseased minds who swallow this psychotic, anti-human excrement and seek to impose it upon others - diseased minds such as Randall Terry and the creepy Dominionists, who can't wait to turn the USA into a 12th century theocracy alloyed to modern weapons and methods of exterminating those who fail to conform. These people have openly and explicitly stated, Byers, that they want to execute summarily anyone who doesn't conform to the strictures of Leviticus, which is one of the most psychotic parts of the mythology you love so much. The mythology you love so much, Byers, leads to people like these wanting to commit mass murder.

Think about the above paragraph for a while, Byers. And think also, if you dare, that because, as I have repeatedly pointed out, you have erected ideas in your posts that are heretical with respect to creationist orthodoxy, then you are one of the people that the creepy Dominionists will summarily execute if they gain power on your continental land mass. Because this is what they have openly stated, Byers, that they will execute those who fail to conform to the orthodoxy that they have decided that they have a "divine right" to impose upon the rest of humanity. Because you have posted ideas that are heretical with respect to that orthodoxy, Byers, YOU are one of the people they want to kill.

Robert Byers wrote:First all the rocks are designed.


What, all of them, Byers? Though this is hardly a novel apologetic approach - it's exactly the one I'd expect to see coming from the Jehovah's Witnesses. By the way, Byers, are you one of these? And if so, what are you doing fraternising with the likes of us outside of the supervision of your elders? Only given that the apologetics you're erecting here is straight out of their playbook, it's pretty unusual to see someone from outside their circle using them, and so for this reason I have to ask if you're one of them. As a corollary thereof, you shouldn't even be talking to us, Byers, because the people at the top of the command chain of the JW hierarchy lay down strictures about such matters, and if you happen to be a JW, Byers, you're in violation of those strictures posting here unsupervised.

And now, let's see upon what basis you erect this apologetic excrement, shall we?

Robert Byers wrote:They are within the laws of the universe.


And guess what, Byers? Three hundred years of diligent observation, analysis and experiment by the world's scientists has established that no magic is required in order to understand this. Every scientific paper that has EVER been published, in EVERY field of scientific endeavour, renders your magic man superfluous to requirements and irrelevant with respect to vast classes of real world observational phenomena. As for blind assertions that the laws of physics themselves needed your magic man to bring them into existence, well, I can think of several top physicists who would laugh at your ignorance of developments in the field, two of whom have published papers I've presented here in some detail.

Robert Byers wrote:They were not made round but became round by processes. They first were not round.


And exactly how does erosion over time by either wind or water equal "design", Byers? Last time I checked, air and water molecules were not conscious, and did not possess intent. They simply moved in accordance with the laws of physics. The idea that this constitutes "design" of the sort that people like you assert to have taken place with respect to the biosphere is fatuous, Byers. Because THAT "design" assertion on your part, Byers, consists of the assertion that an invisible magic man, possessing stupendous magic powers and a level of purported knowledge scientists can only dream of, integrated components with complete and perfect foreknowledge of their interactions as an act of intent. Air and water molecules don't possess intent. And please, spare us the hilarity of your magic man micro-managing the universe to the point of saying "this piece of gravel will be this shape in August 2010, and this slightly different shape in August 2011", and indeed purportedly engaging in magic orchestration of every quark, lepton, fermion and boson in the universe, because I'm minded to recall something called Maxwell's Demon here. Overcoming that needs magic, and once again, her have ZERO evidence that magic is needed to understand the universe.

Robert Byers wrote:So copying them is copying a process and copying a process within a universe of design.


Bollocks. This is just a blind assertion you've pulled out of your rectal passage, Byers. Once again, the very point I was making, Byers, is that if there are NO entities that are not "designed" in the universe, then it is IMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT so-called "design", because no rigorous comparison can be made. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand, Byers?

Robert Byers wrote:So they all are designed where a process was invoked to make them round.


Fatuous apologetic gibberish. "They were all designed because my magic man designed the universe". You really have to do better than this hogwash from the JW playbook, Byers. Which, if you had bothered to READ my posts properly, you would have seen I anticipated with my line of attack. That's the whole fucking point of the exercise, Byers, in case you hadn't worked this out.

Robert Byers wrote:The human made one just did it too.


So according to your witless apologetics, it should be IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL WHICH IS WHICH. Congratulations on falsifying your own assertions in a few simple steps, Byers.

Robert Byers wrote:If your trying to say the rocks are from chance then your wrong.


HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Byers, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I USED THE WORDS "TESTABLE NATURAL PROCESSES" IN MY POSTS????

Which I EXPRESSLY USE IN ORDER TO REFUTE CREATIONIST BLIND ASSERTIONS AND LIES ABOUT "CHANCE"???

You can't even be bothered to pay attention to the most elementary of my statements, can you Byers?

Robert Byers wrote:They are from laws in nature. No chance here at all.


And THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT SCIENTISTS POSTULATE ABOUT THE BIOSPHERE, BYERS. THAT IT WAS THE PRODUCT OF TESTABLE NATURAL PROCESSES GOVERNED BY COMPREHENSIBLE LAWS. THAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION IS, BYERS, A SET OF TESTABLE NATURAL PROCESSES GOVERNED BY COMPREHENSIBLE LAWS.

Which means that from now on, Byers, you yourself have destroyed your ability to erect the "chance" canard in any of your future apologetics. I urge everyone reading this thread to bookmark your post for the purpose of catching you out on this.

Robert Byers wrote:This is rather a good case why creationism makes better points over the old evolution ideas.


HA HA HA HA HA HA!

And how OLD are creationist "ideas", Byers? Oh that's right, they arise from 3,000 year old mythology, written by ignorant and retarded Bronze Age nomads who couldn't count to six properly, and who thought that you could breed mammals with different striped coats just by sticking them next to a fence.

:lol: :rofl: :dielaughing:

Meanwhile, I'm going to love seeing what apologetic horseshit follows the above assertion, Byers.

Robert Byers wrote:Closer attention to presumptions.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

And that, Byers, is why your mythology, and the farcical ideological masturbation fantasies erected around it, FAILS, because YOUR MYTHOLOGY THINKS THAT "PRESUMPTIONS" COUNT FOR MORE THAN REALITY. A characteristic that is also present in all too many of your posts.

:lol: :rofl: :dielaughing:

Meanwhile, look who else has turned up ... the individual who openly admitted that he was only posting here to wind people up, and whose "submission" of a "paper" to various journals was a comedy epic in its own right. Oh, by the way, Atheistoclast, since you erected the assertion over at TalkRational that you were engaged in acvitivies contrary to UN sanctions, have you been visited by those nice people from Special Branch yet? Only if not, this can be arranged, given that you've openly asserted that you've aided and abetted a hostile foreign power with respect to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. For those interested, the post in which this assertion is erected is here, a follow-up post being this one, whilst a subsequent post referring back to these is this one, eliciting the following retort from ericmurphy. :mrgreen:

Oh, and as an example of this individual's views, try this gem, which exposes the vacuity before I even begin:

Atheistoclast over at TR wrote:As with holocaust revisionism, evolutionism revisionism is important in establishing the truth.


:lol: :rofl: :dielaughing:

Right, let's take a look at this shit shall we?

Atheistoclast wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:This one comes courtesy of deadman_932 over at TalkRational.

Since those who erect the "design" assertion think that "design" is allegedly "obvious", and that it's only rejected because those pesky scientists won't accept magic, I've a simple question, courtesy of the aforementioned deadman_932.


No, those pesky scientists don't accept anything other than a naturalistic explanation for the origins and diversity of life.


Which is what I said above. They don't think magic is needed. Pay attention, Atheistoclast.

Atheistoclast wrote:Their assumption is there must be one, even if the evidence is antithetical to this belief.


Oh, going to bore us all shitless with this piece of tiresome trolling now, are you, despite the fact that it's been destroyed countless times in the past? Since when does "direct experimental test and validation of the relevant postulates" equal "belief", in anything other than the fantasy universe in which you are Ahmadinejad's global fixer and enforcer?

Atheistoclast wrote:
Here's a picture of some rocks. The picture is being linked to because it's over 700 pixels wide, and the board software is set not to allow embedding of wide images. One of these rocks is "designed" (it was shaped by human hand). Which one?


This is absolutely cretinous piece of obfuscation.


A field in which you have demonstrated yourself to be a peerless expert. I cite your posts on numerous rationalist forums as evidence for this.

Atheistoclast wrote:Design inferences work because there is no naturalistic explanation


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Yeah, right. Those ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED OR MORE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS CONTAINING THE VERY EXPLANATIONS YOU ASSERT DO NOT EXIST being yet another part of REALITY you'll pretend doesn't exist. Do you really want to be a second-rate imitation of Michael Behe during the frying of his arse cheeks at the Dover Trial? Because that's what your above assertion sets you up for.

Atheistoclast wrote:Digital codes don't just come into being by chance


Yawn. It's the "chance" canard again. Been there, done that to death to such an extent that even zombies are pointing and laughing at the lack of life of this canard.

Atheistoclast wrote:or the laws of physics and chemistry.


HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I'm sure Turing, Shannon, Kolmogorov and Chaitin will all be so gratified to know where they went wrong. Every CPU that has ever been produced is pointing and laughing at you at this juncture.

Atheistoclast wrote:A rock placed on a beach by a human could have also have been deposited by natural forces.


The point being, it's not the deposition that's crucial here, it's the shaping of that rock. Namely, which ones were shaped by forces such as wind and water erosion over a long period of time, and which ones were shaped by a human being chiselling away at them?

Atheistoclast wrote:There is a big difference between what Nature can do and what she cannot.


Well since no one has demonstrated that there exist phenomena in the real world that are beyond the remit of testable natural processes, we can toss your assertions to the contrary into the bin.

Given that you've already placed into the public domain more than enough material to support the view that you are not worth bothering with, except for entertainment purposes, and I've ceased to find your subsequent drivel in this thread entertaining, I'll call it a day at this point. Because I have something serious I wish to post, and your interventions have already delayed me from this for too long.