Posted: Jan 14, 2023 3:58 pm
by Spearthrower
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:

Which vapid lie are you referencing troll.

Paul.



No need to reach far as you cited your own lie - you have ZERO data, yet you keep pretending you do.

Not only do you not have any data, never presented any data at all, but I can cite half a dozen posts of people ausking you to provide said data and you contriving some deranged diversion that always ended with no data being produced.

You want to try this, Paul - please feel free, I am right in the mood to publicly spank you right now. :)


Publicly, in this little forum. Go for it fall guy.

Tell me again how NS is a metaphor.



See, again you're just showing yourself as being completely unable to engage in any level of honesty.

For example, I've written explaining why NS is a metaphor dozens of times, and each time you've tossed out your usual distractions.

Anyone can type in 'metaphor' and look back through the numerous instances of me attempting to provide you with some nuance and education, but you aggressively fending off ever learning anything because of your swollen ego.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2793805

Spearthrower wrote:Regardless, one of the many reasons why what Darwin did or didn't say is irrelevant to science (not History) is that Darwin's understanding of E&NS, while vital as a discovery, is extremely impoverished comparative to the understanding today. Darwin spoke in metaphor because of the limitations of his understanding - in many ways, there's a natural progression in discovery that starts with metaphor but becomes nomenclature as deeper understanding is discovered. Even nomenclature is quasi-metaphorical, but that's way beyond your ability do discuss. Despite Darwin publishing his idea, we no longer use any of the language he used because it is not clear enough for modern usage, it just doesn't have the resolution necessary to do any work today. Even were your witterings legible, the best they'd ever be is insufficiently specific to have any import on the subject. Go learn stuff, Paul: stuff good.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2793650
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2793103
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2792887
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2792850
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2791506
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2789864
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2778619
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post9 ... or#p933091
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post9 ... or#p931764
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post8 ... or#p893911


pfrankinstein wrote:Explain how Charles Darwin did not propose a process to answer the speciation question.



And again, yet more examples of your own perfect lack of good faith discussion, or even basic honesty. It's all lies and bullshit with you.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2793545

Spearthrower wrote:Speciation wasn't actually a thing conceived of before, Darwin. That's kind of the entire point of why Darwin is remembered. For most of human history, species were seen as fixed quantities created as is.

So he didn't answer the speciation question by observing speciation, as that's just jumbled nonsense the kind of which indicates what the true state of your grasp of the topic is, but rather Darwin saw different traits in distributed populations that seemed suited - adapted to local environments, and hypothesized that not only did this come about by natural selection, but that this principle of adaptations accruing over generations could thereby provide, through extension, a naturalist account of the diversity of life.

At any point, you are perfectly free to stop pretending you know what Darwin wrote - the only way is up in this respect - not least because there is no value to you in pretending anyway - what some historical figure said about it is irrelevant, Paul. Darwin did not use the words you keep trying to put in his mouth, and you don't bolster your own ideas by repeatedly name-dropping him. What Darwin did and what you've done are not in the slightest bit analogous.



http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2793544
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2793243
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2789046
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2785988
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2784641
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2781286
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2778022



pfrankinstein wrote:WE appear to be stuck in a loop. All you.


That's because you're basically akin to an old parrot who has learned to squark out a very limited selection of humanish sounding tunes but is unable to change any of the trills, or adapt to its audience. The conversation is actually between you and your ego - we're just your dry-humping post, and guess what? We don't appreciate it in the slightest.


pfrankinstein wrote: Not my fault you can't grasp the basics.


The reason being that you aren't able even to achieve the basics - being so woefully ignorant isn't itself bad, but the towering ego stops you ever from moving forward.