pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

What is EVOLUTION?; should be a question on an exam paper so students of the future do not make the same mistake you made eh THROWER?

Stop being a mendacious little runt, Paul.

Gibbering fuckwittery, I can accept... but if you insist on repeatedly lying about me, then I will return the favour and watch how you enjoy being lied about repeatedly.

Thrower turns into a troll.

What is EVOLUTION according to Charles Darwin?

Will you answer THROWER?

Fact is EVOLUTION = PROCESS.

You been barking up the wrong tree sir.

EVOLUTION = process fact. I have a logical anchor this side of rational logic.

Oh yes. Not pseudo science, you THROWER and those of your like, tradition based notion without a basis. A foundation....

Your OP troll.

Paul

We can all see that you're completely ignorant of science Paul, as in, you wouldn't pass G.C.S.E. level science.

We can all see it, Paul.

That's why you're still ranting about your vapid shite 20 years later on the same internet forum to the same people who know your idea is fatuous cack.

And as pointed out, your functional ignorance of science doesn't just explain why your idea is shit, it also explains why you can't get your head around the fact that your idea is shit.

But you're doomed to troll a group of people who are all aware that you're ignorant and full of it.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Testing....

You don't even know what the word means.

You certainly don't understand the point of testability in science.

Because you are functionally ignorant about science.

Fortunately, that's relatively easy to correct.

Unfortunately, arrogance doesn't lend itself well to accepting criticism.

pfrankinstein wrote:


Thrower turns into a troll.

What is EVOLUTION according to Charles Darwin?

Will you answer THROWER?

Fact is EVOLUTION = PROCESS.

You been barking up the wrong tree sir.

EVOLUTION = process fact. I have a logical anchor this side of rational logic.

Oh yes. Not pseudo science, you THROWER and those of your like, tradition based notion without a basis. A foundation....

Your OP troll.

Paul

Apart from the fact this is just some kind of weird word salad, why are you so oddly obsessed with Darwin? You do realise biology has moved on a bit in last 150 years?

Darwin's not some sort of atheist god replacement; cool bloke, but not the be all and end all of science

I understand this is the pseudoscience forum, and I hope I shan't be penalized, but for a moment I wish to indulge in a little pseudo-logical fallacizing.


Argumentum ad Listofwordsum
Argumentum ad Listofwordsum is an informal fallacy wherein the listing of words is presented as a coherent, functional argument.

Examples

You are SPECIATION have no manner EVOLVE so I am right CLOACA!

Fools, SCIENCE jam bell berries burn NEWTON can't you idiot EQUATION for thing in up and TEST?



Argumentum ab Bigimportantiam
Argumentum ab Bigimportantiam is an informal fallacy wherein capitalization of the written or printed word is presented as if adding greater or sufficient argumentative worth.

Examples

The forty thousandth repetition of the abject crap I keep claiming despite being unable to provide a fucking ounce of supporting argumentation = FACT

My nose is a cuckoo and I eat clowns for elevenses, so I am DEFINITELY right.



Argumentum ab Stickinsomemathsymbols
Argumentum ab Stickinsomemathsymbols is an informal fallacy wherein the inclusion of mathematical symbols into written sentences of natural language is assumed to add argumentative value.

Examples

You = wrong, me = right

Old fakey fake science that's totally lying and wrong < my groovy new science which I made up after having failed to convince anyone that my arguments had the slightest bit of scientific merit.

Thrower Examples

You = wrong, me = right

Old fakey fake science that's totally lying and wrong < my groovy new science which I made up after having failed to convince anyone that my arguments had the slightest bit of scientific merit.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome snip

Fake science.

mis·con·cep·tion
[mɪskənˈsɛpʃ(ə)n]
NOUN
a view or opinion that is incorrect because based on faulty thinking or understanding:
"public misconceptions about antibiotic use".

misconceived
[ˌmɪskənˈsiːvd]
ADJECTIVE
wrongly or badly planned or judged, typically because of faulty understanding:

According to Darwin it isprocess of descent with modification by means of Natural selection.

Viz a viz EVOLUTION = process. So legitimacy : I have a sample to work with and ask questions of.

Am I putting science to rights. Not my fault. Tradition over sound anchor point logic.

Paul.

Yeah, its bog standard pseudoscience crackpottery, you just have such a poor command of written English that you often fail to even make that clear.

You're superduper sciency-master, except children know much more about how science works than you do.

And that ignorance of science is why you think your stupid idea has merit.

Spearthrower wrote:Yeah, its bog standard pseudoscience crackpottery, you just have such a poor command of written English that you often fail to even make that clear.

You're superduper sciency-master, except children know much more about how science works than you do.

And that ignorance of science is why you think your stupid idea has merit.

Yes it's the small minded writer who knows everything but nothing.

The pompous Over educated buffoon.

Not to be brought to order by me but by himself. Irony subject matter.

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

What is EVOLUTION?; should be a question on an exam paper so students of the future do not make the same mistake you made eh THROWER?

Stop being a mendacious little runt, Paul.

Gibbering fuckwittery, I can accept... but if you insist on repeatedly lying about me, then I will return the favour and watch how you enjoy being lied about repeatedly.

Thrower turns into a troll.

What is EVOLUTION according to Charles Darwin?

Will you answer THROWER?

Fact is EVOLUTION = PROCESS.

You been barking up the wrong tree sir.

EVOLUTION = process fact. I have a logical anchor this side of rational logic.

Oh yes. Not pseudo science, you THROWER and those of your like, tradition based notion without a basis. A foundation....

Your OP troll.

Paul

We can all see that you're completely ignorant of science Paul, as in, you wouldn't pass G.C.S.E. level science.

We can all see it, Paul.

That's why you're still ranting about your vapid shite 20 years later on the same internet forum to the same people who know your idea is fatuous cack.

And as pointed out, your functional ignorance of science doesn't just explain why your idea is shit, it also explains why you can't get your head around the fact that your idea is shit.

But you're doomed to troll a group of people who are all aware that you're ignorant and full of it.

Not at all. That is your take on the matter, but then you have taken leave from your senses.

Clearly.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Yeah, its bog standard pseudoscience crackpottery, you just have such a poor command of written English that you often fail to even make that clear.

You're superduper sciency-master, except children know much more about how science works than you do.

And that ignorance of science is why you think your stupid idea has merit.

Yes it's the small minded writer who knows everything but nothing.

The pompous Over educated buffoon.

Not to be brought to order by me but by himself. Irony subject matter.

We all know, Paul.

You may as well be calling everyone 'buffoon' because not one single person here is under even a passing impression that the dire wibble you keep ranting at us merits even the few bytes of space it takes up on the server. It's dross, Paul. It's not just dross, but it's dross you keep pushing at the membership here, and the reason why is because you just get banned from actual science fora for ranting shite at people endlessly. You're only here because this site tolerates dingbattery of the numptiest order, and your 'contributions' reside firmly in that category, and will do so here forever.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Stop being a mendacious little runt, Paul.

Gibbering fuckwittery, I can accept... but if you insist on repeatedly lying about me, then I will return the favour and watch how you enjoy being lied about repeatedly.

Thrower turns into a troll.

What is EVOLUTION according to Charles Darwin?

Will you answer THROWER?

Fact is EVOLUTION = PROCESS.

You been barking up the wrong tree sir.

EVOLUTION = process fact. I have a logical anchor this side of rational logic.

Oh yes. Not pseudo science, you THROWER and those of your like, tradition based notion without a basis. A foundation....

Your OP troll.

Paul

We can all see that you're completely ignorant of science Paul, as in, you wouldn't pass G.C.S.E. level science.

We can all see it, Paul.

That's why you're still ranting about your vapid shite 20 years later on the same internet forum to the same people who know your idea is fatuous cack.

And as pointed out, your functional ignorance of science doesn't just explain why your idea is shit, it also explains why you can't get your head around the fact that your idea is shit.

But you're doomed to troll a group of people who are all aware that you're ignorant and full of it.

Not at all. That is your take on the matter, but then you have taken leave from your senses.

Clearly.

Paul.

You would fail G.C.S.E. science, there's no question about it at all.

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Yeah, its bog standard pseudoscience crackpottery, you just have such a poor command of written English that you often fail to even make that clear.

You're superduper sciency-master, except children know much more about how science works than you do.

And that ignorance of science is why you think your stupid idea has merit.

Yes it's the small minded writer who knows everything but nothing.

The pompous Over educated buffoon.

Not to be brought to order by me but by himself. Irony subject matter.

We all know, Paul.

You may as well be calling everyone 'buffoon' because not one single person here is under even a passing impression that the dire wibble you keep ranting at us merits even the few bytes of space it takes up on the server. It's dross, Paul. It's not just dross, but it's dross you keep pushing at the membership here, and the reason why is because you just get banned from actual science fora for ranting shite at people endlessly. You're only here because this site tolerates dingbattery of the numptiest order, and your 'contributions' reside firmly in that category, and will do so here forever.

I'm not calling everyone a buffoon just you thrower; just you.

You fail to engage directly in any meaningful dialogue.

The cut and thrust by reasonable debate to achieve a goal.

Explore test retest new ideas. Out the window.

Aloof Dawkins in style.

Your attempted character assassination on me started from day one.

Others see you for who you are THROWER.

Some are deceived by your spin, only for a short time though.

You deny logic. To deny fact = Selective ignorance.

Motive: no possible excuse in 'science' your selective ignorance.

Possibly your mind will not allow. For some reason you are not playing with a full deck.

You wine and dine on atheism, would that be your motive.

Who knows, but you paint a very poor picture of yourself... here..now.

Paul.

fluttermoth wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:


Thrower turns into a troll.

What is EVOLUTION according to Charles Darwin?

Will you answer THROWER?

Fact is EVOLUTION = PROCESS.

You been barking up the wrong tree sir.

EVOLUTION = process fact. I have a logical anchor this side of rational logic.

Oh yes. Not pseudo science, you THROWER and those of your like, tradition based notion without a basis. A foundation....

Your OP troll.

Paul

Apart from the fact this is just some kind of weird word salad, why are you so oddly obsessed with Darwin? You do realise biology has moved on a bit in last 150 years?

Darwin's not some sort of atheist god replacement; cool bloke, but not the be all and end all of science

Yep the study of biology validates the mechanism. The conjecture of initial process leads to truth.

150 + years.... you seem to know. Did Charles Darwin propose a PROCESS or biology?

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Yeah, its bog standard pseudoscience crackpottery, you just have such a poor command of written English that you often fail to even make that clear.

You're superduper sciency-master, except children know much more about how science works than you do.

And that ignorance of science is why you think your stupid idea has merit.

Yes it's the small minded writer who knows everything but nothing.

The pompous Over educated buffoon.

Not to be brought to order by me but by himself. Irony subject matter.

We all know, Paul.

You may as well be calling everyone 'buffoon' because not one single person here is under even a passing impression that the dire wibble you keep ranting at us merits even the few bytes of space it takes up on the server. It's dross, Paul. It's not just dross, but it's dross you keep pushing at the membership here, and the reason why is because you just get banned from actual science fora for ranting shite at people endlessly. You're only here because this site tolerates dingbattery of the numptiest order, and your 'contributions' reside firmly in that category, and will do so here forever.

I'm not calling everyone a buffoon just you thrower; just you.

You fail to engage directly in any meaningful dialogue.

The cut and thrust by reasonable debate to achieve a goal.

Explore test retest new ideas. Out the window.

Aloof Dawkins in style.

Your attempted character assassination on me started from day one.

Others see you for who you are THROWER.

Some are deceived by your spin, only for a short time though.

You deny logic. To deny fact = Selective ignorance.

Motive: no possible excuse in 'science' your selective ignorance.

Possibly your mind will not allow. For some reason you are not playing with a full deck.

You wine and dine on atheism, would that be your motive.

Who knows, but you paint a very poor picture of yourself... here..now.

Paul.

Reading comprehension, Paul.

I said you 'may as well' be calling everyone a buffoon because everyone here holds the same evaluation of your ability; that is, you have none.

As this thread records, myself and dozens of others have attempted to engage you, but you are simply too arrogant and ignorant to hold any meaningful conversation with, let alone engage in any specialist or scientific topic. I'd have as much chance finding some deep truth in a conversation with my cat.

Again, you can yammer all you like, Paul, but this thread records dozens of people on this forum over the course of a decade laughing at your cretinous wibble.

And it's not just here - all those other fora you got banned from - all the people there too. So either dozens and dozens of people are closed-minded and stupid, or just one person is Paul - the common denominator.

pfrankinstein wrote:

fluttermoth wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:


Thrower turns into a troll.

What is EVOLUTION according to Charles Darwin?

Will you answer THROWER?

Fact is EVOLUTION = PROCESS.

You been barking up the wrong tree sir.

EVOLUTION = process fact. I have a logical anchor this side of rational logic.

Oh yes. Not pseudo science, you THROWER and those of your like, tradition based notion without a basis. A foundation....

Your OP troll.

Paul

Apart from the fact this is just some kind of weird word salad, why are you so oddly obsessed with Darwin? You do realise biology has moved on a bit in last 150 years?

Darwin's not some sort of atheist god replacement; cool bloke, but not the be all and end all of science

Yep the study of biology validates the mechanism. The conjecture of initial process leads to truth.

150 + years.... you seem to know. Did Charles Darwin propose a PROCESS or biology?

Paul.

More drool.

Darkchilde wrote:pfrankenstein is not a sockpuppet. He is familiar to most of you from RDF, where he was known as paullesq.

Written on Apr 01, 2011

I miss Darkchilde!

This is a former moderator pointing out that you, Paul, were also a member on the Richard Dawkins forum.... and at that forum, you performed ALL the same bullshit routines as have done here. You have nothing new, you just regurgitate the same idiocy and then preen as if you've achieved something.

This is a web forum, Paul. It's not a path to scientific acceptance. Even were you to convince someone here that you know what you're talking about (which is fucking unlikely considering how far removed from capability you are) it still wouldn't amount to anything at all. You still don't grasp this just as you seem to struggle with understanding anything and everything.

But of course, you're not convincing anyone here because people here aren't thick enough or ignorant enough to consider your unintelligible pap of any merit for the litany of reasons provided in this thread.

pfrankinstein wrote:

fluttermoth wrote:

Apart from the fact this is just some kind of weird word salad, why are you so oddly obsessed with Darwin? You do realise biology has moved on a bit in last 150 years?

Darwin's not some sort of atheist god replacement; cool bloke, but not the be all and end all of science

Yep the study of biology validates the mechanism. The conjecture of initial process leads to truth.

150 + years.... you seem to know. Did Charles Darwin propose a PROCESS or biology?

Paul.

Nope, I'm not prepared to answer questions from someone I know to be

A: Woefully uneducated on the subject
B: Intellectually dishonest

I'm only here to be educated by Spearthrower, who's clearly the one who knows what they're talking about in this thread.

pfrankinstein wrote:
You wine and dine on atheism, would that be your motive.

What's atheism to do with your persistent flopping about on your keyboard? I didn't take you to have set up "one bang one process" as some theistic or deistic alternative to science, though it apparently turns out to be just that. We're in Pseudoscience, and not Creationism. Don't forget where you are. I thought you were clinging to "process" through some thick-headed romantic dedication to your mistaken understanding of "naturalism", and practitioners called "naturalists". But no. It seems you're concocting your own religion, then. Deists are the worst. Pure chickenshit filosofeezing.

pfrankinstein wrote:
According to Darwin it isprocess of descent with modification by means of Natural selection.

Yep, it really looks like that's what you're up to. Snorting a little Mother Nature.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Your attempted character assassination on me started from day one.

It's not really that bad, Paul. It's really only a kind of caricature assassination. You don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard, do you? The good old science-hater cartoon.

cito

Sir. You understand that if a calculation is off by a fraction from the start then any calculation thereafter may be plain wrong, if not totally wrong, perhaps on the right wavelength with some relevance. But not all the answer.

If I repeat the ' EVOLUTION = chapter process' argument it is for very good reason. It is the start of a calculation.

In the best tradition of science I am testing the core understanding. Healthy.

With the chapter process train you leave less ambiguity than you do with the traditional narrative.

Q, Did the chapter of biological evolution itself evolve?

A, yes both in terms of understanding, and form.

1, question : If ithe process itself did not evolve.. then where did the mechanism come from?

I'd have it the big bang a single beginning denotes a single process. That single process = evolution.

For me the solar system evolved by the Darwinian mechanism, except by means of primal selection.

For me the automobile evolved by the Darwinian mechanism, except by means of human selection.

The common ancestor of the car was the wheel. ?)... The tree of automobile evolution.

Take the chapter process theory out into the world and test.

How many chapter types of selection explain your reality?

My observations rimal, natural, human Artificial.

Vast amounts of of circumstantial evidence & conjecture, factually probable. Oh yes.

That's never happened before has it.

Paul.







,,Paul.

fluttermoth wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

fluttermoth wrote:

Apart from the fact this is just some kind of weird word salad, why are you so oddly obsessed with Darwin? You do realise biology has moved on a bit in last 150 years?

Darwin's not some sort of atheist god replacement; cool bloke, but not the be all and end all of science

Yep the study of biology validates the mechanism. The conjecture of initial process leads to truth.

150 + years.... you seem to know. Did Charles Darwin propose a PROCESS or biology?

Paul.

Nope, I'm not prepared to answer questions from someone I know to be

A: Woefully uneducated on the subject
B: Intellectually dishonest

I'm only here to be educated by Spearthrower, who's clearly the one who knows what they're talking about in this thread.

I admire flamethrower also, he had a knee-jerk reaction from the start and remains selectively ignorant to all else.

He is responsible for my repeating myself. Driving home basic points... tool.

He don't debate here you understand.

He will tell you why he debates here if you ask him.

You do realise that mankind is a relatively young species, as such do you belive the subject of evolution will always be understood in the same narrow terms/ tradition.

Healthy to explore a new.

EVOLUTION = chapter process... intellectually dishonest. Charles Darwins preferred reference.

Ask thrower.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Q, Did the chapter of biological evolution itself evolve?

In the first place, you have no standing to ask questions as if you were in a seminar. In the second, you have no capacity to provide answers suitable to such a setting, particularly in view of the nonsensical way you pose what you purport to be your questions. What you deliver is a clown act, dropping your little turds of nonsense into the punchbowl of discourse. Yes, Paul, all you're really doing here is shitting on people who recognize your lack of capacity.

pfrankinstein wrote:
How many chapter types of selection explain your reality?

In the first place, you have no standing to ask questions. In the second, you have no capacity to provide answers. And, ditto. But do feel free to carry on as the class clown, aimlessly wittering.

pfrankinstein wrote:
If the process itself did not evolve.. then where did the mechanism come from?

What process? Your inability to decide whether processes are related or independent leaves you moronically declaring that everything intorrelates, and that's a bunch of mindless fuckwittery.