pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:And of course you have a platform, Paul.

http://ww.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/

Are you predjadice to colour sir?

I only have to prove red blue and grey.

Already a given.

Paul.

Conversations with chat bots are more stimulating.

At least they give the impression of intelligence.

pfrankinstein wrote:
It came from nowhere, and it certainly is not going anywhere.

oh the irony.

Oh the irony that atop being unable to write anything coherent, you also can't process what other people say?

Not irony: stupidity.

You can't actually ever address any point - you just pretend to. It's all a big sham, Paul. Those of us who have witnessed it over the years can see how you've learned (extraordinarily slowly) to repeat specific words because you think they mean something important, but you don't know what the words mean, and use your incredulity as your only argument.

Evolution by natural selection cannot have existed prior to the co-existence of the three requisite components. You can keep shoving your fingers in your ears instead of addressing this, but it remains factually true; necessarily true.

And evolution isn't teleological, nor is the universe as a whole.

Your need to link evolution to the Big Bang is what's flawed - an erroneous conceit you can't provide logical reasoning for, just appeals to incredulity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy,[1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.

Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce.[2] They are also frequently used to argue that something must be supernatural in origin.[3] This form of reasoning is fallacious because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.[4]

Your comprehension may limit you, but your incomprehension doesn't limit others.

The universe allows for =/= the universe calculated/selected for

throwerMy guess is that this, like all the other tosh you talk about, is nothing more than a label - a word you read and thought you'd sound smart if you used it, that would fool people into mistakenly believing that you know what you're talking about, but really you couldn't produce a single meaningful sentence about 'triple helix' if your life literally depended on it. snip

Hark you ignorantly treating NS as a metaphor. Shame on you not knowing the first thing about "evolution.

So small minded not to see systems from a chapter perspective.

Have you no imagination?

With me the understanding of the phenominon without biased might progress.

Your stubourness has driven me to look for answers at ground zero. The core of the phenominon. And I thank you.

The man of his time, Charles Darwin had a dangerous idea, you understand I have a dangerous idea for the opposite reason to over zelouse athiest scientists.

Paul.

Spearthrower wrote:The universe allows for =/= the universe calculated/selected for

This type of universe allows for =/= the universe calculated for. >>>

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:over zelouse athiest scientists.

Personally, I'd like to hear more about the over-zealous atheist scientists, and what role they play in a thread they're unlikely to have ever seen which has no bearing whatsoever on their respective fields.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:over zelouse athiest scientists.

Personally, I'd like to hear more about the over-zealous atheist scientists, and what role they play in a thread they're unlikely to have ever seen which has no bearing whatsoever on their respective fields.

To place a phenominon into context = coherence.

What is the phenominon we call "evolution? Shall we test asif brandnew?

According to Charles Darwin it is the process of natural selection. He corrected at dinner parties an all.

No bearing on their respective fields... ..

The question of "reality" how things fit should be relevent to everyone's field of study? No..Just me then.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:What is the phenominon we call "evolution?

If I were one of the posters that has shown you the utmost patience, for what I assume to be years of your life at this point, to answer that very question for you in varying degrees of simplicity and specificity, I'd probably be extremely upset that you're still asking. I suppose that's why I'm not one of those patient people, desperately reaching for your hand as you, once again, wander off into the middle of a metaphorical highway, blissfully unaware of all the ways this excessively stupid idea has failed you.

The question of "reality" how things fit should be relevent to everyone's field of study? No..Just me then.

Paul.

Yes, Paul, it is just you. You are the only long term contributor to this forum, possibly the only contributor in the history of this forum, to cling to the laughably bad idea that reality is a highly simplistic construct such that all its moving parts can be explained with a single truism which would actually elucidate the nature of reality to anyone.

pfrankinstein wrote:throwerMy guess is that this, like all the other tosh you talk about, is nothing more than a label - a word you read and thought you'd sound smart if you used it, that would fool people into mistakenly believing that you know what you're talking about, but really you couldn't produce a single meaningful sentence about 'triple helix' if your life literally depended on it. snip

Fuck me, Paul.

It's one button.

ONE SINGLE BUTTON.

How do you still struggle with the quote function?

pfrankinstein wrote:Hark you ignorantly treating NS as a metaphor.

Paul, shut up and sit down, because you clearly don't know your arse from your elbow.

I've already provided reasoned support* for my position (which you of course ignored), whereas, as always, all your response amounts to is you asserting you're right with nothing other than your incredulity as your basis, and a dash of condescension tossed in as an ad hominem to pretend I am stupid.

If you are right, why can't you provide any argumentation in support of it?

Perhaps it's just you whose insufficiently capable to process what it means? That would sure seem to follow given your abject fucking ignorance on all these topics.

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/post2793650.html?hilit=metaphor#p2793650



Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Incidently ; NS is not a metephor, it is literal interpratation made by CD as = in math.




This is exemplification not only of the errors of your thinking, but also the arrogance in which you think just stating something makes it true.

For example, Darwin's exposition on this central idea was to liken it to pigeon-breeding, a process familiar with his readership so that he could show the manner in which natural selection works.

Like a pigeon-breeder, natural selection sorts traits, rejecting some while retaining others.

But the concept there of 'selection' is metaphorical. A pigeon-breeder's selection is one of foresight and agency, working with known quantities to effect a desire outcome. We automatically understand this because it is how we behave - goal-directed behavior.

But that's not what's happening in nature which is not agentic; in NS 'selection' is descriptive of what happens, not prescriptive as per your concept of directionality.

The concept of nature selecting is metaphorical; it doesn't mean that nature is picking and choosing in a manner analogous to humans picking and choosing.

You've ignored this for years, yet still it remains, and still you try to introduce directionality in evolution by natural selection as you do with your other claims about directionality in selection towards contemporary ends.

Of course, it probably is just that you don't understand the concept of metaphor, and thus think this is some kind of pejorative. In reality, metaphor is a vital and perfectly common building block of every day reasoning, specifically in context about generating ideas in the first instance by seeing patterns elsewhere that offer explanatory power. Every day reasoning though still has to be experimentally validated to be relevant to science. No matter how logical and satisfying the metaphor is: if you can't evidence it, if you can't show that it's meaningful by drawing falsifiable conclusions from it, then it's just a bunch of words you find stimulating.

A literal metaphor would be an entirely pointless metaphor; an oxymoron, but were we to produce a 'literal metaphor', we'd just call it a tautology and there'd be nothing metaphorical.




http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2789864



I also am leery of metaphor, for example the idea that solar systems are 'born' - they're not, of course. They are only metaphorically born - the process isn't anything like birth, the biological phenomenon. In actual terms a solar system's formation is like taking a bowl of sugar, flour, assorted dried fruits, stirring it and saying 'the cake has been conceived'

pfrankinstein wrote: Shame on you not knowing the first thing about "evolution.

Go away, Paul - what you think you are just doesn't tally with what anyone else thinks you are.

pfrankinstein wrote:So small minded not to see systems from a chapter perspective.

Ignorant dreck.

pfrankinstein wrote:Have you no imagination?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself

People use this kind of rhetoric when they're not furnished with any substance, else they'd show the argument wrong through reason.

You clearly don't possess any reason at all to contend your position, which is why you've just written a series of sentences about my supposed limitations rather than addressing the point.

pfrankinstein wrote:With me the understanding of the phenominon without biased might progress.

You're full of shit, Paul.

Everyone here knows that your comprehension of evolution isn't even elementary - you don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about. This thread provides a litany of examples.

And yeah, we all remember the 50 previous incidents of you trying this fetid wazz, crowing about how amazing you are and how stupid we all are, yet still you're here, in the pseudoscience subforum of a small webforum pretending you're the dog's nads. Just the produce of the dog's nads, Paul, and the dog is randy as fuck.

pfrankinstein wrote:Your stubourness has driven me to look for answers at ground zero. The core of the phenominon. And I thank you.

You're lying again Paul.

Nigh on 20 years ago when you started this asinine performance, you were already claiming you had special expertise beyond anyone else's ken. This is your go-to. You make up a load of unsupported shit, ignore substantive criticism instead being abusive, and then gloating about how utterly idiotic you are.

pfrankinstein wrote:The man of his time, Charles Darwin had a dangerous idea, you understand I have a dangerous idea for the opposite reason to over zelouse athiest scientists.

There's atheism again.

It's the best explanation for your functionally ignorant attacks on evolution - your motive is other than stated.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:The universe allows for =/= the universe calculated/selected for

This type of universe allows for =/= the universe calculated for. >>>

Paul.

Again, all you show is how poor your comprehension is.

That the universe allows for jam sandwiches does not infer that the universe calculated for jam sandwiches.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:over zelouse athiest scientists.

Personally, I'd like to hear more about the over-zealous atheist scientists, and what role they play in a thread they're unlikely to have ever seen which has no bearing whatsoever on their respective fields.

To place a phenominon into context = coherence.

What is the phenominon we call "evolution? Shall we test asif brandnew?

According to Charles Darwin it is the process of natural selection. He corrected at dinner parties an all.

No bearing on their respective fields... ..

The question of "reality" how things fit should be relevent to everyone's field of study? No..Just me then.

Paul.

Yes, just you, Paul.

If you refuse or are incapable of employing scientific method, then it will always be 'just you'.

Pseudoscience - when arrogant insistence is deemed more important than substance and method.

pfrankinstein wrote:
The question of "reality" how things fit should be relevent to everyone's field of study? No..Just me then.

Obviously, given how far removed you are from understanding the relationship between your gluteus and your cubitus, you can't be expected to understand that the conceit of studying 'reality' is philosophy, not science.

You will no doubt, in your blind hubris, latch onto this phrase and repeat it for pages as if you've won some kind of admission from me. Of course, you won't ever actually understand what this means or why it's important because of that vast ego constantly blocking your vision.

But yeah, let's talk about atheist scientists.

Are theist scientists better equipped intellectually then, Paul?

Does belief in gods arm you with superior knowledge to explain the universe?

Do tell.

Remember back here? Yeah, the thing is that I, for my sins, seem to understand what Paul's saying better than anyone here.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... y#p2793292

Spearthrower wrote:
E&NS, properly treated, comprises no teleology. It's not only entirely avoidable, but it's necessary to avoid it.

Genes aren't retained for future utility. They're retained because the organism they constitute survived and reproduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

Teleology (from τέλος, telos, 'end,' 'aim,' or 'goal,' and λόγος, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason')[1] or finality[2][3] is a reason or an explanation for something which serves as a function of its end, its purpose, or its goal, as opposed to something which serves as a function of its cause.

This is really what it's all about at its heart. Paul wants to argue for a goal-directed universe (the past contingent on the present), and I suspect that if Paul could ever engage in any level of honesty (yeah, good luck with that!) that we'd discover theistic evolution at its core.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Theistic evolution (also known as theistic evolutionism or God-guided evolution) is a theological view that God creates through laws of nature.

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[4] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".[5] He lists six general premises on which different versions of theistic evolution typically rest. They include:[6]

1) the prevailing cosmological model, with the universe coming into being about 13.8 billion years ago;
2) the fine-tuned universe;
3) evolution and natural selection;
4) No special supernatural intervention is involved once evolution got under way;
5) Humans are a result of these evolutionary processes; and
6) Despite all these, humans are unique. The concern for the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the continuous search for God among all human cultures defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature.

Under direction.

Those of you who don't understand Paul should consider what he's written from these 2 words: under direction

It's not once or twice: it's a repeating theme:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p2793527

Paul's chosen definition wrote:a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

Evolution began with the Big Bang because it only banged under direction in order to produce humans.

Paul won't touch this with a barge-pole, like the post doesn't even exist. At best, he'll mutter some incoherent imprecation against atheists.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:over zelouse athiest scientists.

Personally, I'd like to hear more about the over-zealous atheist scientists, and what role they play in a thread they're unlikely to have ever seen which has no bearing whatsoever on their respective fields.

Many an athiest set their stall out by defining the phenominon in a particular way.

Richard Dawkins admits to such.

As I see it the subject, the phenominon , Evolution should be defined by Charles Darwin's initial instinct.

So ambiguose the meaning of "Evolution, .

What is Evolution. According to.......

What is biological evolution.

.........
I'd be turning science on its head , to define "evolution as charles Darwin intended.

Have you sir ever stated that this that and the other ". evolves, evolved , Evolution, and NOT equated The mechanism.?

The sentence you wrote, the words you used still reads true. Yes with or without mechanism.


...........

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:over zelouse athiest scientists.

Personally, I'd like to hear more about the over-zealous atheist scientists, and what role they play in a thread they're unlikely to have ever seen which has no bearing whatsoever on their respective fields.

Many an athiest set their stall out by defining the phenominon in a particular way.

Richard Dawkins admits to such.

As I see it the subject, the phenominon , Evolution should be defined by Charles Darwin's initial instinct.

So ambiguose the meaning of "Evolution, .

What is Evolution. According to.......

What is biological evolution.

.........
I'd be turning science on its head , to define "evolution as charles Darwin intended.

Have you sir ever stated that this that and the other ". evolves, evolved , Evolution, and NOT equated The mechanism.?

The sentence you wrote, the words you used still reads true. Yes with or without mechanism.

Do you see the difference between subconscious use and conciouse Articulate usage.

Paul.
...........

thrower This is really what it's all about at its heart. Paul wants to argue for a goal-directed universe (the past contingent on the present), and I suspect that if Paul could ever engage in any level of honesty (yeah, good luck with that!) that we'd discover theistic evolution at its core. snip.

You have lost your objectivity sir, that is you cannot seperate your atheism from the phenominon.
You have constructed your athiest belief system from your narrow specific interpratation of the key subject. Shame.
Such is the weld between atheism and your perspective of the phenominon you would have to reinvent yourself.

Who'd be me upseting an eloquent athiest writer scorned.

For all he is worth.

Paul.

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution

Theistic evolution is the understanding that evolution = biology and speciation life sciences only.

Theistic evolution is the belief that the understanding of "biology" predicts all no God. As final answer.

Theistic evolution is the pretence that solar systems do not evolve by a mechanism or type of selection.

Theistic evolution is the pretence that a phenominon can be treated detached from everything else. No explanation of origin.

Theistic evolution = to treat NS as A metaphor. Shall I go on?

Theistic evolution is not my domain. It is yours thrower. We are here in psudoscience because of you?

You know how it is, you pigeonhole something with a lable, give it motive... ah that's just that. No.

You set the standard for popular science of the day sir. From you I gauge

A chart showing the movement of selection by observation.

Charles Darwin would not get way with proposing *artificial selection and NS as the same;. Not with what we know today.

Turning science on its head, articulating and reaffirming the old initial instinctive perception.

Treating Human Selection as a brand new measure. Never before having relevence in a chart.

Paul.







Black and white TV before colour. im here because you claim to be the expert.

Bullshit.

Theistic evolution requires a belief that a god is running things. You aren’t the only person with the internets, you know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

pfrankinstein wrote:Many an athiest set their stall out by defining the phenominon in a particular way.

Richard Dawkins admits to such.

As I see it the subject, the phenominon , Evolution should be defined by Charles Darwin's initial instinct.

So ambiguose the meaning of "Evolution, .

What is Evolution. According to.......

What is biological evolution.

.........
I'd be turning science on its head , to define "evolution as charles Darwin intended.

Have you sir ever stated that this that and the other ". evolves, evolved , Evolution, and NOT equated The mechanism.?

The sentence you wrote, the words you used still reads true. Yes with or without mechanism.

Do you see the difference between subconscious use and conciouse Articulate usage.

Paul.
...........

Not gonna lie, the only thought that came to mind while reading this was whether or not I could get you to completely contradict yourself just by asking you to elaborate.