Evolution is not a process because... over to you thrower.

Make your excuses.

Go for it. Fall guy.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:Evolution is not a process because... over to you thrower.

Make your excuses.

Go for it. Fall guy.

Paul.

Just exposed that lie.

Going to address the fact that you've been shown lying over and over?

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Evolution is not a process because... over to you thrower.

Make your excuses.

Go for it. Fall guy.

Paul.

Just exposed that lie.

Going to address the fact that you've been shown lying over and over?

I bring evidence, etymology of the word. Victorian slang corrected by the innovator. Only to be reinvented by you as another type of slang for a different subject.. If we are taking about "evolution , then we are talking about a process.

If we a talking about 'biological evolution' then that would be a different subject.

You understand. I do hope you feign your ignorence.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Evolution is not a process because... over to you thrower.

Make your excuses.

Go for it. Fall guy.

Paul.

Just exposed that lie.

Going to address the fact that you've been shown lying over and over?

I bring evidence, etymology of the word. Victorian slang corrected by the innovator. Only to be reinvented by you as another type of slang for a different subject.. If we are taking about "evolution , then we are talking about a process.

If we a talking about 'biological evolution' then that would be a different subject.

You understand. I do hope you feign your ignorence.

Paul.

You are talking utter shite that you seem to think convinces someone you know what you're talking about.

In reality, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

For example, this idea that you've provided evidence of the etymology of a word... wha..? It's just gibbering mumblefuckery.

In reality, I am not using any language in a strange way at all - I am using words exactly as they're used in the relevant fields of science, whereas your usage is incoherent or wrong.

And your repetitive lying is confusing you.

For example, you keep on wittering on about 'process' as if I've said evolution isn't a process, despite me actively challenging you dozens of times to provide a single instance of me saying otherwise.

Again, because this is how the universe actually works, I can provide direct quotations from this thread showing that you are fucking lying again.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2785391

Spearthrower wrote:A hair doesn't evolve over time, Paul. It grows.
A hairstyle, however, does evolve over time, Paul.
That's because the word 'evolve' means 'to develop gradually', Paul.
We wouldn't say the hair evolves, Paul, because it just grows in dimension.
But, Paul, we would say that the hairstyle evolves because it changes in many and more complex ways.
What we definitely wouldn't do, Paul, is to say that a hairstyle evolves in a manner equivalent to that involved with natural selection, Paul, or pretend, Paul, that just because the word 'evolve' is used that it also has to mean that all aspects of the term used in Biology - shorthand for a process involving inheritance and differential survival statistically measured over generations of living organisms - also just get ignorantly transferred across as if anyone with half a brain, Paul, actually thinks that's logical, Paul. Like words, Paul, are fucking magic, or something.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2785633

Evolution is how biology has come to be - look around at anything biological today, and the process by which it came to be like that is evolution.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2785431
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2778912
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2779773
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2780033
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2780433
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2781133
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1336229
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1336119
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1336084
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1337088
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1336583
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2777278


So why are you lying about what I said TO ME?

Are you that egotistical that you think you can somehow oblige me to believe that I didn't say what I clearly did, but instead said something you keep lying about?

Put up or shut your lying trap, Paul. Provide a single instance of me denying that evolution is a process: OF COURSE IT"S A FUCKING PROCESS, you total dingbat! Evolution, being change over time, necessarily involves a process, i.e. a sequence of events over time... it's like arguing with a 3 year old.

I've shown so many instances of your lying now - it's time you start owning this. If you can't change your behavior, why do you expect others to change their response to you?

Same input - same output.

Repeat these baseless lies again about me, and I will reference these to the moderators - you more than deserve it, despite everyone here giving you ample chances to engage with some basic fucking honesty.

Spearthrower wrote:
A hair doesn't evolve over time, Paul. It grows. Snip.

Go argue your point to a porcupine, a stags antlers, the feathers of a bird.

Go figure. You only sound intelligent, in reality. Don't get me started.

Paul.

thrower Repeat these baseless lies again about me, and I will reference these to the moderators - snip.


You refer to me as being ignorant at every turn. You accuse me of being a troll.

If a man actively ignores presented facts and refuses to make direct counterarguments, .

If he refuses to engage or speak directly, as in a debate, on each point raised, how shall we label them?

Like I stated before, I do hope you feign ignorance and play the devil's advocate. 

See how I make excuses for you.

Paul.

Put up or shut your lying trap, Paul. Provide a single instance of me denying that evolution is a process: OF COURSE IT"S A FUCKING PROCESS.

Most of the time I skim read you, so I missed your acceptence .

Shame we had to go the long way round to establish the fact.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:Put up or shut your lying trap, Paul. Provide a single instance of me denying that evolution is a process: OF COURSE IT"S A FUCKING PROCESS.

Most of the time I skim read you, so I missed your acceptence .

Shame we had to go the long way round to establish the fact.

Paul.

Uh, Paul?

That's explicitly your fault.

You literally just said that you don't even read Spearthrower's posts properly.

Granted, the lot of us already knew that you don't read the posts, but god damn, dude. Did it ever occur to you that all the horseshit you get is because you literally refuse to put any effort into these conversations?

You know, I'm pretty sure that "troll" is an apt description of such a person.

pfrankinstein wrote:Put up or shut your lying trap, Paul. Provide a single instance of me denying that evolution is a process: OF COURSE IT"S A FUCKING PROCESS.

Most of the time I skim read you, so I missed your acceptence .

Shame we had to go the long way round to establish the fact.

Paul.

The shame is entirely yours.

"The first person we lie to is always ourselves." -- Greek proverb.

pfrankinstein wrote:Spearthrower wrote:
A hair doesn't evolve over time, Paul. It grows. Snip.

Go argue your point to a porcupine, a stags antlers, the feathers of a bird.

Go figure. You only sound intelligent, in reality. Don't get me started.

Paul.

Another very obvious evasion.

Regardless of you owning up to it or not - my post still shows yet another repetitive lie on your part.

pfrankinstein wrote:thrower Repeat these baseless lies again about me, and I will reference these to the moderators - snip.


You refer to me as being ignorant at every turn. You accuse me of being a troll.

You are ignorant of Biology and Physics, of how science works, and of many other topics you pretend expertise in - as you have shown many times in this thread, and as many people have noted.

I don't accuse you of being a troll, but of trolling. You start trolling whenever you can't wriggle your way out of one of your many stupid errors.

pfrankinstein wrote:If a man actively ignores presented facts and refuses to make direct counterarguments, .

If he refuses to engage or speak directly, as in a debate, on each point raised, how shall we label them?

I've already adequately labeled such behavior: lying.

For example, your stupid contention that I'm 'ignoring facts' when you have never once actually presented any, or claiming that I've made no counter-arguments when literally everyone reading this thread knows it's bullshit.

It's like you think you can just decree the world, regardless of what's apparent.

pfrankinstein wrote:Like I stated before, I do hope you feign ignorance and play the devil's advocate. 

Quite the contrary - I've spanked your incessant blagging, and you've shown yourself terminally incapable of addressing any challenge posed by anyone.

When you're coherent, which is rare, your claims are either banal or bananas.

pfrankinstein wrote:See how I make excuses for you.

I'd worry more about working out excuses for your incessant lying and blagging if I were you.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Most of the time I skim read you, so I missed your acceptence .

Ahh so this is how you intend to wriggle out of the fact that I can provide dozens of links showing that I've demolished your claims and that you've routinely failed to address any of them - because you didn't read them!

Perhaps this explains why, after 20 years, you're still functionally ignorant about evolution - because you're too lazy to read.

pfrankinstein wrote:Shame we had to go the long way round to establish the fact.

Shame you're so lacking in basic honesty that you refuse ever to engage in good faith.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Most of the time I skim read you, so I missed your acceptence .

Shame we had to go the long way round to establish the fact.

Paul.

Uh, Paul?

That's explicitly your fault.

You literally just said that you don't even read Spearthrower's posts properly.

Granted, the lot of us already knew that you don't read the posts, but god damn, dude. Did it ever occur to you that all the horseshit you get is because you literally refuse to put any effort into these conversations?

You know, I'm pretty sure that "troll" is an apt description of such a person.

The lengths purveyors of bullshit go to in order to prop up their failed claims, to pretend the bad idea should persist.

THWOTH wrote:"The first person we lie to is always ourselves." -- Greek proverb.

Within the paradigm of the Dunning-Kruger effect, those who are most competent often experience imposter syndrome - gnawing self-doubt in their abilities and the authenticity of their knowledge.

I wonder whether there's an equal opposite for those who are magnificently ignorant to the point that they lack even the ability to calibrate their actual competence with their objective performance. More than just bloated arrogance, I mean.

Unlike lies to others which can be purely ad hoc, one has to believe the lies one tells oneself. One has to be able to believe those lies on some level. It's an interesting notion that Paul seems to think he's doing great, despite the mountains of evidence in this thread to the contrary.

Have you ever thought about why mathematics is a universal language? one of precision. 

Set values. Numbers and the symbols.

Interesting subject slang language.

Because that one word has no definitive meaning, is it any wonder my task of explaining is akin to plating fog?

Try this for a statement of fact.

You can only chart the slang use of the word by means of etymology and a grain of truth. The truth being Darwin's preference.

Use of the single word "evolution" was Victorian slang for what Charles Darwin preferred to describe as a process with a mechanism.

Ask both third and fourth grade students, "What is evolution?"

If the word had a specific meaning (in science ) then both grades would answer in unison. Like mathematicians.

Evolution = Process

Paul.

Spearthrower wrote:

THWOTH wrote:"The first person we lie to is always ourselves." -- Greek proverb.

Within the paradigm of the Dunning-Kruger effect, those who are most competent often experience imposter syndrome - gnawing self-doubt in their abilities and the authenticity of their knowledge.

I wonder whether there's an equal opposite for those who are magnificently ignorant to the point that they lack even the ability to calibrate their actual competence with their objective performance. More than just bloated arrogance, I mean.

Unlike lies to others which can be purely ad hoc, one has to believe the lies one tells oneself. One has to be able to believe those lies on some level. It's an interesting notion that Paul seems to think he's doing great, despite the mountains of evidence in this thread to the contrary.

Your a talented writer sir.

Paul.

[bTo propose that evolution be defined as a "process" is nothing new; it was proposed a long time ago.

We forgot. The dog ate my homework.

150+ years as slang. Enough is enough. 

Some even call it " the process of evolution".

Very real.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:Have you ever thought about why mathematics is a universal language? one of precision. 

Set values. Numbers and the symbols.

Interesting subject slang language.

Because that one word has no definitive meaning, is it any wonder my task of explaining is akin to plating fog?

Try this for a statement of fact.

You can only chart the slang use of the word by means of etymology and a grain of truth. The truth being Darwin's preference.

Use of the single word "evolution" was Victorian slang for what Charles Darwin preferred to describe as a process with a mechanism.

Ask both third and fourth grade students, "What is evolution?"

If the word had a specific meaning (in science ) then both grades would answer in unison. Like mathematicians.

Evolution = Process

Paul.

No, evolution doesn't mean process.

Evolution, however the word's used, necessarily infers change, and because change necessarily takes time, then evolution can be described as A process - but it doesn't mean process.

pfrankinstein wrote:[bTo propose that evolution be defined as a "process" is nothing new; it was proposed a long time ago.

It's banal, it's not 'proposed' and never was 'proposed' as being a process, and it's not defined as 'process'.

You're not getting anywhere, Paul.