The_Metatron wrote:Things are sorted in nature all the time.

Rocks, in a stream bed, for example.

Profoundly ignorant person afloat on a sea of hubris is also genetically incapable of honest discussion.

That's why this thread is still here after 10+ years, and the 2 years at RDF, and why other fora have banned this clown rapidly.

The_Metatron wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Things are sorted in nature all the time.

Rocks, in a stream bed, for example.

Gotta make some gaps for the Big Sorter in the Sky!

Reposting to highlight the lack of good faith:

Posted in 2011...

byofrcs wrote:

Paul Almond wrote:
Oh, I can get some kind of idea. I'm sure numerous people here have speculated about the idea that something like evolution and natural selection could operate on a larger scale - I certainly have - and at least one other person above may have done. A lot of us aren't as close minded as many theists think. Anyone thinking about such things should realize that this is getting very speculative - and when you don't realize that you have crossed over into speculation you run into trouble. The OP seems to be trying to turn it all into some kind of theory that isn't explained coherently. There is already discussion about this kind of thing: the OP doesn't seem to add to it.

Well yes I see everything that exists is there because it was selected for. A good example is the periodic table. The forces that bind the bits of atoms together are whatever they are but the side effect of this is to act as a selector for the elements when they are forced into existence (stellar nuclear-synthesis etc) and those that don't fit (too many or too few parts) then decay to what happens to be stable in this universe. Thus you end up with the higgle-d-piggle-d mess that is the periodic table with its many stable isotopes but equally many unstable isotopes and more importantly a vast space that will never exist (though can for short period of time when humans have a go).

In no way are these decay chain processes relevant to evolution of species. Evolution of species has its own natural selection process (that is not applicable to decay chains).

Decay chains, gravitation, proton gradients... all manner of selection is occurring, but none analogous to evolution by natural selection which needs specific ingredients to operate that have been explained ad nauseam to the self-inflated gibberer who can't listen to anything other than his own incoherent yowling.

And straight back to the lies. Such arrogant wankery that his reply is an outright lie about the post immediately preceding it.

There's only ever been one other person I've encountered so persistent in bad faith discussion. How can anyone be this invested in lying about and blagging at strangers on the internet?

Someone without a clue, with a massively overinflated sense of their own self worth, and with zero calibration of what real world knowledge entails. Incoherent yowling in place of honest, reflective exchanges.

Also from 12 years ago:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post8 ... ml#p846888

Why do you bother posting on a forum when you don't pay the slightest bit of attention to what people say to you? You might as well go and have a conversation with your cupboard or bookshelf.

Nothing's changed, and nothing will because Paul's arrogance insists that his claims are simply fact, without all that need to establish them as credible, and anyone who disagrees has something wrong with them. When the entire world thinks you're talking mind-numbing bullshit, it could be the entire world that's wrong, but parsimoniously, it's probably just you.

I don't even think Paul's bad faith sham needs any further input from others in this thread. He could just go back to page 1 and start replying to those posts again, and just pretend that the next post from a decade and more ago is current given how little interest or attention he pays to the replies he actually gets.

The_Metatron wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Things are sorted in nature all the time.

Rocks, in a stream bed, for example.

This, for example, would be a moment when someone interested in good faith discussion might either a) expand on this point in agreement relative to their own argument b) inquire as to what is meant by this statement with respect to the thread topic or c) disagree with the statement and give reasons.

What actually happens is nothing, because it's not what Paul's after here.

I gave up trying to have a conversation with Paul some months ago - it's not so much fun if you're interlocutor assumes it's always and only ever about their win. What is this? 2010!? But I've got two poems and a half decent poe out of Paul's words in the last few weeks - so in one way his contributions offer a deep and rich seam of creative ore.

But it's rude to talk about someone when they're in the room. What do you think Paul? What's been your experience of this over the last decade? Do you think it's taught you anything new in all that time?

THWOTH wrote:I gave up trying to have a conversation with Paul some months ago - it's not so much fun if you're interlocutor assumes it's always and only ever about their win. What is this? 2010!? But I've got two poems and a half decent poe out of Paul's words in the last few weeks - so in one way his contributions offer a deep and rich seam of creative ore.

While undoubtedly provoking a lot of amusement over the years, it's still not really a desirable situation when someone becomes a running joke, even if it is entirely self-inflicted.

THWOTH wrote:But it's rude to talk about someone when they're in the room. What do you think Paul? What's been your experience of this over the last decade? Do you think it's taught you anything new in all that time?

He's learned that the OP was completely and entirely correct and that everyone else in the world fails to live up to his greatness.

Paul subsumes me and my thoughts due to his profound genius.

Observation without empirical quantities is like... math without numbers! Oh wait, that was already a facet of the grand theory of banality.

pfrankinstein wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Spearthrower wrote:Profoundly ignorant person afloat on a sea of hubris is also genetically incapable of honest discussion.

That's why this thread is still here after 10+ years, and the 2 years at RDF, and why other fora have banned this clown rapidly.

Not now Thrower. I weighing up, contenplating NSELECTION.

Im trying to figure out if ns counts as a literal 'chapter ' type of 'selection'. A calculated result by circumstance.

You define NS as a metaphor. it may take decades to undo the many fictions.

Simply because NS answers a breadth of questions you see it as a metaphor? Correct me if I am wrong.

I'd be better off asking a chimp for an opinon Eh thrower?

Paul.

Yes, you would.

If you limit your questions to asking chimps, they won’t understand your words and will dismiss you as a useless gibbering fool. You, in the meantime, will learn just as much from the chimps as you do here. You don’t listen here, the effect is the same. You may as well feed your mind with chimp noises, for all the good it does you.

Ten fuckin’ years. You could have, in that time, become a world expert on the topic. Instead, what you do here is a joke, worthy of all the derision and scorn you get. Village idiots do better than you here.

The benefit to us would be silence.

By all means, go talk to the chimps.