One bang one process.

Spearthrower · **#4041** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 15, 2023 10:17 am

Before Thwoth, Cito, Romansh, Fluttermoth, myself or any other contemporary poster in this thread actually posted, Paul was already trotting out this juvenile trick to evade addressing substance.

Post 187 directed at JayWilson:

pfrankinstein wrote:Spouting crap Jay, genius or simpleton spoiler?

Post 195 & 206 directed at John P.M.

pfrankinstein wrote:Alas 'simpleton spoilers' run amok and events over take me. How sad.

pfrankinstein wrote:I'm fed up........ Narrow minded simpleton spoilers have sapped my will to write more and further recap and explain. Blah.

Post 244 & 250 directed at Paul Almond

pfrankinstein wrote:Simpleton spoilers abound.

sim·ple·ton (s m p l-t n). n. A person who is felt to be deficient in judgment, good sense, or intelligence; a fool. ...
http://www.thefreedictionary. haaaaaaaaaa

pfrankinstein wrote:
I use the primary colours as a means of simplifying explanation. If florence Nightingale had suggested her pie chart concept here i feel sure that some "simpleton spoiler" here would make reference to pastry and savory/sweet fillings.

Post 253 directed at 3 members, but actually at everyone:

pfrankinstein wrote:hackenlash, Paul Almond, Scar.

I label you all as "simpleton spoilers." You are clearly not interested in the thread, i will not be replying to any of your posts.

Wheat-chaff-sorted.

On and on and on - Paul's endless gymnastics to evade substantive criticism of his stupid idea.

12 years of this egotistical insanity.

Spearthrower · **#4042** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 15, 2023 10:19 am

pfrankinstein wrote:pfrankinstein wrote:
Repatician is a Victorian method of teaching that is still used today. The x-table is still taught that way.

thrower For brain-dead rote learning. snip.

Please do engage your brain and think before you post..

Psychological projection.

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

(Psychological projection) is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others

Spearthrower · **#4043** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 15, 2023 10:21 am

Do you consider your very existence, your being here, the result of an uninterrupted chain of "cause and effect" from bang to now?

Shame you can't establish your central claim that reversing this to the beginning and hitting play would result in the same events occurring ala your attempted teleological directionality.

Spearthrower · **#4044** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 15, 2023 10:41 am

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... ml#p846440

The actual person unable to get off first base.

12 years ago, and still making all the same mistakes, still with the same gaping flaws in reasoning, still with the same absence of support.

The only thing that's changed is that his posts have become less coherent, somehow.

pfrankinstein · **#4045** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 15, 2023 11:55 am

Spearthrower wrote:Make this easy:

Provide a single instance of me saying evolution isn't a process.

I've alerted the mods to your incessant lies, so here's your opportunity to prove that you are not lying.

I've already provided a dozen instances proving you wrong, proving that I have never said evolution isn't a process, proving that you keep writing this lie then ignoring when people challenge you on it.

So over to you: provide justification for your claim about my position from this thread, or acknowledge that it's a fucking lie.

Difficult to tell what you believe to be fact. You chop and change.

One minute Evolution is biological evolution , the next evolution is a process.

make it easy.and answer the question directly. What is Evolution? What is biological evolution?

Paul.

pfrankinstein · **#4046** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 15, 2023 12:02 pm

Spearthrower wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/one-bang-one-process-t20880-280.html#p846440

The actual person unable to get off first base.

12 years ago, and still making all the same mistakes, still with the same gaping flaws in reasoning, still with the same absence of support.

The only thing that's changed is that his posts have become less coherent, somehow.

Who'd be a moderator with you mythering. A letter to sir. Isn't that how you got started?

Paul.

Spearthrower · **#4047** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 15, 2023 12:14 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Make this easy:

Provide a single instance of me saying evolution isn't a process.

I've alerted the mods to your incessant lies, so here's your opportunity to prove that you are not lying.

I've already provided a dozen instances proving you wrong, proving that I have never said evolution isn't a process, proving that you keep writing this lie then ignoring when people challenge you on it.

So over to you: provide justification for your claim about my position from this thread, or acknowledge that it's a fucking lie.

Difficult to tell what you believe to be fact. You chop and change.

One minute Evolution is biological evolution , the next evolution is a process.

There it is again moderators.

Clearly the guy cannot do anything but troll.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p2794586

Spearthrower wrote:...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 · **#4048** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 15, 2023 12:18 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
make it easy.and answer the question directly. What is Evolution? What is biological evolution?

I can't make it any easier for you than typing it dozens of times.

Your refusal to acknowledge what's written isn't my problem.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p2794900

That's now a link to a post with the answer contained therein, linking to a prior post with the answer contained therein, linking to a prior post with the answer contained therein, linking to a whole series of prior posts all with that answer contained therein.

If the moderators don't think this is trolling, I'd like to see an alternative explanation for it.

The_Metatron · **#4049** by **The_Metatron** » Jan 15, 2023 4:13 pm

Over 97% of his 1301 posts are in this topic. I intend to leave him here to rot. We have no rule here against being wrong, let alone being a second decade into the same wrong.

This idiocy is a god damned monument to idiocy. And, it’s ours to show the world how stupid stupid can get and for how long.

Spearthrower · **#4050** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 15, 2023 4:21 pm

It's not about being wrong that's the problem (I completely agree to this thread being a testament to his ignominy), it's him incessantly lying about what members have written.

He's devoted dozens of posts to just straight up lying about other members - it's a significant part of the last 100 pages.

For example, he can't show a single instance of anything I've written that can be read as me holding the position that evolution isn't a process. Yet he's stated that's my position dozens - literally dozens - of times. I've cited 8 instances of me referring to evolution as a process, so where's the obligation on him to substantiate his strawman?

It's that incessant lying which, even when I've proven the opposite, he simply repeats the lie that has to be taken as trolling. He can both be wrong and not be a lying asshole at the same time.

What's most frustrating is that I think it amounts to unequal treatment - if I acted like this, I know I'd end up with a caution and eventually a warning. How many of my own warnings are from him reporting my posts?

romansh · **#4051** by **romansh** » Jan 15, 2023 9:38 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:

Paul ... after all these months are we any closer to an answer to "Do snowflakes replicate?"

Time travel to the past is theoretically possible.

Is answering my question do snowflakes replicate? theoretically possible? Seems unlikely at the moment.

Be a dear and answer the question.

pfrankinstein · **#4052** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 16, 2023 6:56 pm

The_Metatron wrote:Over 97% of his 1301 posts are in this topic. I intend to leave him here to rot. We have no rule here against being wrong, let alone being a second decade into the same wrong.

This idiocy is a god damned monument to idiocy. And, it’s ours to show the world how stupid stupid can get and for how long.

Thank you sir for your honesty and running commentary on the thread so far as you see it.

I value your honesty. I want your opinion.

Do you see the fact of "process" as an irrelevance? Such a small fact: "process" not worthy of a line of inquiry?

The question is: Should we throw away our first knowledge?

Can you be an arbiter?

Do you have a rational opinion, sir?

You do understand why I am at odds with mainstream thinking; it is because my "first run to science definition" of "evolution" is "Tprocesshe cosmos."

I have not treated the little-known fact of "process" as nothing and poured scorn on it.

My question to you sir is "What is evolution?"

What is your go-to answer to the question posed and why?

Paul.

pfrankinstein · **#4053** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 16, 2023 7:42 pm

romansh wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:

Paul ... after all these months are we any closer to an answer to "Do snowflakes replicate?"

Time travel to the past is theoretically possible.

Is answering my question do snowflakes replicate? theoretically possible? Seems unlikely at the moment.

Be a dear and answer the question.

First you answer me this. Did Charles Darwin ever have a eureeka moment?

Paul.

romansh · **#4054** by **romansh** » Jan 16, 2023 8:45 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
romansh wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:

Paul ... after all these months are we any closer to an answer to "Do snowflakes replicate?"

Time travel to the past is theoretically possible.

Is answering my question do snowflakes replicate? theoretically possible? Seems unlikely at the moment.

Be a dear and answer the question.

First you answer me this. Did Charles Darwin ever have a eureeka moment?

Paul.

How about you answering my question first. I have answered many of yours. Now answer mine!

THWOTH · **#4055** by **THWOTH** » Jan 17, 2023 9:51 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
romansh wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:

Paul ... after all these months are we any closer to an answer to "Do snowflakes replicate?"

Time travel to the past is theoretically possible.

Is answering my question do snowflakes replicate? theoretically possible? Seems unlikely at the moment.

Be a dear and answer the question.

First you answer me this. Did Charles Darwin ever have a eureeka moment?

Paul.

Yes. When Wallace sent him his paper from the South East Asian archipelago.

pfrankinstein · **#4056** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 19, 2023 4:36 pm

THWOTH wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
romansh wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:

Time travel to the past is theoretically possible.

Is answering my question do snowflakes replicate? theoretically possible? Seems unlikely at the moment.

Be a dear and answer the question.

First you answer me this. Did Charles Darwin ever have a eureeka moment?

Paul.
Yes. When Wallace sent him his paper from the South East Asian archipelago.

....The trunk of a tree, its branching form, the idea of a common ancestor.

That moment is captured - re-enacted - in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." I can't find the link, bah.

Paul.

pfrankinstein · **#4057** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 19, 2023 5:01 pm

thrower For example, he can't show a single instance of anything I've written that can be read as me holding the position that evolution isn't a process. snip

We have established that "evolution is a process"; thanks for clearing that up.

Please explain why you treat NS as analogy?

Paul.

romansh · **#4058** by **romansh** » Jan 19, 2023 6:48 pm

Hey Paul I see you have still not answered my question "Do snowflakes replicate?"

pfrankinstein · **#4059** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 19, 2023 6:51 pm

Let's put an end to the argument. NS stands for "artificial selection." Both mean the same, capsulation interchangeable.

We'd be correcting and updating Charles Darwin by observation.

He was a man trapped in his time. He edged his bet; artificial selection takes the "thinker out of the funker."

We can look at nature without being part of it. His idea was already a dangerous one. the Common ancester.

Human less one for politics of the day.

Primal selection, natural selection, human selection, and then, with the benefit of hindsight, looking forward, artificial selection.

It is an observation: nature was making selection before NS.

Proto plantary disc, Solar systems, stratigraphy, by means of Primal selection. Rafts of evidence.

Paul.

TopCat · **#4060** by **TopCat** » Jan 19, 2023 7:51 pm

Why are people engaging with this thread? Genuine question. How can anyone at all not have hundreds of things better to do than waste their time on this?

I drop in occasionally to see if Paul ever becomes more coherent, more interested in actual discourse, but every time I'm disappointed.

Honestly, why?

One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Who is online