One bang one process.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

Jun 23, 2011 4:52 pm

[quote="Spearthrower";p="898507"]I think the British Centre for Science Education had the right idea:

http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewto ... f=5&t=2332
Paulesq,

You are banned for trolling.
[/quote]
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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2794526"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794522"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2794518"]Let's put what they actually wrote in the dictionary, shall we?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... rce=jsonld

evolution
noun

1
a: descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations

...

also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)


b: the historical development of a biological group (such as a species) : phylogeny


2
a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding

b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission

c
(1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth
(2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance

d: something evolved

3: the process of working out or developing

4: the extraction of a mathematical root

5: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

6: one of a set of prescribed movements

Words have multiple meanings... stunning discovery!

Luckily you finally grasped this before attempting to draw money from the sides of a river and drowning in the process.

Definition 1 is not definition 2, else there'd be no reason to have a second definition. So, for example, 1 is not the same as 5 - yeah, that's around 100 pages of this thread that we will charitably call your 'confusion'.

Again, as I've told you many times, see 'bank' and then finally cease your empty equivocation.[/quote]

150 + years the subject in your hands. Is it any wonder that the process is mistaken as slang for biology.

The law of 'causeuality and effect' ignored. The fact of 'process' producing the effect of speciation ignored.

As a writer you are perfectly placed to clear up the ambiguity of slang use and define the phenominon.

But then you a are not an honest man. You have an ego and rely on your own nicely written fiction to prop yourself up.

Paul.[/quote]


That you are horribly confused and extravagantly egotistical doesn't mean others are obligated to join you in your vainglorious fiction.[/quote]

Yes let's look at what they actally wrote. Click on show more and then kids definition.

Presto. Paul.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794535"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2794526"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794522"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2794518"]Let's put what they actually wrote in the dictionary, shall we?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... rce=jsonld





Words have multiple meanings... stunning discovery!

Luckily you finally grasped this before attempting to draw money from the sides of a river and drowning in the process.

Definition 1 is not definition 2, else there'd be no reason to have a second definition. So, for example, 1 is not the same as 5 - yeah, that's around 100 pages of this thread that we will charitably call your 'confusion'.

Again, as I've told you many times, see 'bank' and then finally cease your empty equivocation.[/quote]

150 + years the subject in your hands. Is it any wonder that the process is mistaken as slang for biology.

The law of 'causeuality and effect' ignored. The fact of 'process' producing the effect of speciation ignored.

As a writer you are perfectly placed to clear up the ambiguity of slang use and define the phenominon.

But then you a are not an honest man. You have an ego and rely on your own nicely written fiction to prop yourself up.

Paul.[/quote]


That you are horribly confused and extravagantly egotistical doesn't mean others are obligated to join you in your vainglorious fiction.[/quote]

Yes let's look at what they actally wrote. Click on show more and then kids definition.

Presto. Paul.[/quote]


I already quoted the entire list of definitions from the dictionary you cited. You actively cut that out of the post you quoted and are supposedly replying to.

Clearly, we have to add not understanding how dictionaries work to the list of things you don't understand. Frankly, a list of things you do understand would be much easier to maintain.
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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2794533"]Jun 23, 2011 4:52 pm

[quote="Spearthrower";p="898507"]I think the British Centre for Science Education had the right idea:

http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewto ... f=5&t=2332
Paulesq,

You are banned for trolling.
[/quote][/quote]

Troll : a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.

I'm here for rational debate. The definition of a "troll better describes you sir.

Paul.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2794520"]Whereas, in fact, it's not.

You are completely wrong, and have no excuse considering how many people have spent so much time educating you.

But if you insist on being completely fucking wrong, it will thereby explain why you continue to have no audience other than a bunch of skeptics on the pseudoscience subforum of a small site about rational skepticism.[/quote]

Yep, a subforum and a bunch of skeptics. You neglected to use the word "rational". [/quote]


:crazy:


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"]There will be no direct counter argument. The trouble with a fact. No direct counter can be formulated and logically defended.[/quote]

Whereas, in reality, what's actually happened throughout is that your total ignorance has been exposed, and all your interactions since are just your bloated ego pretending it has a seat at the table.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"]Instead of rationale a food fight. Charector assination no less. Certainly not a debate.[/quote]

Definitely not a debate as you aren't capable of holding a debate.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"]You sir represent peer review.[/quote]

No, I don't.

But if I did, then you've failed peer review. It's typical to complain about failing peer review, but whining isn't going to change the outcome of your failure.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"] So I have no Faith in the progress of science. And that is your failure. [/quote]

I am not responsible for the wittering nonsense your brain produces.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"]You seem to suffering from some sort of locked in syndrome whereby the definition of words is beyond your grasp.[/quote]

Except that we've established the exact opposite in this thread dozens of times.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"]Victorian slang gives way to Throwers modern day slang. [/quote]

Writing bollocks just indicates that all you've got is a load of bollocks, Paul.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"]Yes a word can have several meanings.[/quote]

That's only taken you a hundred plus pages to acknowledge. I can quote posts from 12 years ago where people tried to get you to understand this, but the fact is that even now you don't understand it.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"]In the Darwinian sense Evolution, its meaning is as I have explained.[/quote]

You've explained nothing Paul because you are functionally ignorant when it comes to this topic. A piece of timber is your actual peer in this regard.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"]A much ignored fact. To have a valid train of thought, you must set values and define. Else you are just waving your hands In a mist.[/quote]

This isn't a 'fact'. You don't have a valid train of thought. You cannot just make words mean whatever you want them to mean. You're just waving your hands around pretending to be something you're not.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"]See how much fun I'm having with my "process of evolution.[/quote]

Good to know as it provoked amusement in all of us. At least you're grasping why you're not taken seriously.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"]A chart that shows the unambiguose chronologicall emergence of 'selection.[/quote]

Not a chart. You don't know what the word 'chart' means.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794531"]The same subject in your hands sir. NS is HS same as AS. You are all over the place. No logic, no rationalization or Structure.[/quote]

Meanwhile, I teach human evolution at university, while you blather vacuous cack unceasingly on the pseudoscience subforum of a small forum dedicated to rational skepticism.
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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794538"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2794533"]Jun 23, 2011 4:52 pm

[quote="Spearthrower";p="898507"]I think the British Centre for Science Education had the right idea:

http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewto ... f=5&t=2332
Paulesq,

You are banned for trolling.
[/quote][/quote]

Troll : a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.

I'm here for rational debate. The definition of a "troll better describes you sir.

Paul.[/quote]


The thread proves otherwise.

For example, the numerous times moderators warned you for trolling.

And yes, you were banned for trolling at other fora. It's quite possible that same outcome will eventually happen here too considering how obvious your trolling is.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jan 10, 2023 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
Greg the Grouper
Posts: 549
Joined: Jul 27, 2021 12:53 am
Name: Patrick
Country: US

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Greg the Grouper »

The quest continues. Sally forth!
The evolution of intelligence has gone beyond the restrains of biological individual generations.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

Posted Jun 21, 2011 5:10 am

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="895843"] I'm fast losing faith as to the quality of the forum.

Paul.[/quote]


Not so fast, clearly.

Another variation of the repetitive trolling, though.
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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

Can anyone envision what a formal debate with Paul would look like?

I personally imagine it would look more like a giraffe than a formal debate.
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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
Greg the Grouper
Posts: 549
Joined: Jul 27, 2021 12:53 am
Name: Patrick
Country: US

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Greg the Grouper »

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2794543"]Can anyone envision what a formal debate with Paul would look like?

I personally imagine it would look more like a giraffe than a formal debate.[/quote]

We've seen what that convo looks like. Remember TJump and Leroy?
The evolution of intelligence has gone beyond the restrains of biological individual generations.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="Greg the Grouper";p="2794545"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2794543"]Can anyone envision what a formal debate with Paul would look like?

I personally imagine it would look more like a giraffe than a formal debate.[/quote]

We've seen what that convo looks like. Remember TJump and Leroy?[/quote]


I vaguely remember them interacting in that one thread.

Paul here's got TJump's 'I'm right because I said so, and as I said I am right, QED' and Leroy's complete inability to ever engage in anything at all with good faith, but then put through a word blender.
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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2794537"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794535"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2794526"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794522"]

150 + years the subject in your hands. Is it any wonder that the process is mistaken as slang for biology.

The law of 'causeuality and effect' ignored. The fact of 'process' producing the effect of speciation ignored.

As a writer you are perfectly placed to clear up the ambiguity of slang use and define the phenominon.

But then you a are not an honest man. You have an ego and rely on your own nicely written fiction to prop yourself up.

Paul.[/quote]


That you are horribly confused and extravagantly egotistical doesn't mean others are obligated to join you in your vainglorious fiction.[/quote]

Yes let's look at what they actally wrote. Click on show more and then kids definition.

Presto. Paul.[/quote]


I already quoted the entire list of definitions from the dictionary you cited. You actively cut that out of the post you quoted and are supposedly replying to.

Clearly, we have to add not understanding how dictionaries work to the list of things you don't understand. Frankly, a list of things you do understand would be much easier to maintain.[/quote]

Hark you with your misconceived notion of the data.

That is substituting victorian slang for modern day slang is an error when there is no need to resort to slang termonolgy at all.

The value " Evolution = process is not exclusive from what you understand about the subject. It does not detract from subject.

The etymology of the word is a matter of observed historical note. A fact. Can be taught.

The fact of what the phenominon actually is places you sir into context of your understanding by means of broader insight.

So I see where you are coming from and why. Everybody else also can see. Your ego, your well written fiction not mine.

To place a phenominon into context = coherence.. Not a bad thing at all to define E = P.

Paul.














E = P is largely accepted as a given by most intelligent people. Not at all contraversal. No big deal. Just a fact.

Evolution = process is a base fact largely ignored , hence you and your misconception and muddle.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794548"]
Hark you with your misconceived notion of the data. [/quote]

Who do you think your vapid lies are fooling, Paul?

There is no fucking data; stop lying through your teeth.
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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2794503"]
My grandmother taught me it was good to be good , nice to be nice.
That's nice. Shame she didn't teach you that it's bad to lie.[/quote]
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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2794546"][quote="Greg the Grouper";p="2794545"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2794543"]Can anyone envision what a formal debate with Paul would look like?

I personally imagine it would look more like a giraffe than a formal debate.[/quote]

We've seen what that convo looks like. Remember TJump and Leroy?[/quote]


I vaguely remember them interacting in that one thread.

Paul here's got TJump's 'I'm right because I said so, and as I said I am right, QED' and Leroy's complete inability to ever engage in anything at all with good faith, but then put through a word blender.[/quote]

I'm right because Charles Darwin said so.

No direct counter argument. You are a dishonest troll sir.

Paul.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794551"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2794546"][quote="Greg the Grouper";p="2794545"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2794543"]Can anyone envision what a formal debate with Paul would look like?

I personally imagine it would look more like a giraffe than a formal debate.[/quote]

We've seen what that convo looks like. Remember TJump and Leroy?[/quote]


I vaguely remember them interacting in that one thread.

Paul here's got TJump's 'I'm right because I said so, and as I said I am right, QED' and Leroy's complete inability to ever engage in anything at all with good faith, but then put through a word blender.[/quote]

I'm right because Charles Darwin said so.

No direct counter argument. You are a dishonest troll sir.

Paul.[/quote]


What an utterly twatish thing to say. You really do work hard to make yourself look like a complete fucking moron.

You've got nothing Paul, you never have, and never will. All mouth, no trousers.
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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2794549"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794548"]
Hark you with your misconceived notion of the data. [/quote]

Who do you think your vapid lies are fooling, Paul?

There is no fucking data; stop lying through your teeth.[/quote]

Which vapid lie are you referencing troll.

Paul.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

Posted May 02, 2011 9:00 pm

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... ml#p830993

[quote="Paul Almond";p="830993"]
Your entire argument is barely coherent: it is mostly incoherent and where it is is coherent it is mostly trivial and where it is not trivial (e.g. saying we do not live in a quantum universe) it is simply wrong. hackenslash doesn't even know you, and nor does anyone else here. Even when asked to explain you come out with sentences that mean practically nothing and start to ramble about primary colours. To suggest that this is some kind of personal issue - that we would find your work brilliant if someone else said it - is just desperate. You would be better thinking about why everyone finds your argument incoherent.[/quote]

Posted 12 years ago and nothing's changed.

90% incoherent, of the 10% that is coherent 90% of that is trivial, of that coherent non-trivial remainder, it's 100% wrong.

Even some of the incoherent stuff could properly be labeled 'wrong' too because assertions within the gibberish are just falsehoods already shown as such.

Anyone interested in wondering how better artificial language could result in actual intelligence has some kind of case study here, albeit one I'm not sure that would be easily systematized.
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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794553"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2794549"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794548"]
Hark you with your misconceived notion of the data. [/quote]

Who do you think your vapid lies are fooling, Paul?

There is no fucking data; stop lying through your teeth.[/quote]

Which vapid lie are you referencing troll.

Paul.[/quote]


No need to reach far as you cited your own lie - you have ZERO data, yet you keep pretending you do.

Not only do you not have any data, never presented any data at all, but I can cite half a dozen posts of people asking you to provide said data and you contriving some deranged diversion that always ended with no data being produced.

You want to try this, Paul - please feel free, I am right in the mood to publicly spank you right now. :)
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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2794552"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2794551"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2794546"][quote="Greg the Grouper";p="2794545"]

We've seen what that convo looks like. Remember TJump and Leroy?[/quote]


I vaguely remember them interacting in that one thread.

Paul here's got TJump's 'I'm right because I said so, and as I said I am right, QED' and Leroy's complete inability to ever engage in anything at all with good faith, but then put through a word blender.[/quote]

I'm right because Charles Darwin said so.

No direct counter argument. You are a dishonest troll sir.

Paul.[/quote]


What an utterly twatish thing to say. You really do work hard to make yourself look like a complete fucking moron.

You've got nothing Paul, you never have, and never will. All mouth, no trousers.[/quote]

Everybody can see that you are incapable of peer review.
You are so wrapped up in your ego, add the past promotion of a kind of slang fiction, blinkerd you can not lift your head above your narrow horizen and evaluate any further. You are little use to me in your present state, except as a fall guy i suppose.

Paul
Locked