Re: Evolution: Molecular Genetics 101
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "carlo"
> And this idiot thinks something came from nothing and thingsThe degree of your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. For two
> just 'happen' to be complex
years you have been in this group, and yet you still post excrement
as exemplified above. I almost feel sorry for you, but your
egregious ignorance makes me sick. No human without a brain injury
or a genetic disorder should be this dense. You do not learn
anything of value. Furthermore, you are the King of Fallacies.
First point, jackass: when did I ever state anytime in the last two
years, that "something came from nothing" or that "things just
happen to be complex"? Not to mention that this is a red herring
because what does any of that have to do with Creationism or ID
being true or false? I wouldn't call this dismal failure of a
tactic of yours a straw man because you can't even refute the
assertions that you allege I made, such as "something comes from
nothing". Go ahead, humor us; give us an argument as to
why "something came from nothing" is erroneous. Give me a second
while I get some popcorn.
Second point, jackass: if a rational person refuses to accept
Creationism or ID without evidence or even a logical explanation,
then that does not mean they believe "something came from nothing".
This "cretin logic" of yours is an example of bifurcation.
Third point, jackass: requesting evidence in response to another's
apparently illogical assertion, such as Creationism's, "God done
it!", and ID's, "Where there is a design there is a designer!", is
rational thinking. You make such an assertion, it better be
falsifiable. It better be able to be observed, measured, and
tested. It better be logical.
Fourth point, jackass: "complexity" in relation to what? What then
is *not* complex? Can your concept of "complexity" in the universe
be anymore subjective and misconstrued? Your concept of complexity
is egocentric and anthropocentric, to say the least.
Fifth point, jackass: You assume that Creationism and ID are true
because humans do not or can not understand the universe, and
therefore only some sort of divine esoteric intelligence called god
can make sense of it all, because it even *created* it all.
Therefore, you insinuate that "everything" in the universe is an
example of the "design" of this god, especially since "everything"
is "something" as opposed to "nothing", which you thereby conclude
is "evidence" for this god, since no other "theory" can adequately
explain the universe's "origin" and/or "reason" for
being "complex". This is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam,
among other things.
Need I even go on? Should I mention that you are fallaciously
assuming that a Creator/Designer can only be the Christian god? You
incriminate yourself time and again; one sentence from you provides
a mountain of evidence supporting your apparent ignorance.
p.s. So did you ever dig up evidence for that alleged Jesus fellow
yet? I'm still waiting.
> Tim H wrote:or they would not have come into popular usage.
> I do agree that there is something to stereotypes
>is exactly what I said originally.
> ME: Then we're agreed. The above, by the way,
Duh! Didn't I just get through saying that I agreed
> <<No, tenacity I can admire, and you do havethat quality, but closed-mindedness, cognitive
rigidity, and lack of intellectual flexibility,
>within any scenario, but we haven't dealt in "if,
> ME: How am I closed-minded, hm? I can work
thens". My point was that when it comes to evolution,
you were clueless and passed off a misunderstanding
of the concept as actual fact to a person who had
spent valuable time studying it.
>then you're a moronic twit for not realizing that
> If I'm closed-minded for showing you the above,
you were doing it.
I have explained to you more than once, and in
different ways, that I am not clueless and did
not pass off any misunderstanding as a fact. I
took responsibility for my inflammatory statement
that I should not have made. I freely admitted
that I am no expert on the subject. Yet you still,
even now, want to make an issue of it. So, yes,
you are closed-minded and inflexible. Isn't it
about time to move on from this?
> <<But that's my point. It doesn't proveyou have the correct answers.>>
>is invariably trounced by debating skills?
> ME: Are you going to tell me that the truth
I never said "invariably", so stop putting words
in my mouth. Are you going to tell me that just
because you can debate better than someone else
that you invariably have all the correct answers?
Are you going to tell me that it's not possible
that someone (and I'm not talking about myself)
could have all the correct answers, but not be
good at expressing themselves, could be made to
look like a fool (and I'm not talking about myself)
by someone (and I'm not talking about you) who is
a very skillful debater? I hope not, because you'd
> The truth is the truth, and if you present it evenTIM H:
> closely to accurately, it trumps lies and ignorance
> every time.
Oh, no, lies and deception can be just as effective,
if not more so. It just depends on how dishonest
you're willing to be and how good you can debate.
> Arguing only works within the philosophicalrealm where nothing is for granted.
>understanding, there isn't much to debate.
> But if you're working within scientific
>the brain, but I believe there are better ways...>>
> <<That's fine. Debate is one way to exercise
> ME: You should try Yoga if you prefer not to debate.
So, my only choices are debating and Yoga? I don't think so.
> <<There is more than one way to exchange ideas.Debating is not the only method that can be used.>>
>the opposing view point and which one is better and
> ME: If two people are discussing two ideas and
the like, then the two are debating.
> That's the "intelligent discussion" you're mentioning.
> You seem to think that all debate results in mud-slinging.
And whether you know it or not, your continual
condescending attitude does not make you appear
to be brilliant, regardless of your self-delusion
that it does. It only makes you look insecure...
> <<Having a reasonable, mature, intelligentdiscussion does not mean you have to tippy toe
around to avoid hurting someone's fragile ego.>>
>debate without personal insults. Yes, I understand.
> ME: In other words, you're looking for a
What you *don't* seem to understand is that if you
pass off knowledge that isn't accurate as actual
knowledge, and then denounce the actual knowledge
as clap-trap with a simple reassertion, you *will*
be ridiculed, and that's what you did.
No, I've already stated several times that I am
not looking for a debate---another example of your
closed-mindedness. You don't listen very well,
because your mind is closed off to what I have
been trying to explain to you, preferring to
be enchanted only with yourself and what you
have to say. You may be a good debater, but
you're not a good communicator.
> <<Can't we please move beyond this? Do youhave to keep dragging this on forever? I have
responded to this so many times already...>>
>prime example of what debating should and shouldn't
> ME: No, I won't. Because the above is a
be. *Intelligent* discussion involves knowing what
you're talking about and the willingness to correct
false answers. You didn't exhibit either in your
debate with Ken,
I will say it one last time, then I'm totally done
with the subject. I was not debating with Ken.
> so how could you possibly be annoyed at thedisdain you received? You were being intellectually
dishonest. Don't preach to me about intellectual
discussion if the process of intellectualism died
long before it hit the table.
Preach to you? It's really amazing to me how I can
make an honest effort to have an honest discussion
about this with you, and all you can do is put your
own spin on it. But then, as a debater, it's all
about making yourself look good and the other guy
look bad, isn't it? And you call me intellectually
> <<If you, or someone you dearly care about wasarrested for rape, how would you want to be treated?>>
>be left alone. I don't want to go to jail, right,
> ME: Honestly? If I raped someone, I'd like to
wrong, or otherwise.
Get real. That's not even reasonable...
> And thus the Golden Rule fails. You have toqualify it to make it work.
And I suppose you think that's logical?
> No such ubiquitously applicable standardexists. The morals must be contextual and not
absolute, and thus the Golden Rule is a nice
little foundation, but it must be expanded.
You leave out much of my post, and don't really
address my points. Then you finish it off with
some BS intellectualism. How disappointing...