I'm going to be closing an old thread where a Jack Chickian troll has been redefining logical fallacies, making stuff up, and effectively denying the existence of all those deep space probes NASA has been launching because nuclear physics couldn't possibly be right because it's been contaminated by Darwinism. Or something.Multi-clause run-on sentences aside,
Found the option to kill comments. The originals are still there, of course. There just won't be any new ones coming up.
46 comments:
Why take the time to delete? Why not just outright disable comments on the post in question so you don't have to worry about it...
Because I didn't know you could do that in Blogger. All the options I've looked at thus far were all or nothing on comments.
Ahhh yes. I believe you disable comments per a single post at "create new post" level. Just Edit the post and those options are, probably hidden at first, at the bottom.
You'll find 'em.
And of course Darwin was nuclear physicist who only "Created" "Darwinism" to pave the way for Hitler's . . . aaaahhh... I got nothin'.
{-;
Ah, come on... you had a great start going there. Just make sure you mention Stalin somewhere and be sure to throw in the Haeckel thing and you'll sound just like one of them.
Ooh! It's because nuclear reactions are evolving one element into another, that's Darwin had to invent evolution - first to pave the way for nuclear weapons and then to destroy godly morality so scientists would be depraved enough to use them at every chance.
Plus it smashes up God's creation into eevul mutants which scientists LIE about and say are more proof of evilution when they really are just the result of SIN aNd denying gOD.
One thing that I've learned empirically from my habit of reading blogs and hanging out on Internet fora:
Long strings of "and foithermore" posts from the same person are a near-infallible diagnostic sign of a hopeless crank.
Just in case you haven't noticed, canine of tin and copper, this same dingbat has been demonstrating all the diagnostic signs of an unredeemable hatefreak over on Amanda's blog.
Given his already well-established pattern of behavior, you might want to consider an outright ban, if Blogger can do it.
Massive spam from you-know-who deleted. Random samples I took consisted entirely of typical 150+ year old straw men, failure to understand the difference between living things and rocks, and creative Humpty-Dumpty redefinitions of logical fallacies.
And I mean "creative" in the sense that newagey types used to justify unruly children.
Massive spam re-deleted. If anyone wants to read Weapon hanging himself repeatedly, they can click on the link in the main post. No need to copy-paste it all over here.
Wonder if Weapon's going to go Kilik and start posting animated gifs of people in the lotus position swinging their arms about as evidence of psi. Would fit his pattern.
Another pointless copy-paste of Weapon hanging himself in the old thread deleted.
How long until Kilik, I mean Weapon, posts a bunch of meaningless animated gifs?
Yet another copy paste of the old thread's comments, as if that somehow magically transforms a term of falsification by hypothetical self-contradiction into a self-reinforcing argument.
Hypothetical contradictions are suddenly existing tautologies. Funny.
Guess who stopped by with copy/paste of old comments, displaying his ignorance of the difference between a hypothetical future contradiction and an alleged past tautology.
So, Weapon, how's that JREF Challenge Application going? Have you managed to alter the radioactive half life of carbon-14 yet? What about potassium-40?
You can prove me wrong that way, too, if you're claiming that aspect of nuclear physics was contaminated by your completely non-dictionary definition of evolution.
For someone who objects to logical fallacies so much, you sure have no problem with strawmen.
Well, since you never really do much to tell me what straw men I'm committing (190 posts after the accusation back there, and still no clarification on what ID really is), I can only guess from your patterns and what I know of other Creationists. So far, you're pretty cookie-cutter. You haven't been doing a good job of distinguishing yourself from all the other Creationists out there.
So, how exactly can nuclear physics (the basis of radio isotope dating) be contaminated by Darwinism?
Another strawmen.
The issue is not nuclear physics but rather Radioisotopes dating.
Just like the issue is not biological science but rather GTE.
The problem with Radioisotopes dating is just like the whole of evolutionary theory, it is based on guesswork.
The Grand Canyon, and especially Mt. St. Helen makes a mockery out if it.
"It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God."
So your circular reasoning is again exposed when you try to use evolution to prove evolution.
There Weapon goes, trying to measure a baby with a kilometer-long ruler, and thus all of metrics is obviously wrong.
Methinks you skipped out on the lesson on significant digits.
And more redefinition. Since when were rocks considered reproducing living things?
There Weapon goes, trying to measure a baby with a kilometer-long ruler, and thus all of metrics is obviously wrong.
Actually its called measuring evolutionary testing with real evidence.
Besides no matter the length of the ruler, it should still be fairly accurate not be off by millions of years.
If I were to use a ruler to measure a grain of dirt, I should affirm that it is less then a 16th of an inch (ID), not insist that it is 3 yards long(evolution).
Not everything works out quite so well when you measure orders of magnitude less than the error margin of the instrument. (I meant a ruler with kilometers as units) Not every measuring tool is as clean as a ruler.
Let's try shifting the analogy a little: Would you measure a baby using an astronomer's technique for measuring stars or other distant/large/heavy objects?
It might be noteworthy that radiocarbon dating is often calibrated from tree ring data.
Oh, and I believe you were talking about this.
Why does this dipshit
Post comments
like this...
Is it to further show the vaccuousness of his "arguments"?
Besides no matter the length of the ruler, it should still be fairly accurate not be off by millions of years.
That old canard? You'll have to do better here.
Even if everything about evolution were false, in no way does it strengthen your assertions that "Goddidit".
Not everything works out quite so well when you measure orders of magnitude less than the error margin of the instrument. (I meant a ruler with kilometers as units) Not every measuring tool is as clean as a ruler.
Well you should at least affirm that it is less than a kilometer (ID) not that it is 100 kilometers long (evolution).
Your anology betrays you.
Not quite. Not all measuring instruments are as clean as a ruler.
Besides, that example you gave: Apparently it was contaminated with argon, which pumped the age up. It might help you to occasionally click a link I provide, rather than nitpick about a flawed analogy.
Let's try shifting the analogy a little: Would you measure a baby using an astronomer's technique for measuring stars or other distant/large/heavy objects?
Apples and oranges fallacy. We are dealing with rocks not babies. And we are not dealing with different kinds of materials (rocks versus babies) but rather the same (verifiable young rocks with unverifiable aged rocks).
The way one measure one rock that meets the requirements for radioisotope dating should not change for another whose origin can be verified.
If it were up to evolutionary dating, and if we did not know its origin, the rock at St Helen would be 10 million years old.
Besides, the point is that you were begging the question by using evolutionary dating to prove evolution. This is a testimony for the circular reasoning that is wrapped up in GTE.
Even if everything about evolution were false, in no way does it strengthen your assertions that "Goddidit".
Well, it sounds more tenable than nabodididit.
Besides, that example you gave: Apparently it was contaminated with argon, which pumped the age up. It might help you to occasionally click a link I provide, rather than nitpick about a flawed analogy.
Hey, its not my fault that your position is filled with flawed anology.
Concerning your link, I rather hear it from you rather than be forced to do your research.
BTW, the links do not prove that your evolutionary dating system is nothing more than scientitfic guesswork at best.
Neither does it address the fact that you use evolutionary dating to prove evolution.
Apples and oranges fallacy. We are dealing with rocks not babies. And we are not dealing with different kinds of materials (rocks versus babies) but rather the same (verifiable young rocks with unverifiable aged rocks). The way one measure one rock that meets the requirements for radioisotope dating should not change for another whose origin can be verified. If it were up to evolutionary dating, and if we did not know its origin, the rock at St Helen would be 10 million years old. Besides, the point is that you were begging the question by using evolutionary dating to prove evolution. This is a testimony for the circular reasoning that is wrapped up in GTE.
1. Horror of horrors! I used an analogy!
2. So, you're still redefining evolution to be everything that disagrees with you. Therefore disagreeing with you makes anything begging the question. That's what you call "immunization to evidence."
Even if everything about evolution were false, in no way does it strengthen your assertions that "Goddidit".
Well, it sounds more tenable than nabodididit.
I fail to see how.
Of course you fail to see how. But somehow you have no problem in making sense of how your great grandad was a chimpanzee.
I think I will pass.
So, you're still redefining evolution to be everything that disagrees with you. Therefore disagreeing with you makes anything begging the question. That's what you call "immunization to evidence.
Here we go with the semantics game again.
Actually it is called meeting real evidence. This contrast using evolution to prove evolution.
That would be like me using the Bible to prove that the world is a product of Creation.
Until next time folks.
BTW, the links do not prove that your evolutionary dating system is nothing more than scientitfic guesswork at best. Neither does it address the fact that you use evolutionary dating to prove evolution.
Get a dictionary. Why don't you try redefining environmentalism as Communism while you're at it.
Concerning your link, I rather hear it from you rather than be forced to do your research.
I'm not about to devote my entire life to deflating all of your fallacies, either: Try actually learning something about evolution, nuclear physics, cosmology, geology, abiogenesis, and all that before you knock them and label them all a capitalist/communist plot.
Clicking a little link doesn't make the arguments any less valid. This isn't some mamby-pamby newage subjectivist, solipcistic world where the arguer changes the validity of an argument.
Here we go with the semantics game again. Actually it is called meeting real evidence. This contrast using evolution to prove evolution.
I reject your convenient redefinitions (straw men) of evolution. Geology is not evolution. Nuclear physics isn't evolution. Evolution deals with variable reproducing entities (life), not rocks or radioisotopes.
Your pseudo "begging the question" fallacy, along with the vast, vast majority of your other fallacies are all dependent on your spontaneously combusting straw man.
Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall.
Off course.
And the rock at Mt. Helen is 10 million years old.
I find it interesting how every time you are faced with the devastating truth you succumb the debate into a sematics game.
Face it. The whole Cambrian Era is a figment of evolutionary imagination and for you to point to it to prove evolution is circular reasoning loud and clear. Then you try to use a dating method that is nothing more than evolutionary guesswork to justify your circular reasoning. Which demonstrates GTE to be one big knotted up ball of conjecture.
And all it took to expose me was one error due to contamination dishonestly taken out of context of all the largely consistent measurements, a massive redefinition of evolution to mean whatever the frell you want it to mean, ignoring of the other massive piles of evidence I've brought up directly or indirectly, and another redefinition to include observations upon which modern technology is based as "conjecture", and a massive dose of solipcism mixed with, oddly, a lack of self-awareness.
So, you are admit that you are gullible.
Take a break from the coolaid.
Not everything has to be a semantics game.
BTW,
When you give me one evidence for evolution as defined by GTE let me know.
Otherwise, take your thumb out of your mouth.
You can start with all the references made here.
Might want to follow up with those stacks of papers Behe handwaved away in court.
How about you end the semantics game by having a powerful dictator burn all the dictionaries and science journals and replace them with your silly definition of evolution and "GTE"? Worked for Lysenko and "gene"... until his crazy ideas pretty much ruined Soviet agriculture.
Until you've accomplished that, I think I'm well justified sticking with the biologists' definitions, instead of the old propaganda-style redefinitions of anything that opposes The Party as "bourgeois" or "liberal" or whatever.
I think I will pass. You will have more success forcing one of your monkey friends do your research.
I can play the same game .
Let me know when you have read every single link of the 1,248,566 availble for you to read.
Perhaps we should start with something simple, then. Read a grade school biology textbook. Or even simpler: A dictionary entry on "evolution".
How about this as well: Before you spout another canard, how about you check to see if it hasn't been refuted a thousand times?
I've got one question Cocksnack:
Do you deny the fact that gene pools in populations of species change?
If so, then it is pointless to further any debate with you and your comments should be deleted.
If not, then get this - you believe in evilution!
Post a Comment