Re: Arthur, King of Time and Space and ToE vs ID



RAM wrote:
On Jan 28, 12:21 am, topmind <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:48 pm, RAM <RAMather...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Jan 27, 5:52 pm, topmind <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

RAM wrote:
On Jan 26, 9:05�pm, topmind <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You are a poor debater. You reference nothing solid and you don't use
any solid logic. You may disagree with my description/definition of
science, but you don't replace it with something that is verifiably
better.

I saw Zachriel try to teach you. Stupidity is often defined as
consistently trying the exact same thing and expecting a different
outcome. I will not deign to try and teach you. You have
demonstrated a boneheadedness that verges on the pathological.

You have demonstrated a complete lack of debate ability,

I thought I was very clear I will not debate you. My effort is to
respond to your persist boneheadedness by informing you where you are
wrong.

You are going to fill me with your clear, precise, bountiful
knowledge. How generous.

No you refuse to be filled with any "clear, precise, bountiful
knowledge."

Bullshit. You have presented nothing that is clear and precise.

I don't think you know the difference between algorithms or formulas
and FEELINGS.



Actually it is more like poking you with a cyber stick to get your
attention. I get it that you still won't try to learn. I know this
is a pattern but other people should know what your errors are.

Try.....say......precision in argument? Sources? Logic? You know,
maybe they'll work. If approach A does not work, then try B, C, D,
etc. Don't keep trying A over and over and over and over.

The sources for my critique of your idiocies are in science research
texts. You are in this post as in others not a willing learner but a
belligerently willfully ignorant pseudo-science promoter who believes
he can promote ID by "ture-ification" neologisms and find secret
decoder ring messages in DNA.

Martin Hutton, another grumpy topmind hater, claimed it has already
been falsified in his Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:03:49 GMT message. It cannot
be non-falsifiable and falsified at the same time. You grumps need to
coordinate your shoot-from-the-hip stances so that they are at least
non-contradictory.

I'm too tall I'm too short, I'm too fat I'm too skinny, I'm too light
I'm too dark, blah blah blah blah. You dizzy tweeds must be drunk.



I leave it up to you to correct your errors. I also leave it up to
others to decide if I'm wrong and need to be corrected.

You I can't trust. Not because you are an liar, but because you do
exactly what I accused you of in this post in response to your past
behaviour. I said you were a parser par excelance, shifter of goal
posts and refuser to learn. The evidence is in this post as well. I
gave you an example where you are absolutely wrong about your
neologism "ture-ification" as have others. Again you insist you are
correct (see below). Now see how ridiculous your criteria of
providing references to support my and others scientific position are
when there is absence of evidence. How very creationist of you.

I don't insist I am correct. I am only insisting that your version of
science is no more validated than mine (external to your head).

Mine comes from standard science research sources (these can be found
at your local library) yours comes from belligerent boneheaded
ignorance.

Thousands of miles away from your fingertips it seems, next the the
unicorns.


You
must show me wrong with EVIDENCE, NOT PERSONAL OPINIONS.


There is no evidence for the non-existence of "true-ification" because
I cannot identify all the standard science resources to demonstrated
it doesn't exist.

So this means your evidence is rock solid like your head.

As somebody pointed out both this round and the one a year ago, one
can reverse most hypotheses to make a falsifiable version out of a
true-ifable one. You are merely complaining about language for the
sake of complaining, like most web-trolls do.

[snipped rant about how evil and dumb I alleged am]

RAM

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... >>> ID out of science classrooms. ... >>> forms that the Supreme Courts are more likely to find acceptable. ... Yeah yeah, blah blah blah. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lennys Counter Argument
    ... trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in ... available evidence - not evidence that might or might not be found ... to the "hopeful monster" argument - not science. ... Blah blah blah. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Software Engineering is Rot (Was: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?)
    ... You good, me bad, blah blah blah.... ... science to evaluate such claims. ... I don't claim my favorites are objectively better, only that they fit ... You don't seem to know enough material to objectively defend OOP with ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Lisps future
    ... Loop quantum gravity ... Atom trapping ... blah blah blah ... Computer science isn't the same kind of science as ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: "Humans Do It Now" Criteria (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... "The hypothetical assumptions that underly the radio search for SETI ... some of the science is in the design of the searching mechanism. ... space-travel issue to the first half of this reply, the technology to ... blah blah blah blah, you good, me bad, blah blah blah... ...
    (talk.origins)