26 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyOkay, at least we agree on something now.
yes, I know. That is what I implied i.e. the periodic tables do not equate with being “just illustrations” (because they represent a real and meaningful classification of atoms)
....
OK, I am guessing that is not what you really meant by "it" in "No, it is not the same as the Periodic Tables." and not sure what you meant but not sure if I want to know so will not ask.
The Instructor
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNOBODY agrees with ANYTHING you have to say. Like I said many times, you are a relic a weak voice from the distant past when humans knew squat about the real world and were forced to agree with everything the bible said or be put to death. You would love for the rest of the world to go back to those times where you would be king of the roost. Fortunately for us you now are related to the back row with your squeaky voice that nobody listens to, except maybe to get a belly laugh at your ridiculousness.
Okay, at least we agree on something now.
The Instructor
26 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThe evil-DELUSIONist finally speaks on a subject he is an expert at - belief in fairy tales.
I will state it in a more simple way to you. A phylogenetic tree is an imaginary fairy tale tree representing the order of events in the imaginary fairy tale of evilution.
The Instructor
I bet as a child you also argued that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy were real...
Thank you for distinguishing between 'imaginary' and the real ones though 😉
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI just realized something. You just admitted evolution was true. A fairy tale is a made-up story. An imaginary fairy tale would mean the opposite.
I will state it in a more simple way to you. A phylogenetic tree is an imaginary fairy tale tree representing the order of events in the imaginary fairy tale of evilution.
The Instructor
Parapraxis?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseTechnically speaking that wasn't an ad hominem.
Yep, right there with another ad hominem attack. Keep up the good work, it will SO help your street cred.
He was just insulting you.
He didn't present an argument along the lines of "you are [bad thing] therefore you are wrong".
What he said was more along the lines of "I'm right, you're wrong, ner-na ner-na ner ner"...
Which is about the best he can manage as an 'argument'.
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, strictly speaking, he was calling Woodypusher numbnuts. I guess you are right though about the formal definition of Ad Hominem attacks.
Technically speaking that wasn't an ad hominem.
He was just insulting you.
He didn't present an argument along the lines of "you are [bad thing] therefore you are wrong".
What he said was more along the lines of "I'm right, you're wrong, ner-na ner-na ner ner"...
Which is about the best he can manage as an 'argument'.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI believe what you meant to say was ner ner na ner ner, or perhaps you meant neener neener neener?
Technically speaking that wasn't an ad hominem.
He was just insulting you.
He didn't present an argument along the lines of "you are [bad thing] therefore you are wrong".
What he said was more along the lines of "I'm right, you're wrong, ner-na ner-na ner ner"...
Which is about the best he can manage as an 'argument'.
I googled ner-na ner-na ner ner but couldn't find an exact match for that.
Originally posted by sonhouseNone of the misrepresentational arguments, personal attacks and name calling is okay with me, but if this is how the scientists here reason then who am I to say it's wrong, eh? I'm also supposed to believe a real scientist is unable to know the difference between a point in space and a point in time.
So I gather calling people 'numbnuts' is ok with you.
I may be relatively new here, but it doesn't take much analysis to see that all of this you are a stupid dumb dumb I know better than you because I'm a real scientist crap is just a big pile of ka ka poo poo in your face postering. And it increases excrementally as a direct function of the stupid/idiot/moronicalistic shift paradigm.
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeYou are new here, after you've tried to debate with RJ a little you'll get frustrated and scream at him too. I'm increasingly thinking of avoiding posting in evolution threads so I don't do it.
None of the misrepresentational arguments, personal attacks and name calling is okay with me, but if this is how the scientists here reason then who am I to say it's wrong, eh? I'm also supposed to believe a real scientist is unable to know the difference between a point in space and a point in time.
I may be relatively new here, but it doesn't ...[text shortened]... reases excrementally as a direct function of the stupid/idiot/moronicalistic shift paradigm.
04 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtPersonal attacks and taunts don't bother me very much. I'm more frustrated by having to repeatedly come back to restate what I've already said. Nothing causes a debate to grind to a halt faster than someone refusing to acknowledge what is actually being said. IMO personal attacks and taunts are nothing compared to careless or outright misrepresentational argumentation.
You are new here, after you've tried to debate with RJ a little you'll get frustrated and scream at him too. I'm increasingly thinking of avoiding posting in evolution threads so I don't do it.
I get what you are saying about every topic peppered with comments on evolution, but all I can say is So what? If I payed close attention to everyone who wanted to distract me, or change the subject and pretend it's what I was talking about, I would be climbing the walls too. These are just digital words on an internet page, so there really is no threat here worthy of consideration.
By the way, I did further research into the phrase ner-na ner-na ner ner and discovered it is an acceptable taunt. It is acknowledged by the National Academy of Sciences and has a worldwide approval rating of 83.6% among reputable credentialed scientists.