Originally posted by @freakykbhOld McDonald had a mousetrap, E-I-E-I-O...
The fanboy runs deep in the general populace of sciencedom.
It's much easier to stick with tried-and-true rules--- even if never tried or essentially true--- since opening up to questions can only be super, super messy.
That the mousetrap is even used shows the observer that not only do they think you're stupid, they're willing to bet the farm on it.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra98.6
How many people in the general populace of sciencedom have you ever met?
Originally posted by @lemon-limeThey weren't jumping: there was an invisible force naturally selecting their order of launch which then pushed them when it was their turn.
[b]You ABSOLUTELY know not to jump off a cliff unless you are in fact committing suicide
No, I do not ABSOLUTELY know this.
I do not possess absolute knowledge, and neither do you.
[youtube]48IF6i0inAI[/youtube][/b]
Originally posted by @lemon-limeAnyway, like I was sayin', mouse is the fruit of the land.
Old McDonald had a mousetrap, E-I-E-I-O...
You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it.
Dey's uh, mouse-kabobs, mouse creole, mouse gumbo.
Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried.
There's pineapple mouse, lemon mouse, coconut mouse, pepper mouse, mouse soup, mouse stew, mouse salad, mouse and potatoes, mouse burger, mouse sandwich.
That- that's about it.
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhlemon mouse? 😲
Anyway, like I was sayin', mouse is the fruit of the land.
You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it.
Dey's uh, mouse-kabobs, mouse creole, mouse gumbo.
Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried.
There's pineapple mouse, lemon mouse, coconut mouse, pepper mouse, mouse soup, mouse stew, mouse salad, mouse and potatoes, mouse burger, mouse sandwich.
That- that's about it.
Originally posted by @freakykbhNo, just mocking your Infowars-derived expertise on matters related to the scientific community.
Taking a survey?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraI guess you're doubly screwed then: not only do I not watch InfoWars, I don't trust anything from it at all.
No, just mocking your Infowars-derived expertise on matters related to the scientific community.
Say!
Here's a novel thing you've literally never tried, and which might just be a lot of fun for you to work it into your repetoire: stick with the facts of the situation instead of your incessant focus on the person.
Just the facts, ma'am...
Originally posted by @lemon-limeYou convoluted punctuated equilibrium with irreducible complexity, which I think you did to argue that irreducible complexity is a legitimate scientific concept. It seemed arbitrary and incoherent. I'm not trying to set any traps. I was only trying to get some clarity from you on the logic you're using to draw this comparison. How is it different than saying that the pyramids were too complex for humans to build, so aliens did it? This argument doesn't appear to be derived from the scientific method, it's only random conjecture. Punctuated equilibrium was based on the fossil record.
[b]just answer the darn question.
"Us old foxes is trap-shy; especially when the bait comes looking for us." - Jed Clampett[/b]
Originally posted by @freakykbhNothing at all, except Pizzagate, Sandy Hook denial, climate change denial, evolution denial, anti-vaxxing, and whatever other ludicrous conspiracy theories you have peddled on these forums.
I guess you're doubly screwed then: not only do I not watch InfoWars, I don't trust anything from it at all.
Say!
Here's a novel thing you've literally never tried, and which might just be a lot of fun for you to work it into your repetoire: stick with the facts of the situation instead of your incessant focus on the person.
Just the facts, ma'am...
2 edits
Originally posted by @wildgrassPunctuated equilibrium was based on the fossil record.
You convoluted punctuated equilibrium with irreducible complexity, which I think you did to argue that irreducible complexity is a legitimate scientific concept. It seemed arbitrary and incoherent. I'm not trying to set any traps. I was only trying to get some clarity from you on the logic you're using to draw this comparison. How is it different than say ...[text shortened]... ific method, it's only random conjecture. Punctuated equilibrium was based on the fossil record.
Yes, PE is based on the fossil record. I never said (or implied) it wasn't.
You convoluted punctuated equilibrium with irreducible complexity, which I think you did to argue that irreducible complexity is a legitimate scientific concept.
Are you sure you're not convoluting what I've said with what you think I'm saying, or what you think I'm trying to accomplish?
It seemed arbitrary and incoherent.
Reading too much into this can make it appear that way.
I'm not trying to set any traps.
Then stop telling me what you think I'm saying, stop reading stuff into my posts that aren't there... and just read (and respond to) the darn posts!
Originally posted by @lemon-limeYou were clearly convoluting punctuated equilibrium and irreducible complexity in earlier posts. Why?
[b]Punctuated equilibrium was based on the fossil record.
Yes, PE is based on the fossil record. I never said (or implied) it wasn't.
You convoluted punctuated equilibrium with irreducible complexity, which I think you did to argue that irreducible complexity is a legitimate scientific concept.
Are you sure you're not convoluting what ...[text shortened]... reading stuff into my posts that aren't there... and just read (and respond to) the darn posts![/b]
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraNothing at all, except Pizzagate, Sandy Hook denial, climate change denial, evolution denial, anti-vaxxing, and whatever other ludicrous conspiracy theories you have peddled on these forums.
Nothing at all, except Pizzagate, Sandy Hook denial, climate change denial, evolution denial, anti-vaxxing, and whatever other ludicrous conspiracy theories you have peddled on these forums.
Peddled?
You silly little boy.
I’ve not “peddled” a single thing on any of these forums; my task has merely been to state the facts.
Pizzagate is nowhere near over; we haven’t even scratched the surface on that rat’s nest of sickening “behavior.”
Anyone claiming the US isn’t currently experiencing a pandemic of child abuse has their head up their ass.
Sandy Hook?
Again, only an idiot could possibly maintain that anyone died at that building on that day.
Latest wrinkle on that one, since I know you’re probably at the edge of your seat following the fall-out of scrutiny the MSM failed to apply:
Leonard Pozner, who claims his son Noah was killed and has been highly litigious in taking the researchers to court, recently sued one of the researchers in what can only be considered a scare tactic to ‘encourage’ silence.
Despite multiple attempts at securing a deposition from Pozner via his attorney over the course of several months, for some unknown reason, Pozner is suddenly and inexplicably unavailable.
The researcher had to take him to court to have the court demand his deposition.
For his own lawsuit.
Pozner doesn’t show up, but his lawyer did--- okay, a paralegal for the last one--- claiming he is physically unable to travel anywhere to give his deposition for another three months.
For his own lawsuit.
That type of intransigence has been going on since the very beginning of that staged event.
Kinda makes you wonder, huh.
Well, you don’t wonder, but that’s another issue altogether.
You don’t need facts, since you have your mind made up for you by MSM.
Climate change denial?
Dude, the weather is always changing.
Was before, is right now, will in the future.
Not much more to that story, despite the sky-is-falling power grab otherwise.
Evolution denial?
Is what it is, sadly.
Anti-vaxxing?
What’s in those things, anyway?
I was probably sleeping during the class that covered it, but--- besides vaccines--- can you name a single situation in which non-use by one person is able to eradicate the efficacy for any other person applying the same ‘remedy’?
If I don’t use my seatbelt, will you be thrown from the vehicle even though you’re using yours?
Conspiracy theories?
Do they really exist?
Originally posted by @wildgrassI don't know what you are 'clearly' seeing when you say 'convoluting'.
You were clearly convoluting punctuated equilibrium and irreducible complexity in earlier posts. Why?
That video makes some crazy assertions. #9 says that "Evolution teaches that we were not created by God, that means we are not subject to God's laws, or any other laws for that matter." But nothing in that sentence is true. God isn't mentioned in evolutions "teachings". Why does all this nonsense insist that the scientific method and God are incompatible? It is fine if you want to reject the ideas of evolution, but the idea of rejecting evolution because it necessarily takes away any role for God to play in the creation of life is incoherent.
I just watched the bit about irreducible complexity too. They bring up the bombardier beetle as an example of something that could not have evolved. But, it's not that hard to imagine how that evolved.