Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

:/ show us your equation for solving such. ^-^

LOL! There is no equation for solving that! It's the initial probabilistic distribution based on which you perform subsequent calculations.

If I say that a specific number on a die has teh probability of occuring 1:6, that's not a calculation. That's the starting point from which you make your calculations.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

I see Царь Славян has now truned up here after having his arse throughly handed to him over on Ratskep and banned for being a troll. Lying on another forum is still lying.
For anyone interested in his arse whipping here is the link.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/discussion-from-calilasseia-creationists-read-this-t18769.html
By warned there are 52 pages.

Only the biggest moron on the planet would interpret that as me having my as handed to myself. I was the one who destroyed every single one of their arguments for the whole duration of the debate. So they got frustrated and started insulting me. So, since I destroyed them already, I considered it fine to play their own game, since I knew I have proven my point. I didn't care I got banned, because they lost, not me. And to think that I was the one who lost is really nothing less than moronic, since I answered every single thing they had to say.

So since you made this retarded conclusion, I have nothing else to do but to add you to my ignore list. Bye.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Aah, you mean that thread where you carefully explain everything in detail, support it with experimnts and evidence, and don't repeat any of the old and debunked arguments that Dembski proposed?

Oh, wait...

You mean just like the original article that was presented to me, which was supported by experimental evidence?

Oh, wait...

 

[Rumraket]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

I see Царь Славян has now truned up here after having his arse throughly handed to him over on Ratskep and banned for being a troll. Lying on another forum is still lying.
For anyone interested in his arse whipping here is the link.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/discussion-from-calilasseia-creationists-read-this-t18769.html
By warned there are 52 pages.

Only the biggest moron on the planet would interpret that as me having my as handed to myself. I was the one who destroyed every single one of their arguments for the whole duration of the debate. So they got frustrated and started insulting me. So, since I destroyed them already, I considered it fine to play their own game, since I knew I have proven my point. I didn't care I got banned, because they lost, not me. And to think that I was the one who lost is really nothing less than moronic, since I answered every single thing they had to say.

So since you made this retarded conclusion, I have nothing else to do but to add you to my ignore list. Bye.

Should we perhaps go over your COLOSSAL failture to understand the role of mRNA capping by GTP, the difference between procaryotes and eucaryotes, or your Galaxy-cluster scale bullshitting with respec to the Hayashi paper GenesForLife provided?

If you absolutely so desire, I can post it here for all to see.

 

[Squawk]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Since I perceive that you did in fact get your arse handed to you, badly, I'd advise not speaking in such terms. Being called a moron isn't likely to put you on my good side, particularly when the comment is not justified.

 

[lrkun]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Aah, you mean that thread where you carefully explain everything in detail, support it with experimnts and evidence, and don't repeat any of the old and debunked arguments that Dembski proposed?

Oh, wait...

You mean just like the original article that was presented to me, which was supported by experimental evidence?

Oh, wait...

Ah, the one where you cited all those sources to support your opinions? ... sources not found.

 

[Gnug215]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Aah, you mean that thread where you carefully explain everything in detail, support it with experimnts and evidence, and don't repeat any of the old and debunked arguments that Dembski proposed?

Oh, wait...

You mean just like the original article that was presented to me, which was supported by experimental evidence?

Oh, wait...

Let me guess: I'm supposed to present evidence to you that supports the theory of evolution, and debunks Debunksi's armchair philosophical flailings?

Well, you know what? I'm just gonna sit down here on the side of evidence, supported by years of experimentation, prediction and tangible results. Yes, where a few forum posts with creationist "logic" don't have any sway, because, well... it takes more than a few forum posts to sway reality.

So yeah, try again. With evidence this time. Evidence I can analyze, with science.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Should we perhaps go over your COLOSSAL failture to understand the role of mRNA capping by GTP, the difference between procaryotes and eucaryotes, or your Galaxy-cluster scale bullshitting with respec to the Hayashi paper GenesForLife provided?

If you absolutely so desire, I can post it here for all to see.

What I would desire is for you to actually tell me what I said was wrong.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Since I perceive that you did in fact get your arse handed to you, badly, I'd advise not speaking in such terms. Being called a moron isn't likely to put you on my good side, particularly when the comment is not justified.

I couldn't care less what you perceive. Point ot the points I failed to address. I'm waiting.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Ah, the one where you cited all those sources to support your opinions? ... sources not found.

Have I provided no links at all?

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Let me guess: I'm supposed to present evidence to you that supports the theory of evolution, and debunks Debunksi's armchair philosophical flailings?

Well, you know what? I'm just gonna sit down here on the side of evidence, supported by years of experimentation, prediction and tangible results. Yes, where a few forum posts with creationist "logic" don't have any sway, because, well... it takes more than a few forum posts to sway reality.

So yeah, try again. With evidence this time. Evidence I can analyze, with science.

If you claim that my arguments are flawed, you will have to show me where they are wrong. The fact that you dream of years and years of experiments supporting your claim is none of my concern.

 

[ProcInc]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

We have all repeatedly pointed out how your math is flawed, your arguments are fallacious and your conclusions are outright wrong.

The math supports the patterns we are able to follow in evolution.

Naturally when you come out with flawed math or indeed totally irrelevent math (let alone totally irrelevent subjects) then you are going to think you are arguing against the most tried and true scientific theory in practise today.

However you don't understand/accept the arguments you are using and anybody can realise that because you don't pay attention to them. Otherwise you would not so terribly fail to detect all of the enormous flaws in them that we are able to spell out for you. You don't care what argument you use or how valid it is at long as you can put it in writing because then you feel slightly less insecure about the absurd beliefs regarding origins that you unabashedly harbour.




One of the most striking self-destructions of your argument that nobody has brought up surprisingly is when you stated that ID was falfiable on the basis that it would be falsified by the existence of an alternative natrual explanation.

This means that you have disqualified ID from natural laws which automatically disqualifies it from science anyway.

It also means that you must thing that a human manufacturing something counts as a supernatural event. However, it isn't.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

One of the most striking self-destructions of your argument that nobody has brought up surprisingly is when you stated that ID was falfiable on the basis that it would be falsified by the existence of an alternative natrual explanation.

I said NATURAL LAW, not NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION.

Chance is not a natural law, but it is a naturalistic explanation.

Please go away, you are misunderstanding everything.

 

[Squawk]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

One of the most striking self-destructions of your argument that nobody has brought up surprisingly is when you stated that ID was falfiable on the basis that it would be falsified by the existence of an alternative natrual explanation.

I said NATURAL LAW, not NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION.

Chance is not a natural law, but it is a naturalistic explanation.

Please go away, you are misunderstanding everything.

Might I suggest that you are misunderstanding things also, given that you seem to imply that a natural "law" cannot be shown to be incorrect. Are you really arguing that all natural laws, as alighted upon by science to date, are accurate?

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Might I suggest that you are misunderstanding things also, given that you seem to imply that a natural "law" cannot be shown to be incorrect. Are you really arguing that all natural laws, as alighted upon by science to date, are accurate?

Sorry, but this is not gonna fly. You have an unanswered question here. Please address it.

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=102668#p102668

 

[Squawk]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Might I suggest that you are misunderstanding things also, given that you seem to imply that a natural "law" cannot be shown to be incorrect. Are you really arguing that all natural laws, as alighted upon by science to date, are accurate?

Sorry, but this is not gonna fly. You have an unanswered question here. Please address it.

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=102668#p102668

Why bother, so you can ignore it like you ignored and continue to ignore everything that you ignored the last time? I'll pass thanks.

A simple yes or no answer would have sufficed to my last question though. It would have saved you a lot of typing too. If you hadn't noticed, I consider pretty much everything you post to be idiotic so I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[Gnug215]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Let me guess: I'm supposed to present evidence to you that supports the theory of evolution, and debunks Debunksi's armchair philosophical flailings?

Well, you know what? I'm just gonna sit down here on the side of evidence, supported by years of experimentation, prediction and tangible results. Yes, where a few forum posts with creationist "logic" don't have any sway, because, well... it takes more than a few forum posts to sway reality.

So yeah, try again. With evidence this time. Evidence I can analyze, with science.

If you claim that my arguments are flawed, you will have to show me where they are wrong. The fact that you dream of years and years of experiments supporting your claim is none of my concern.

No, clearly it's none of your concern, that much is evident. Heck, why would you want evidence that destroys your worldview to concern you? It's so unpleasant.

But well, since you're not going to concern yourself with that, I hope you don't mind if I won't concern myself with the ass-handing you're receiving in that other thread of yours. No, I haven't bothered to read it all; I can smell unsupported pseudoscience and philosophical babble a mile away.

Sounds about fair, doesn't it?

 

[lrkun]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

One of the most striking self-destructions of your argument that nobody has brought up surprisingly is when you stated that ID was falfiable on the basis that it would be falsified by the existence of an alternative natrual explanation.

I said NATURAL LAW, not NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION.

Chance is not a natural law, but it is a naturalistic explanation.

Please go away, you are misunderstanding everything.

Why is chance not a natural law? Basis?

Why does chance have a naturalistic explanation? Basis?

What is naturalistic explanation? Basis?

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

Why bother, so you can ignore it like you ignored and continue to ignore everything that you ignored the last time? I'll pass thanks.

A simple yes or no answer would have sufficed to my last question though. It would have saved you a lot of typing too. If you hadn't noticed, I consider pretty much everything you post to be idiotic so I'm not going to waste my time.

When people dont understand something thy usually find it idiotic. So yeah, please don't waste your time and my time any longer.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: ** STICKY ** Creationist Canards: The comprehensive guid

No, clearly it's none of your concern, that much is evident. Heck, why would you want evidence that destroys your worldview to concern you? It's so unpleasant.

But well, since you're not going to concern yourself with that, I hope you don't mind if I won't concern myself with the ass-handing you're receiving in that other thread of yours. No, I haven't bothered to read it all; I can smell unsupported pseudoscience and philosophical babble a mile away.

Sounds about fair, doesn't it?

No, it does not. Present the evidence that falsifies my claims, or don't waste my time anymore.