Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

[Mugnuts]

I'd put the whole 100 on Bernhard failing to finish/participate somewhere down the line. Basically a default. Can we get odds on that?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Is there even a post limit for the participants in this?

 

[Inferno]

There are no post limits on this one, I believe. There sometimes are, but generally they're foregone.

After reading "Hackey's" ( :lol: ) preamble, I'll bet 100 on no insult, 50 on "no quote" and a further 50 on "no your/you're". Cheese I'm loaded... :lol:

 

[Rumraket]

Community service:
Introduction to ID-creationist interpretations of evolutionary biology papers.

This handy little guide will help you how to become a superb ID proponent by educating you on how to interpret what you read about evolution from non-ID/creationist sources.

It will also help you understand how creationists think when they read evolution-related material.

Normal word - Cdesign proponentsist interpretation:

Rare = never ever.
Unlikely/improbable = impossible.
Likely = rare.
Theory = guess.
Guess = biased wish/materialist faith.
We don't know = and you never will, therefore god!
Not fully understood = not at all understood, impossible to understand, magic/miracles required.
Unexpected result = all naturalistic explanations ever have been falsified.
Neutral mutation = not beneficial, therefore impossiblee/doesn't exist.
natural selection = Orthodox neo-Darwinistic "party line".
It has a chance of one in 10^11 = It has a chance of one in 10^77*
Maybe = biased guess.
Could have = couldn't and didn't.
Beneficial mutation = loss of function/tradeoff and/or loss of information.
New function = loss of information/information was already there.
New information = no new function.
New information and function = still belongs to the same class of enzymes (ex. hydrolases)
Improved function = no new information, ability was already there.
Mutation = destroys information, always degrades.
Millions of years = ad hoc excuse invented to explain why we don't see 20 million year macroevolutionary change in a few months of experimental evolution.
Took billions of years = same excuse as above, just worse.
Ancestral sequence reconstruction = *crickets*
Molecular phylogeny = phyloschmylo, it's more Darwinist math-tricks.
Observation/experiment = hoax and/or only creationists properly understand the result.
Demonstration = hoax.
Statistics = Wat?
Statistically significant = Nyah nyah!
complex = impossible to evolve, must be designed.
Complexity = praise the lord!
Information = immaterial soul-stuff that refutes materialism and all naturalistic expanations ever.
Quantum = immaterial soul-stuff that refutes materialism and all naturalistic expanations ever. Cannot possibly evolve.
Experiment shows how mutations can... = It's still just a bacterium/fruitfly/dog-kind.
Ape = monkey
monkey = ape
evolutionist = ape-monkey
homosexuality = bestiality and rape
evolution = materialism/naturalism/scientism/darwinism/chance/fair coin
darwinism = materialist religious faith

 

[WarK]

I really don't know how betting works, so I won't bet.

I predict, though, that he'll end up posting more than once in a row in the debate or/and he'll come to the peanut gallery and post here before the debate is over.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Will Bernard finally learn how to use the "quote"-function PROPERLY?
Yes 3.9 DL84(20)
No 1.01 HWIN(25) keeper541(33) Inferno(25)

How long does it take before hackenslash becomes frustrated and insults Bernard?
1 post 1.01
2 posts 1.5
3 posts 3
4 posts 5
More 10 DL84(50)
No insult 15 HWIN(50) Collecemall(100) keeper541(34) Inferno(50)

Will Bernard be able to have three "your" and/or "you're" 's correct in a row?
Yes 2.7 DL84(20) keeper541(33)
No 1.2 HWIN(25) Inferno(25)

p.s. You can't bet more then 100 units, keeper and Inferno! Mugnuts, maybe somewhere down the line.

 

[keeper541]

p.s. You can't bet more then 100 units, keeper and Inferno! Mugnuts, maybe somewhere down the line.

Whoops my bad. Trying to go with the bigger bet on hackenslash not insulting I messed myself up with the math.

 

[Dustnite]

I predict Bernie will derail the debate in his first post by being a deceitful troll. This debate isn't going to go anywhere after about post 4.

 

[Inferno]

p.s. You can't bet more then 100 units, keeper and Inferno!

You never said that! And anyway, I bet exactly 100 moneys, NOT more!
I demand my money back plus a re-compensation for lost revenue. I'd say a billion should do fine.

You're welcome.

 

[SpecialFrog]

So, having read Hack's opening, I predict Bernhard will state that he agrees with everything said but that it isn't really proper macroevolution. I also expect he will also claim that mutation doesn't really add information but will not explain what he think the term means in this context. Further, I expect the word "kind" to be used.

But he might just post some nonsense about imaginary evolutionary presuppositions.

Edit to add: I bet 40 quatloos on the first of these outcomes.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

It's really not possible to win with Bernie.

If he wants true mutation adding information, he can look no further than gene duplication in antarctic ice fish. But show him that, and I can Guarantee he will say "yeah, but it's still just a fish"

 

[keeper541]

It's really not possible to win with Bernie.

If he wants true mutation adding information, he can look no further than gene duplication in antarctic ice fish. But show him that, and I can Guarantee he will say "yeah, but it's still just a fish"

Or the other stand by, "But it's the same information". Even though the logical conclusion is that 1+1=2 so even a duplicated gene is new additional information, a repeated bit of "information" that wasn't present before is still new information.

It really is a no win situation. Like hackenslash's reference to Morton's Demon teaches us, no matter what evidence you show he won't see it because of Bernard's preconceptions that ToE can't be right and atheists only support it so they don't need Bernard's God.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

It's really not possible to win with Bernie.

If he wants true mutation adding information, he can look no further than gene duplication in antarctic ice fish. But show him that, and I can Guarantee he will say "yeah, but it's still just a fish"

Or the other stand by, "But it's the same information". Even though the logical conclusion is that 1+1=2 so even a duplicated gene is new additional information, a repeated bit of "information" that wasn't present before is still new information.

It really is a no win situation. Like hackenslash's reference to Morton's Demon teaches us, no matter what evidence you show he won't see it because of Bernard's preconceptions that ToE can't be right and atheists only support it so they don't need Bernard's God.

Oh, but it'd be even worse because in ice fish the duplicatons were of a mutated gene, which gave them the ability to produce antifreeze along with the unmutated enzyme. If that isn't new information, nothing is

 

[DutchLiam84]

p.s. You can't bet more then 100 units, keeper and Inferno!

You never said that! And anyway, I bet exactly 100 moneys, NOT more!
I demand my money back plus a re-compensation for lost revenue. I'd say a billion should do fine.

You're welcome.

I run a very lucrative internet money betting agency called "DutchLiam84 without any co". I'm not a charity!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

p.s. You can't bet more then 100 units, keeper and Inferno!

You never said that! And anyway, I bet exactly 100 moneys, NOT more!
I demand my money back plus a re-compensation for lost revenue. I'd say a billion should do fine.

You're welcome.

:facepalm:

DutchLiam84[/url]"]I'm taking bets for internet money! 100 units of internet money per person to start!

You have the poorest reading comprehension I have ever seen

So, having read Hack's opening, I predict Bernhard will state that he agrees with everything said but that it isn't really proper macroevolution. I also expect he will also claim that mutation doesn't really add information but will not explain what he think the term means in this context. Further, I expect the word "kind" to be used.

I agree. Bernhard.visscher is not looking for facts and evidence. He wants to see a hippo give birth to a monkey.

 

[keeper541]

Oh, but it'd be even worse because in ice fish the duplicatons were of a mutated gene, which gave them the ability to produce antifreeze along with the unmutated enzyme. If that isn't new information, nothing is

Well just look at what he was like discussing whale evolution with you guys. Any small little loop hole he could try and snake his way into, didn't matter that the weight of the evidence would crush him in that crack he found, he was trying to get into. Whether it was his claim that it wasn't direct ancestry, the atavism of the legs weren't really legs, or the molecular evidence; he lied and ignored the whole thing. Did he even admit that it wasn't a fish, I couldn't stand reading his ramblings so much I mostly just got into reading the replies (bad habit of mine if I'm not engaging them directly since the stupidity hurts)?

He is a true Dunning-Kruger, just look at his claims that he would be great against Hitchens.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Oh, but it'd be even worse because in ice fish the duplicatons were of a mutated gene, which gave them the ability to produce antifreeze along with the unmutated enzyme. If that isn't new information, nothing is

Well just look at what he was like discussing whale evolution with you guys. Any small little loop hole he could try and snake his way into, didn't matter that the weight of the evidence would crush him in that crack he found, he was trying to get into. Whether it was his claim that it wasn't direct ancestry, the atavism of the legs weren't really legs, or the molecular evidence; he lied and ignored the whole thing. Did he even admit that it wasn't a fish, I couldn't stand reading his ramblings so much I mostly just got into reading the replies (bad habit of mine if I'm not engaging them directly since the stupidity hurts)?

He is a true Dunning-Kruger, just look at his claims that he would be great against Hitchens.

Idk if you got to where he tried dismissing it as Teratogen, but if you read the paper on the humpback whale legs Rumraket posted, it actually addressed this and showed the evidence showed it could not be dismissed as just a teratogen, which they said most evolutionary biologists would dismiss it as.
Shows he could care less about reading things that prove him wrong, as later evidenced by him continuing to say telomeres don't fuse.

Isn't irony a bitch?

 

[keeper541]

Well just look at what he was like discussing whale evolution with you guys. Any small little loop hole he could try and snake his way into, didn't matter that the weight of the evidence would crush him in that crack he found, he was trying to get into. Whether it was his claim that it wasn't direct ancestry, the atavism of the legs weren't really legs, or the molecular evidence; he lied and ignored the whole thing. Did he even admit that it wasn't a fish, I couldn't stand reading his ramblings so much I mostly just got into reading the replies (bad habit of mine if I'm not engaging them directly since the stupidity hurts)?

He is a true Dunning-Kruger, just look at his claims that he would be great against Hitchens.

Idk if you got to where he tried dismissing it as Teratogen, but if you read the paper on the humpback whale legs Rumraket posted, it actually addressed this and showed the evidence showed it could not be dismissed as just a teratogen, which they said most evolutionary biologists would dismiss it as.
Shows he could care less about reading things that prove him wrong, as later evidenced by him continuing to say telomeres don't fuse.

Isn't irony a bitch?

Yea, I skimmed his parts and I'll admit to not always following through the links so I didn't know that Rumraket's paper actually addressed the tetragen, but I did know he tried to claim that. He also tried claiming that the gene was a duplication of front flipper genes. During that whole exchange I wrote a few posts and then canceled them because I didn't want to get myself involved because debating directly with people like him gives me upset stomach and stress, just my nature as a person, and thought about a few more I wanted to make. Like how limb location is acutally controlled in embryonic development and how difficult that makes his claim. I figured Rumraket and everyone else would do a better job of dismantling him and save me frustration.

The fact he called whales fish and thought he should be taken seriously just goes to show how ridiculous he is and why he would be no match for Hitchens. I could just see it now, Bernard claims in front of Hitchens that a whale is a fish and Hitchens jaw drops a moment before going into a major hitchslap about how much of an idiot Bernard is and how believing the Bible literally, degrades the mind.

It just scares me, people like him are out there. People who think that, with no background on the subject, they can so readily find the flaws of ToE and that it's some big conspiracy by atheists to deny god. That somehow people who profess faith and still agree with evolution are in on this conspiracy and remaining silent, though how atheists got such a pull within the scientfic community to silence groups that were majorities for long peroids of time doesn't even seem to phase creationists.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Idk if you got to where he tried dismissing it as Teratogen, but if you read the paper on the humpback whale legs Rumraket posted, it actually addressed this and showed the evidence showed it could not be dismissed as just a teratogen, which they said most evolutionary biologists would dismiss it as.
Shows he could care less about reading things that prove him wrong, as later evidenced by him continuing to say telomeres don't fuse.

Isn't irony a bitch?

Yea, I skimmed his parts and I'll admit to not always following through the links so I didn't know that Rumraket's paper actually addressed the tetragen, but I did know he tried to claim that. He also tried claiming that the gene was a duplication of front flipper genes. During that whole exchange I wrote a few posts and then canceled them because I didn't want to get myself involved because debating directly with people like him gives me upset stomach and stress, just my nature as a person, and thought about a few more I wanted to make. Like how limb location is acutally controlled in embryonic development and how difficult that makes his claim. I figured Rumraket and everyone else would do a better job of dismantling him and save me frustration.

The fact he called whales fish and thought he should be taken seriously just goes to show how ridiculous he is and why he would be no match for Hitchens. I could just see it now, Bernard claims in front of Hitchens that a whale is a fish and Hitchens jaw drops a moment before going into a major hitchslap about how much of an idiot Bernard is and how believing the Bible literally, degrades the mind.

It just scares me, people like him are out there. People who think that, with no background on the subject, they can so readily find the flaws of ToE and that it's some big conspiracy by atheists to deny god. That somehow people who profess faith and still agree with evolution are in on this conspiracy and remaining silent, though how atheists got such a pull within the scientfic community to silence groups that were majorities for long peroids of time doesn't even seem to phase creationists.

Yeah, he kept saying I was an "anchor", whatever that means. Frankly I found the fact he returned after a few days just to poke at me a little creepy.

But whatever he meant, it made me sad. I'd guess, being a fundie, he believes in a literal hell of eternal torture (I kind of take an annihilationist view, never thought about it too much), but if I'm correct, it shows he couldn't give less of a shit about the fate of my soul. Guess when you give the evidence he wants and call him out on ignoring it, you deserve torture.

Really, it disturbed me.

I also get the stress thing, I got a little irritable during my "debate" with him and my girlfriend noticed (she was stunned at how he ignored the papers on observed telomere fusion too, imagine that ). That's why, if you saw the thread by Rhed, I only corrected him on links but explicitly said I wouldn't be debating him. It isn't worth the headache.

 

[keeper541]

Yeah, he kept saying I was an "anchor", whatever that means. Frankly I found the fact he returned after a few days just to poke at me a little creepy.

But whatever he meant, it made me sad. I'd guess, being a fundie, he believes in a literal hell of eternal torture (I kind of take an annihilationist view, never thought about it too much), but if I'm correct, it shows he couldn't give less of a shit about the fate of my soul. Guess when you give the evidence he wants and call him out on ignoring it, you deserve torture.

Really, it disturbed me.

I also get the stress thing, I got a little irritable during my "debate" with him and my girlfriend noticed (she was stunned at how he ignored the papers on observed telomere fusion too, imagine that ). That's why, if you saw the thread by Rhed, I only corrected him on links but explicitly said I wouldn't be debating him. It isn't worth the headache.

I'm going to guess, and it's purely a guess that I thought now, that you are being dragged straight down to Hell in his mind.

Towards the end of my time as a believer, from about college until I stopped believing around 2008-2009, I had more of a pluristic sort of view on religion. Everyone saw god at one point and was trying to make sense of it all with me justify Christianity with the belief that it was the one that got the bet glance so far. In that sense I was viewing Heaven/Hell as what you made it, whatever you thought the afterlife was, that was what God granted to you. Then I saw the fact the debate between evolution and creationism was still an issue and the more I debated the more I thought about my own position. As I've heard a few atheists say, creationists are their own worst enemy and do more harm to the whole of religion than any atheist speaker will. I started questioning why I held onto one belief without evidence and it didn't take long after that until I gave up doing that.

Yea, my family during that time commented how much those people frustrated me and they didn't understand why I went and got into it on the YouTube comment pages like I did. Even here, I joined to make a few comments to a creationist who went by ablecainsbrother after reading different posts for like two years or so just to avoid that aggravation. That one just frustrated me so much to read that I had to just chime in on how wrong he was; and it wasn't just how wrong he was in biology, it was how wrong he was on his own holy book, the guy claimed the book had to be read as it was written then inserted a whole other story in between the first two verses. Poor Dragon Glas got to listen to me in my need to vent reading ACB's posts. My other motive at that time was to try and get a discussion to prevent like what we saw with the Aronra/Bernard post, basically the discussion on why we use specific definitions and what those definitions should be. I was trying to stop the prolonged posts where the creationists avoided definitions so they couldn't claim that people were avoiding the heart oft he debate.