The Forum > Article Comments > Scientific heresy > Comments
Scientific heresy : Comments
By Matt Ridley, published 4/11/2011How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience using global warming as an example.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Page 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
-
- All
Posted by one under god, Monday, 28 November 2011 11:20:38 PM
| |
ok blind freddy can see the lie
of transitionals not transitioning and im sorry if your upset aj you gone silent for now..as has the professing stezza dont that just speak volumes folks your theory is fraud the science behind global warming is a lie too how many more lies will sdecievers sell to you convince you to be truth know that most assanitations were done to leaders daring to issue their own money..from sadam insane..to gadafi [who wanted their limitec oil payed for in solid gold] to jfk who wanted presidential order 11.110 right back to ceaser who dared issue his own coin..with his head on it to asure the metal quality..[who then built much of the great tourist traps with it] so many lies are based on getting gulible followers heck blind freddy can see through the pictures that sell the fraud learn to visualise the words folks not be decieved by visions i will miss the mad professor.. professing evolution theory as science but then again who isnt professing... even here we watched what aj professed but could not confirm fossils are pretty clever stuff but have no science validity ..because they are based on phenotype[lookslike]//not genetical change [dna mutation..that REALLY NEEDS wrote large over it dna *evolution..needs to produce the changed dna all else is smoke and mirrors its funny how in the end of these topics [as long as i havnt got susapended again] how things go quiet..one would hope it was because they are thinking but mostly..its because they thought they knew it all then found they believed in nuthin better you recognise god now that later when beliving in god isnt a choice but dont sewat on it we were all lied to.. [and the decievers really resent those they decieved asking them why] silence yes thats some sort of proof those who remain mute are under a crisis of faith or just being childish and churlish ask just the facts naming names result nuthin* the fool confound's the wise Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 30 November 2011 8:25:20 AM
| |
Yes, OUG, it certainly does…
<<you gone silent for now..as has the professing stezza dont that just speak volumes folks>> It speaks volumes about just how bored I got. I’ve had my fun and you haven’t demonstrated a level of comprehension that would inspire me to continue any further. If all you’re going to do is claim that there are no falsifiables while failing to adequately address why the falsifiables that I mentioned are not falsifiables, then I really can’t be bothered anymore. You fail to understand that while most fossils don’t have DNA, life today does and that’s all we need. You fail to understand that transitional fossils can be “dead ends” and that we don’t need the exact common ancestors between any two given genera alive today. You fail to understand the fact that we are lucky to have as many fossils as we do have and so pointing to gaps is futile. You fail to understand that not all mutations repair - there are hundreds of examples of mutations that haven't - so you still haven’t pointed to a mechanism that would prevent a change of genus. You fail to understand the significance of finding primitive sea life in the lower stratum and more complex life in the upper stratum. And to top it all off, in typical creationist form, you quote-mine the Wiki article I linked to in order to misrepresent it. Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 30 November 2011 11:24:13 AM
| |
duplicated here
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91933#p91933 aj said it...""You fail to understand..that while..most fossils don’t have DNA,.. life today..does.. and that’s all we need.""" you know..you just might be right..tonto so..*how about developing..todays].. living genus/species.. by dna changes..of todays dna i[wait for it]..into the mythical ancestor change your current dna..to where.. the curerent dna...is reverse 'engeneerd]... to actually re-produce...the so called..lol..ancestorial genotype*... of course failure to do that *will invalidate your thesis [HEY I JUST MADE UP A FAULSIFYABLE for you...!] but its easier to make up a theory [or even a faulsifyable]..than proove it and thats why the THEORy of evolution is built upon huge gaps and lies even building it on stoner fossils its still shaky ground as the koran says fIRST..make one like it,... *FIRST failure to do it will invalidate ya thesis so lets set..a time limit im betting..not in either yourn..nor my life-time get it? but the funny boy goes on ""You fail to understand that transitional fossils can be “dead ends”"" nope mate i said it ""and that we don’t need the exact common ancestors between any two given genera alive today."" mate if it was only one i would say fine but there are NONE not one... and thus your opinion..looks weak noting you still havnt NAMED names ""You fail to understand the fact..that we are lucky to have as many fossils as we do have..and so pointing to gaps is futile.""' with you..lot fixated on ya gappy cccrappie/theory of course ..lol..it is you think a lot of science..=..a lot more gaps that are just fine...more proof of nuthin [but mate think..NOT one gap filled..! thats suss think my bro Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 30 November 2011 3:57:29 PM
| |
""You fail..to understand that not all mutations repair"'
wrong again oh rainman i said minour variations within the genus level egsist [thus clearly didnt get 'repaird].. i have even named a few [fantail colour..long legs..etc *all in the genus liva ""there are hundreds of examples..of mutations that haven't-...""..repaired.. ..""so you still haven’t pointed to a mechanism that would prevent a change of genus."" not my theory mate..present thats fact first get it? see my links repair at the species level ensures genus..*cant change [think mate..people cant fly thus logiclly..i cant fly] if species..evolves into other genus what stops species mutating out of genus means case closed too far..from the genus mean it simply aborts..or mercyfully..dies very early..in its shortend life if you got science you would pre$ent it ""You fail to understand..the significance of finding primitive sea life..in the lower stratum and more complex life in the upper stratum."" pleasee explain einstein [it couldnt be that a lot of land began its life underwater]...and that much of the micro flaura still lives today..[there is two reasonings refuting your absurdity] ""And to top it all off, in typical creationist form, you quote-mine the Wiki article I linked to in order to misrepresent it."" lol mate the words say what i quoted it was your proof and now its my fault..you put me onto the site the words explain themselves..refute what you think you are saying ps..you conveniantly ignore the huge gaps you know where bacteria evolve into insects..[or whatever you nutters think 'evolved from what'] the transitionals FROM YOUR LINK was fish...lol..into fish insects..lol into insects not much of a transition IT WAS YOUR PROOF you hit your own goal Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 30 November 2011 3:57:48 PM
| |
Yes, OUG…
<<i said minour variations within the genus level egsist [thus clearly didnt get 'repaird]..>> …and it’s many minor variations that accumulate over millions of years that eventually cause a species to separate off into multiple genera. As even you said… <<too far..from the genus mean it simply aborts..or mercyfully..dies very early..in its shortend life>> I mean, it’s not like a reptile’s scales become feathers within a few generations or anything like that. So still no mechanism. <<the words say what i quoted>> Of course they do. They’re also put into context when one reads the entire paragraph too. <<the transitionals FROM YOUR LINK was fish...lol..into fish insects..lol into insects>> You didn’t have much of a look then. There were transitionals for reptiles to birds and land animals to sea creatures, etc. Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 30 November 2011 4:39:14 PM
|
Fish..to Tetrapods...see the joke
the complete*..lack of intermediates
your infinite faulsifiables..is delusion..ol/mate
""Then there’s DNA..that you..haven’t addressed),""'
dna*..NOT FOUND..*IN FOSSILS!
dna that gets..repaired
as soon as it is mutated
try reading..my previous posts ol boy
you igmopring..my words
dont mean..no one cant..look and read them
unless they chose to be..blind and ignorant..like your good self
mate..i hate doing this..to you
but you got nuthin..the sooner you realise that..
dr stezza and i..can try to reason things out
""which would..falsify evolution
*if the DNA..of each genus..bore no resemblance..to any other genera."""
no dear ignorant one..
linkage means..there will be...*MUST BE common dna
with minour evolutions..to prove..the ';evolution
made minour change..[to wit evolved/mutated...
from this into that
valid facts..that science can compare..and judge
that is..if anyone is still checking..anything
most like you..prefer simplistic ignorances
prefer faith..in a theory
""The reason..we don’t see..any of the above,
is because..evolution is a fact.""'
lol..so sad
at so many levels aj
""As even you..""
even me...?..you again think..to twist me
lol..into your proof
ok..lets egsamine...me said..
..even you..""..later go on..to say,
“please note..that no evolutions..have been faulsified..ever”...
you certainly..aint giving any...!~
cause evolution..aint got none..!
thus none..lol..have been faulsified
CAUSE NONE..lol..PRESENTED...!
get it?
there is..no elephant poop..in your backyard
cause..there is no elephant...keep twisting..ol mate
"""My “ignorances”?..You’re the one
who doesn’t appear..to realise..that..we can’t get DNA..from fossil,"""
mate i have..*repeatedly..*said the same
so yes..your agreeing with me
i agree..thats right,...no dna from fossils
thus only pheno..not geno..[no genes
means no proof of linkage
""then..a smooth transition
throughout..the stratum..indicates more..than just phenotype.""
please re/clarify..with proof
you got a link?...[that ensures..this is a constant generalisation
or..a constant opinioon..[law]..only..in your mind?
""Or is your God..out to deceive?""
god is not..into decieving
but what..*you run out of fact
so now attack god?...lol
""the topic..of fossils..is exactly
what brought us..to the whole phenotype/genotype bit.""
yes
because..no dna..
means no proof..of linkage
its like..a bit of puzzel piece....
[that fits..but is ignoring the pictrure..[genes]..
with that vital info..missing..that means
its the right/shape..but not*..provably
[faulsifyably]..from,..the right puzzel..
your seeing nothing..of the real/picture