:AMR:
Um, yeah, you carry on "believing" that. Fundamentalism is something else...
toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
:AMR:
Um, yeah, you carry on "believing" that. Fundamentalism is something else...
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
LOL
You affirmed that one cat is a cat population by answering "One" to the question I asked you. Can't hide that fact, Professor.
Oh, and by the way--that's the first truth you've affirmed on this thread. Way to go!
Um, no but I don't expect you to understand why. Oh, and the first truth I gave was in the very first response to this thread. Your neg rep btw was hilariously ironic, "begging for attention"?
:chuckle:
I'll just leave you to this trainwreck of a thread that was off the rails to start with.
Right Divider
Body part
I can see that your commitment to your belief system is far more important to you than the facts. Carry on.
Irony overload. Meantime, the rational can accept science and still have belief without being fettered by doctrine that demands that the earth has to be no older than 10,000 years etc.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Right Divider
Body part
See what I mean?
You cannot even discuss radiometric dating because it might upset your "abundance of evidence".
You've been faking a "discussion" about radiometric dating all along.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Why do you keep trying to get me to play your word games??
OK, I'll play your game: I'm posting the words "evolution" and "change" here for you, just like you asked:
- evolution
- change
I'm at a loss with your other game, though. The one where you say certain words, pretending to mean things by them, and then, whenever I ask you what (if anything) you mean by them, you refuse to tell me. Why is that fun for you? Why do you get such a kick out of your word games, and why do you keep trying to get me, and others, to play them with you? Why is it so much fun for you to say words like "evolution", "evolve", "change", "population", "mutation", "species", etc., meaninglessly? Why is it so much fun for you to refuse to answer the simplest questions about your use of such words?
On the other hand, what else, really, is there for you to do to pass the time, what with your sad, irrational, God-despising, nihilist worldview?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
| Q. What is the entire feline population of a house populated by one cat? A. The entire feline population of a house populated by one cat is _______. |
Fill in the blank with whatever number you would say is the correct population number to answer this question.
On the contrary, I was ready for discussion. Instead, you just kept simplistically ranting away about how it's all "assumption" and your claims that it's debunked or that you could destroy it were just you spouting off as if your objections to it were somehow a valid dismissal of it. They weren't and aren't.
Right now it's out so the house, unless one's managed to get in unawares to me, has no cats in it at all. Off course, in terms of science and geographical area it wouldn't matter how many cats were or weren't in one particular house in a street.
LOL...
(oops, sorry)
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
You should go back to trying to determine a woodchuck's wood-chucking efficiency, you're embarrassing yourself by trolling your own thread.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
LOL
You just stonewalled again.
You're certainly one of the most amazing yo-yos I've encountered in a forum: you never get tired of embarrassing yourself by stonewalling, and you just keep rollin' back, over and over, to embarrass yourself again, and again......
Here, by all means, please stonewall again:
| Q. What is the entire feline population of a house populated by one cat? A. The entire feline population of a house populated by one cat is _______. |
Fill in the blank with whatever number you would say is the correct population number to answer this question.
Alate_One
Well-known member
How have you not been doing the same thing? You just say "it's all based on assumptions" and walk away. How is that a discussion?
There are plenty of other dating methods that tell you the earth is far older than several thousand years old. How about the ice cores of Antarctica? They go back several hundred thousand years. Simple snow layer counting gets you 55,000 years . . . That should give you some indication that an age of only a few thousand years is too short for the earth.
LOL
You just stonewalled again.
You're certainly one of the most amazing yo-yos I've encountered in a forum: you never get tired of embarrassing yourself by stonewalling, and you just keep rollin' back, over and over, to embarrass yourself again, and again......
Here, by all means, please stonewall again:
Q. What is the entire feline population of a house populated by one cat?
A. The entire feline population of a house populated by one cat is _______.
Fill in the blank with whatever number you would say is the correct population number to answer this question.
I answered your silly question exactly. If there's no cats in my house then the cat population at time of posting is zero. May as well ask what the cat population of the back alley of a street is. Would still have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific understanding of the term where it comes to population. When my cat is back in the house then presuming there's no other felines that have managed to get in then the cat population of one house will be one until he goes out again.
You are one of the most juvenile posters there is on here. You embarrass yourself with a completely ignorant OP to start with, are corrected on a basic schoolboy error of misunderstanding and instead of just conceding you were wrong, you invent all sorts of increasingly bizarre deflections that just make you look more and more unhinged or childish. I'm figuring it's more a case of being wet behind the ears than anything so with time you'll probably and hopefully cringe at this thread.
This just confirms how juvenile you are. Chair isn't a nihilist, nor irrational but your puerile and ignorant name calling shows your level of maturity here, and it's one that would embarrass plenty of third graders.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Hehehe. You can write a sentence!? You're not just limited to producing a pictograph of your own, blue-haired likeness, after all. Congratulations, sir.
And yet, you refuse to employ your human language ability to try to answer the questions I asked you.
It's funny that you don't even know what assuming is. Why don't you know what assuming is?-- and yet, you use the word for it, nevertheless. How does that separate you from parrots? It doesn't. You actually ask people for reasons for their assumptions; by definition, to assume something is to think something without having a reason to think it. That's why it's called "a priori". Why is that so difficult for you?
If you'd only live up to your name, you'd not embarrass yourself by such elementary blunders as you are wont to make--'cause nobody would hear you make them. And, you'd certainly have no need of stonewalling, as you are doing presently--'cause nobody'd have had any occasion to ask you the questions against which you are presently stonewalling.
Since you say that this is my "own thread", then why are you here? You're the one trolling my thread. I don't really care for your attitude, nor your hypocrisy. Shoo, move along. You're unwilling to learn, you're unwilling to think rationally. Please, stop begging for attention in my thread. Thanks.
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
LOL
You lie, again. Unless, by "exactly", you mean "not at all".
That's not an answer to any question I asked you. Why are you so addicted to lying?
You fill in the blank I provided with whatever you'd say is the correct number, or you continue in your failure to answer the question I asked you:
| Q. What is the entire feline population of a house populated by one cat? A. The entire feline population of a house populated by one cat is _______. |
Only an abject idiot would say that "zero" is the correct number with which to fill in that blank.
LOL
It's funny how much noise you make to try (in futility) to muffle the loud, clear sound of you stonewalling against the questions I ask you.
LOL
I'd like to be able to say I was wrong in thinking, early on, that you'd sooner or later become ready, willing, and able, to conduct yourself honestly and rationally, but the truth is, I never did think that you would do so--so I wasn't wrong.
It's funny that you call questions that you are forced to stonewall against, "bizarre deflections".
Here, have fun in your continued refusal to answer my "bizarre deflection":
| Q. What is the entire feline population of a house populated by one cat? A. The entire feline population of a house populated by one cat is _______. |
By the way, what, after all, is your obsession with telling me how much older you are than me?? I can't figure that shtick out at all. Be old, then, gramps. Knock yourself out. What's that to me? I don't have the sort of age insecurity complex that you seem to have. Why should I care how much older you are than me? I hope that, someday, when I'm as old as you are now, I will not have degenerated down to such a banal mentality as you've risen to.
Hahaha: "If there's no cats..."??
Basic Ozarks backwoods schoolboy error you just performed.
Hmm, if there's no cats in a house then there's no cats in a house. Doesn't mean that there's no cats. Heck, you're the one neg repping me for apparently "begging for attention" and then you continually want a response and produce a whole bunch of more word salad in doing so. All of this because you couldn't acknowledge a basic error in your first post?
That and the continual LOL and "haha" stuff is what points you to being young and wet behind the ears because you're certainly naive as to what the theory of evolution is about. If you were better acquainted with such and showed some maturity on the score then you wouldn't be doing this. Otherwise, you're like a gamer who's merely playing for a win that they can't get.
Hehehe. You can write a sentence!? You're not just limited to producing a pictograph of your own, blue-haired likeness, after all. Congratulations, sir.
And yet, you refuse to employ your human language ability to try to answer the questions I asked you.
It's funny that you don't even know what assuming is. Why don't you know what assuming is?-- and yet, you use the word for it, nevertheless. How does that separate you from parrots? It doesn't. You actually ask people for reasons for their assumptions; by definition, to assume something is to think something without having a reason to think it. That's why it's called "a priori". Why is that so difficult for you?
If you'd only live up to your name, you'd not embarrass yourself by such elementary blunders as you are wont to make--'cause nobody would hear you make them. And, you'd certainly have no need of stonewalling, as you are doing presently--'cause nobody'd have had any occasion to ask you the questions against which you are presently stonewalling.
Since you say that this is my "own thread", then why are you here? You're the one trolling my thread. I don't really care for your attitude, nor your hypocrisy. Shoo, move along. You're unwilling to learn, you're unwilling to think rationally. Please, stop begging for attention in my thread. Thanks.
Do you honestly think that this response of yours comes across as "rational"? "Hehehe" etc?
And again, this "begging for attention" shtick you have going on at the minute?
Do you actually see how much projection you have going on here?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
LOL @ form letters.