|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 09:14:59 [Permalink]
|
Your arrogance is suffocating DaveW. Skeptics like you do not amount to much when it comes to issues. Your skepticism has no influence in any field of discussion, scientific, theological, historical etc. Discussion and disagreements are resolved by peers in their field because they have the knowledge and understanding to challenge each other. Whereas skeptics are just ordinary spectators and consumers.
Repeat post.
Skeptics do not contribute to any debate on any issue. They are just consumers. They either reject or accept the final product.
Try to do a search of skeptics who are scientist, or skeptics who are active in renaissance religion, or skeptics contributing to common cause. Nada, zero, nonplus, don't exist.
The only thing that comes up are skeptics of climate change. That is the line in the sand skeptics have drawn. Everything else is trajectory that goes pass their social participation and relevance. The other largest registration of climate change reactionaries are deniers.
But skeptics will show their biases and lean towards erroneous scientific conjectures because they are populist views. Is it based on their education, qualifications? Absolutely NOT!!! You wont find them listed as scientist, theologians. They must apply the same finger test they use to test climate change. Only here they use the advance skeptics rule of the thumb technique. It is self taught I imagine, since it is not a pre-requisite to post here as head skeptic.
A refresher course for the newly initiated skeptic. What is the skeptics finger rule to test climate change.(sorry for repeating it here)
Skeptics will stick a wet finger to the wind to gauge its direction and the general temperature and compare it to what was registered when they had the same finger up their arse. To them climate change is local and directly observable.
Can such local practices apply to global climate change. It appears they can. All they need are other participating skeptics strategically located across the different continents with Internet access and some dexterity with fingers.
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/18/2012 09:58:16 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 10:14:34 [Permalink]
|
| What a baby. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2012 : 10:31:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
What a baby.
|
| When the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. |
I wonder if this applies to all skeptics or just some. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 11:06:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Originally posted by Kil
What a baby.
|
| When the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. |
I wonder if this applies to all skeptics or just some.
|
Oh please. Your repeating the crap you posted on another thread doesn't make it anymore true. And since I have pointed out at least a few flaws (there are more) in that post, yeah. It's just a big strawman, and an ad hominem and it was babyish of you to repost it. Plus, after an attack like that, take your above quote and look in the mirror. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 13:34:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Originally posted by Kil
What a baby.
|
| When the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. |
I wonder if this applies to all skeptics or just some.
|
Oh please. Your repeating the crap you posted on another thread doesn't make it anymore true. And since I have pointed out at least a few flaws (there are more) in that post, yeah. It's just a big strawman, and an ad hominem and it was babyish of you to repost it. Plus, after an attack like that, take your above quote and look in the mirror.
|
I hope you are not offended Kil because I referred to DaveW as head skeptic. He meets all the pre-requisites.
Incidentally are you the head skeptic here?  |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/18/2012 13:39:22 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 13:56:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The real threat to evolutionary biologist is no longer a debate pitting theological dogma against Darwinism. It was hard to refute evolutionary theory with only the first few pages of Genesis (Bible). |
Yet that is what you tried to do when you were using Answers-in-Genesis to do your refuting of evidence of transition from single-cellular to multicellular structures. You really should pay more attention to the material you refrence as your sources, they can be counter-productive to your agenda; this one shot you in your foot.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 15:19:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The real threat to evolutionary biologist is no longer a debate pitting theological dogma against Darwinism. It was hard to refute evolutionary theory with only the first few pages of Genesis (Bible). |
Yet that is what you tried to do when you were using Answers-in-Genesis to do your refuting of evidence of transition from single-cellular to multicellular structures. You really should pay more attention to the material you refrence as your sources, they can be counter-productive to your agenda; this one shot you in your foot.
|
I used Miller, Behe, Axe, developments in molecular biology, genome studies, Dawkins, Darwin as source material because they are biologist/evolutionist, complementing it with the advancement in the growing field of molecular biology.
That Christian sites are using and quoting biologist and staying current with science threatens classic evolutionary biologist, who now have to deal with their peers in the same field. Peers who are equally qualified to challenge their previously held advantage when they we dealing with just theologians.
But skeptics like deniers are viewed as obstructionist with very little to contribute. Which is just the opposite of Christian sites where there is a booming involvement in science and scientific discoveries and intelligently putting it into context for Christians.
The gate is wide open because Kenneth Miller is well respected as a Evolutionary biologist. He is quoted as saying if the presence of Chromosome 2 cannot be explained then the whole theory of common descent falls apart and evolution is wrong.
Now take the other position of Miller on Irreducible Complexity. If it can be proven Darwin's over simplified understanding of organisms predating molecular biology and Genome are inadequate. It open areas to challenge Darwinism. Even modern evolutionist are struggling with the science because it is so new and complex.
You can see skeptics are very poorly qualified to engage in these developments or discussions. Christians on the other hand are highly motivated to take it to the evolutionist and the rise in Christian biologist, scientist is leveling the playing field.
I appreciate your concern. I took a little time to read some of the earlier post on science, evolution etc. I am discovering this forum is full of very insecure people who cling to their skepticism the same way Obama described most Americans cling to their guns and religion, less the religion obviously. But it does explain the hostility.
I will be more careful with my sources now that you warned me bigotry is rampant here. Thanks.
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/18/2012 15:26:20 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 20:07:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Your arrogance is suffocating DaveW. Skeptics like you do not amount to much when it comes to issues. Your skepticism has no influence in any field of discussion, scientific, theological, historical etc. Discussion and disagreements are resolved by peers in their field because they have the knowledge and understanding to challenge each other. Whereas skeptics are just ordinary spectators and consumers. |
Just another refusal to engage with the actual arguments being made in the article you referenced, and instead insult me. You're just demonstrating that I'm correct about you.Repeating gibberish doesn't make it magically come true. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 06:49:15 [Permalink]
|
Have you finally understood what mathematical models are? How they fit in with Axe's finding errors in Lynch Abegg calculations? How computers are used to simulate mathematical models?
Getting back to the Axe's criticism. You missed the entire development that led to Axe's involvement, and what he was correcting in Lynch calculations, and why.
You can start with what Lynch's paper was based on. For Axe to criticize Lynch's calculations you have to know what Lync's calculation was based on and what test samples were used. You made allegations about Axe's choice of samples. Axe was refuting Lynch's papers which required he use the same methodology, comparing apples to apples in order to refute Lynch.
The skeptic worldview is still very entrenched in a philosophical approach to other disciplines. It is not a science but closer to a religion. It is a set of beliefs skeptics should apply to arrive at the facts. Just like religion anyone can become a skeptic if those core beliefs are adopted. Skeptic academia doesn't actually teach science, evolution, theology, mathematics or any of the regular academic subjects. But skeptics will critique all the above using excerpts from each discipline without any formal education on the subject. That is why they spread their beliefs through forums. They don't represent any institution nor are they recognized as one.
Do skeptics disagree with other skeptics? Hardly. The knowledge base just isn't there to defend each others cursory depth of the subject matter.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 07:37:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Have you finally understood what mathematical models are? How they fit in with Axe's finding errors in Lynch Abegg calculations? How computers are used to simulate mathematical models? |
In this case, Lynch and Abegg ran some simulations. Axe did not. This is clear from reading both papers.| Getting back to the Axe's criticism. You missed the entire development that led to Axe's involvement, and what he was correcting in Lynch calculations, and why. |
And I've already pointed out why Axe's criticisms were wrong. You refuse to defend them, probably because you don't understand either Axe's criticisms or mine.| You can start with what Lynch's paper was based on. For Axe to criticize Lynch's calculations you have to know what Lync's calculation was based on and what test samples were used. |
Yes, I've read and understood both papers. Have you?| You made allegations about Axe's choice of samples. Axe was refuting Lynch's papers which required he use the same methodology, comparing apples to apples in order to refute Lynch. |
And Axe did no such thing, as I've already pointed out. Axe specifically tried to make a model which was supposed to be more realistic than Lynch and Abegg's. Axe compared apples to oranges.| The skeptic worldview is still very entrenched in a philosophical approach to other disciplines. It is not a science but closer to a religion. |
So religion is a bad thing?| It is a set of beliefs skeptics should apply to arrive at the facts. Just like religion anyone can become a skeptic if those core beliefs are adopted. Skeptic academia doesn't actually teach science, evolution, theology, mathematics or any of the regular academic subjects. But skeptics will critique all the above using excerpts from each discipline without any formal education on the subject. That is why they spread their beliefs through forums. They don't represent any institution nor are they recognized as one. |
Again, you are intent on personal attacks, and stray away from defending what you claim to be science.| Do skeptics disagree with other skeptics? Hardly. |
Often. Your ignorance of that fact demonstrates why you offer up so many other false statements about skeptics and skepticism: you simply don't know what you're talking about.| The knowledge base just isn't there to defend each others cursory depth of the subject matter. |
This coming from someone who cannot comprehend the research he wants to defend. That's funny. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 08:03:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The real threat to evolutionary biologist is no longer a debate pitting theological dogma against Darwinism. It was hard to refute evolutionary theory with only the first few pages of Genesis (Bible). |
Yet that is what you tried to do when you were using Answers-in-Genesis to do your refuting of evidence of transition from single-cellular to multicellular structures. You really should pay more attention to the material you refrence as your sources, they can be counter-productive to your agenda; this one shot you in your foot.
|
I used Miller, Behe, Axe, developments in molecular biology, genome studies, Dawkins, Darwin as source material because they are biologist/evolutionist, complementing it with the advancement in the growing field of molecular biology. |
You wielded their names, but without apparent understanding of their work.
Since you obviously consider Dave_W a layman in his criticisms against Axe, then you shouldn't have any problem addressing his criticism. If you understand Axe's work, that is. Thus far you've been dodging.
That Christian sites are using and quoting biologist and staying current with science threatens classic evolutionary biologist, |
Hardly.
Sites like Answers-in-Genesis are liars for Jesus. Time and time again they intentionally mis-characterise scientist's work in order to further their own religious agenda. Everything they do or say is tainted by that. And they don't hide it, it's plain to see to everyone who wants to. You don't seem to want to, because you've not made any comment on it even though I linked to their Statement of Faith. As I've already stated but you failed to acknowledge, their statement of faith is incompatible with scientific research.
who now have to deal with their peers in the same field. Peers who are equally qualified to challenge their previously held advantage when they we dealing with just theologians. |
Like Behe?
When was the last time he published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal?
If Axe's rebuttal is so damaging to Lynch and Abegg's work, why didn't he submit it to the same journal where Lynch and Abegg published?
Which is just the opposite of Christian sites where there is a booming involvement in science and scientific discoveries and intelligently putting it into context for Christians. |
LMFAO!
You're a comedian. That's what you are. Or a village idiot. I get to point and laugh either way.
The gate is wide open because Kenneth Miller is well respected as a Evolutionary biologist. He is quoted as saying if the presence of Chromosome 2 cannot be explained then the whole theory of common descent falls apart and evolution is wrong. |
He's also quoted saying that we can explain the presence of Chromosome 2, and that the answer supports common descent and evolution. The hypothesis that there was a chromosome fusion in the human genome was proposed before chromosome 2 was identified as the fused one with two centromeres.
Now take the other position of Miller on Irreducible Complexity. If it can be proven Darwin's over simplified understanding of organisms predating molecular biology and Genome are inadequate. It open areas to challenge Darwinism. |
Maybe, but where do you find such proof? Darwin's theory was incomplete (no surprise there), but only silly Christians demand that Darwin's "Origin of Species" should be scientists' truth-the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth-so-help-me-god...
That's because they are mentally unable to see the difference between the bible and an ever-evolving body of knowledge about the natural world. Truth (with a big 'T') which constantly changes and morphs scares the shit out of them.
We on the other hand understand that Charles Darwin only lay the framework of a revolutionary idea which led to the understanding of biological evolution as it happens.
The rest of your post is too full of insults for me to bother with.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 08:05:40 [Permalink]
|
You contradict yourself.
| DaveW wrote "In this case, Lynch and Abegg ran some simulations. Axe did not. This is clear from reading both papers. |
If you did read and understand Axes papers. He used the same stochastic tunneling model used by Lynch and Abegg. He also used the island model of Maruyama and Kimura. Both are mentioned in his paper.
It is funny one can claim he read Axe's research and missed the 2 models mentioned in his paper.
You are too angry DaveW. Because you are relying so much on external sources to help you with your argument but not spending the time to actually read the links under discussion, causing you to trip over your own admissions. Calm down!!! get some decent peer criticism of Axe's work. Surely there must be some other there if his paper is that flawed. Why make stuff up. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 08:16:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
You contradict yourself.| DaveW wrote "In this case, Lynch and Abegg ran some simulations. Axe did not. This is clear from reading both papers. |
If you did read and understand Axes papers. He used the same stochastic tunneling model used by Lynch and Abegg. |
"Model" does not mean "computer simulation." Reading comprehension fail.| He also used the island model of Maruyama and Kimura. |
If you'd bothered to read Maruyama and Kimura, you'd have learned that Axe used a modified version of their model.| Both are mentioned in his paper. |
Yes, but that doesn't mean that Axe did what you say he did. I can mention Jesus without being a Christian, right?| It is funny one can claim he read Axe's research and missed the 2 models mentioned in his paper. |
I didn't miss them, I know what he wrote, and you're saying things that are blatantly wrong.I'm not angry at you, I pity you.| Because you are relying so much on external sources to help you with your argument but not spending the time to actually read the links under discussion... |
Bwahahahahahaha! You poor, pathetic hypocrite.| ...causing you to trip over your own admissions. |
I'm not the one who's tripping, here. You don't know the difference between a model and a computer simulation of a model.As a cucumber.| get some decent peer criticism of Axe's work. Surely there must be some other there if his paper is that flawed. |
Again: why would anyone bother to criticize a paper in a zero-impact vanity journal by a guy who's CV doesn't even show up on the first page of Google results?Asks the guy who claims that there's a form of brewer's yeast that doesn't ever form pseudohyphae. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 08:32:33 [Permalink]
|
So you did not read the links I provide to help you understand what all those models mentioned are and how they are used in the labs and tested with computer simulations. They are all mathematical models built on existing knowledge of the dynamics in each field it is applied to.
Making statements like model does not mean computer simulation just shows you have never been to a molecular biology/chemistry facility or seen how scientific algorithms are developed and used in computer generated analysis. And obviously the papers I provided as links to help you were beyond your comprehension. But you are a skeptic.....why should we expect more. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 21:37:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
You contradict yourself. |
No, you just think that mentioning a paper means that a researcher used exactly the same model. That's your primary reading comprehension fail.| If you did read and understand Axes papers. He used the same stochastic tunneling model used by Lynch and Abegg. |
Which doesn't mean that he performed any computer simulations. He didn't.| He also used the island model of Maruyama and Kimura. |
No, he did not.| Both are mentioned in his paper. |
Yes, he referenced them, and then he described a different model that he would be using. How is this not clear to you?| It is funny one can claim he read Axe's research and missed the 2 models mentioned in his paper. |
How can you say that I missed them when I referenced both in my criticisms, specifically how Axe described the differences in his models from theirs? You must either be lying or being ignorant.| You are too angry DaveW. Because you are relying so much on external sources to help you with your argument but not spending the time to actually read the links under discussion, causing you to trip over your own admissions. Calm down!!! get some decent peer criticism of Axe's work. Surely there must be some other there if his paper is that flawed. Why make stuff up. |
Repeating idiocy as if I'd never responded to it won't make it magically become true. A trained monkey can copy-and-paste. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A disturbing trend, 'er no?
