"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sycopat

mickrock wrote: »

Novel would be brand new or innovative functions, organs and systems.

You believe these can emerge via undirected mechanisms that can have vast creative powers. I don't.

Lenski's E.coli, ref:oldrnwisrs posts on eyes, systems is a meaningless term.

Why do you believe that? The evidence for evolution has been presented to you time and time again.

On what grounds do you reject it?

Whimsy is an insufficient reason.

mickrock

dlofnep wrote: »

I have already demonstrated it.

Now please enlighten us with your alternative theory.

No you haven't. You didn't show how random variation and natural selection, as opposed to some other mechanism, was the cause; you've just assumed it to be true with no evidence.

Why do you want to discuss alternative theories if you think Darwinism is so sound?

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

Like I thought. You can't show that Darwinism was the cause.

Of course he can't. 'Darwinism' didn't cause it. It doesn't cause anything. It does, however, describe plenty.

mickrock

Sarky wrote: »

Perhaps if you picked up a book and actually learned about the mechanics of it instead of faffing about here with your baseless assertions..?

You should read some books that are critical of Darwinism. You might learn something.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

You should read some books that are critical of Darwinism. You might learn something.

Such as? Come on then. Rattle off a brief synopsis at least one of them. Of an alternative mechanism that these books propose. I dare you. In fact, I double-dare you!

mickrock

endacl wrote: »

Of course he can't. 'Darwinism' didn't cause it. It doesn't cause anything. It does, however, describe plenty.

Maybe in your head it describes plenty.

In reality what it has been shown to describe is very limited. I suppose atheists need their own creation story and Darwinism seems to fit the bill.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

I suppose atheists need their own creation story and Darwinism seems to fit the bill.

Not really. Both atheism and evolution boil down to kinda the same basics. Those being 'what is real?', and 'how can it be demonstrated to be real?'.

Maybe its you who needs atheism to need a creation fairytale? To fit your own limited view?

Now you come across as funny, and defensive!

Sycopat

mickrock wrote: »

In reality what it has been shown to describe is very limited.

Is argumentum ad nauseam a punishable offence here?

Because mickrock keeps saying this and it's still not true.

endacl

Sycopat wrote: »

Because mickrock keeps saying this and it's still not true.

Doctor Jimbob

mickrock wrote: »

Maybe in your head it describes plenty.

In reality what it has been shown to describe is very limited. I suppose atheists need their own creation story and Darwinism seems to fit the bill.

Well done, you've now lowered yourself to one level above 'I know you are but what am I.' I suppose next you'll be telling us our mothers describe plenty? Engage in proper debate or just bloody admit defeat.

Darwinism an 'Atheist Creation story.' You trollin' boy.

mickrock

kiffer wrote: »

We can compare fossils in areas and track minor morphology changes through time. Tiny changes adding up... over time.

And then there's the Cambrian Explosion to consider.

Hmm. This doesn't quite fit the Darwinian model. What do we do when the evidence isn't in line with the theory? Explain it away or ignore it!

mickrock

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Well done, you've now lowered yourself to one level above 'I know you are but what am I.' I suppose next you'll be telling us our mothers describe plenty? Engage in proper debate or just bloody admit defeat.

Darwinism an 'Atheist Creation story.' You trollin' boy.

Hey man, cool your boots!

robindch

Mickrock has been carded and banned again for failing to debate honestly.

endacl

robindch wrote: »

Mickrock has been carded and banned again for failing to debate honestly.

Point of order....

Surely 'failing' implies 'trying'?

kiffer

I'm mildly irritated by mickrocks failure to give any indication of what he would consider a novel development in a species.
Can we make a list of outstanding claims/questions and a responses that were ignored?

The Mad Hatter

I don't see why we should bother. He's obviously trolling.

kiffer

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I don't see why we should bother. He's obviously trolling.

True but there's a tendency for people to think that because he kept asking talking he must have been on to something... like Kent Hovind believes he has never lost a debate...

Sarky

Kent Hovind also believes you can start a PhD with "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind...". What he thinks about debates really doesn't matter.

Galvasean

And here I was looking forward to explain how the Cambrian Explosion was started by Michael Bay...

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

And here I was looking forward to explain how the Cambrian Explosion was started by Michael Bay...

I'm there if Michael Bay makes that movie. As long as they get [insert hot female lead] there via a wormhole or some such method. And also mangle the dates so that there's T-Rexes and megalodons there too. And RPGs.

sephir0th

Sarky wrote: »

Kent Hovind also believes you can start a PhD with "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind...". What he thinks about debates really doesn't matter.

Ah there it is: http://wlstorage.net/file/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

Doctor Jimbob

sephir0th wrote: »

Ah there it is: http://wlstorage.net/file/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

Wow.

endacl

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Wow.

Wow indeed Doctor Jimbob! I'm a'fixin' to git me one o' them there degrees in doctorin' too! Praise Jebus!

Nodin

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Wow.

O yeah. The Patriot University produced no fools, I'll tell ye.

endacl

Nodin wrote: »

O yeah. The Patriot University produced no fools, I'll tell ye.

Should we club together and buy a doctorate for a certain somebody? Feck it, maybe they'd do a group rate. We could all have one!

'I don't have to suggest an alternative! I'm a doctor, I tells ya! I have a certificate to prove it!'

Galvasean

The doctorate needs a fun name. I suggest 'Awesotronics"

endacl

Galvasean wrote: »

The doctorate needs a fun name. I suggest 'Awesotronics"

This could turn into one of 'those' strings...:-)

How about 'Cognitive Impenetrology'?

legspin

endacl wrote: »

This could turn into one of 'those' strings...:-)

How about 'Cognitive Impenetrology'?

Considering most of the thread is one continuous painful mind****, that may be a good thing to do with it.

Doctor Strange

endacl wrote: »

Hey! Welcome to Boards! And frustration...

I meant to get to this earlier Not an entirely new user, had intended on an extended break from here (to reduce my blood pressure :pac:), but mickrock carried on being too wrong to ignore.

Genghiz Cohen

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

I meant to get to this earlier Not an entirely new user, had intended on an extended break from here (to reduce my blood pressure :pac:), but mickrock carried on being too wrong to ignore.

Some things are too wrong to ignore.

I think that needs to go in the Quotes thread.