RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (618) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2012,18:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,13:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 01 2012,12:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,12:33)
Here is a good example I ran across in an Atheism forum, which helps show the educational problem. Notice how if they cannot understand a theory then the problem is not with them, it’s blamed on me as though it’s my fault they are way behind in science:

[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year ago
Can someone try to make sense of this:_
[–]bloodredsun 2 points 1 year ago
A big bag of crazy?
[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year ago
Of course. But, ID arguments are usually at least somewhat coherent. Meaning, ID arguments usually involve invented/misinterpreted facts and logical fallacies. But, this is way beyond that. I can't understand a bit of it.

Gary, given your extensive trolling history, what % of scientists find your VB code conjecture compelling, and what % think you're a dipshit wackaloon?

Using Bayesian confidence, what are the odds it's not actually 'the rest of the world" but is infact 'you' that's not getting it?

Instead of being taught how to learn on their own, they were conditioned to let others do all their thinking for them.

Science journals are often used as their test of what is scientific and what is not. Then when the journal does not support their conclusions they protest it.

Snoookums, you might be the brightest bulb in the box and your theory explain everything from dust bunnies to truck nuts, but if you don't care enough about it to be able to explain it to other people then it ain't worth shit

for example, you have never told us what specifically your bad-ass theory predicts.  is there anything about your theory that is falsifiable?  testable?  can you state this clearly?

if not, you're just trolling for attention.  i imagine you will find better love somewhere else because you haven't exactly convinced me or as far as i can tell anyone else either that you should be suffered as gladly as the creationist fools who have trod here before you.

but you are a good sport, right?  you are dying to explain your theory but you acknowledge that your explainer has been busted or cracked or something.  so, why don't you stick a wrench to that sombitch and start at ground zero and tell us exactly, without all the hyperbolic thrashing and gyrating, your theory explains and predicts.  and how we can test it.  

can you do this?  if not then ask yourself why it is that you imagine that anyone anywhere could possibly ever give a fuck about what you have to say?

You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  18519 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (618) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]