Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > VMartin's cosmology

Pages: (17) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,17:08    Quote vmartin/here0isreal said The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. But it can be laughed at and quite frankly that's all you're good for. Dude, what kind of a turd hangs out at a science blog and says shit like "darwin is wrong" all day long when darwin is proven right in science labs accross this country every stinking day. Have you no life?  Is posting here some kind of weird S&M thing for you? -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,17:15    Try and imagine little Marty teaching a 10-week biology class back in Slovakia. Week one: Why the Darwinismus is wrong. Week two: Why the Darwinismus is wrong. Week three: Why the Darwinismus is wrong. Week four: Why the Darwinismus is wrong. Week five: Why the Darwinismus is wrong. Week six: Why the Darwinismus is wrong. Around week 6 the students notice that all the readings are at least 70 years old, start to get restless, and say "Okay, we understand, the Darwinismus is wrong. But, uh, what's RIGHT? What IS the explanation for the stuff the Darwinismus tries to explain?" Marty answers: "The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it." The students get real confused at this. "What's the point here, Mister Martin?" Marty answers: "The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my cosmology. I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why." Most of the remaining students drop the class in week 7. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,17:25    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 14 2007,17:15) Try and imagine little Marty teaching a 10-week biology class back in Slovakia. Week one: Why the Darwinismus is wrong. Week two: Why the Darwinismus is wrong. Week three: Why the Darwinismus is wrong. Week four: Why the Darwinismus is wrong. Week five: Why the Darwinismus is wrong. Week six: Why the Darwinismus is wrong. Around week 6 the students notice that all the readings are at least 70 years old, start to get restless, and say "Okay, we understand, the Darwinismus is wrong. But, uh, what's RIGHT? What IS the explanation for the stuff the Darwinismus tries to explain?" Marty answers: "The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it." The students get real confused at this. "What's the point here, Mister Martin?" Marty answers: "The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my cosmology. I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why." Most of the remaining students drop the class in week 7. I thought Week 7 was the class where he'd have a guest lecturer,  JAD who would speak on "Why the Darwinismus is wrong." -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,19:46    Week 7 he cancels the class and starts an entirely new one. -------------- 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

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,02:51    Mr Christopher   Quote But it can be laughed at and quite frankly that's all you're good for. Reading your sad posts is not so enjoying experience.   Quote Dude, what kind of a turd hangs out at a science blog and says shit like "darwin is wrong" all day long when darwin is proven right in science labs accross this country every stinking day. Darwinism and science are two separate things Dude. They have nothing common Dude.   Quote Have you no life?  Is posting here some kind of weird S&M thing for you? Did you notice you had sent much more posts than me? You know math, science. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,09:21    "dude" You are typical of Creationist/IDiots.  You point to something, a gap, and then back it up with dubious articles and viewpoints from the fringe.  Most of which has been debunked.....and then you cling to it. What you and your side lack is it's own theory.  It's own evidence that can stand all by itself without clinging to perceived gaps. You have nothing to offer.  Nothing. If there was ANYTHING behind your position, then why aren't scientists jumping in doing research.  After all, we all want to be famous, make a name for ourselves....go down in history for our accomplishments. Why???...because it's all BULlSHIT. -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,11:46    Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 15 2007,02:51) Darwinism and science are two separate things Funny coming from a person who won't even tell us what he thinks valid science IS, uff hehe. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,19:44    Quote A tard moaned, Darwinism and science are two separate things Dude. They have nothing common Dude. Remove evolution ("darwinism" for you) from biology and what have you got left, tard?  Do tell. Well.... We're waiting... -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,14:08    Erasmus at Evolution of the horse:   Quote It may be that supernatural intervention is required for, say, my little boy to grow teeth or his balls to drop.   And what explanation do you have for the last? I will bet you have nothing. Doctor Myers summarized all explanation of evolution of it in one of his articles. The most curious - and most popular - is that sperm need lower temperature. But maybe sperms only adapted to lower temperature in testicles and darwinians misjudged cause and effect as usually. The phenomenon of descent of testiclesis is characteristic for males of higher mammalian orders and there is no darwinian explanation of it (and never will be I dare say). All temperature cause babbling is nonsense considering fact that no such cooling device developed in birds, which have temperature 42 Celsius. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,15:31    What? -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,16:36    Meeh he just says darwinismus can't explain balls, well here Marty. Too bad you have to purchase the full article, but it's a start.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,23:40    Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 26 2007,16:36) Meeh he just says darwinismus can't explain balls, well here Marty. Too bad you have to purchase the full article, but it's a start. I don't have to purchase it. It is full of darwinian nonsenses as well as doctor Myers' article is. In the light of these findings we discuss some current hypotheses regarding the origin and evolution of the scrotum. We find that these are all incomplete in so far as it is not the presence of the scrotum in various mammal groups that requires explaining. They don't know how to explain it more than 100 years. They use newspeak "incomplete" instead. We suggest that the scrotum may have evolved before the origin of mammals, in concert with the evolution of endothermy in the mammalian lineage, and that the scrotum has been lost in many groups because descensus in many respects is a costly process that will be lost in mammal lineages as soon as an alternative solution to the problem of the temperature sensitivity of spermatogenesis is available. This temperature sensitivity is obviously a bullshit considering birds having temperature 42 Celsius and having no such "cooling" problems.. (Btw. I've noticed you are unable to discuss here any issue on your own. You just send a link like Erasmus about ant mimicry. You don't underestand what you are sending. The poor Mr_Christoper doesn't even have the slightest idea that descent of testicles exists.) All darwinian nonsenses about descending of testicles are summarised here at Pharyngula (also your article and for free): http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/ -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Hawk Posts: 3 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,02:16    Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 26 2007,23:40) This temperature sensitivity is obviously a bullshit considering birds having temperature 42 Celsius and having no such "cooling" problems.. i must point out the obvious even though i am a new user and say that birds are completely different from humans i must also say that science has it's flaws, some scientists are biased and will claim things and change work answers, science has not discovered everything and probably never will but there is quite a bit of proof against creationism, although science may not know everything, like, for example how the testicles developed and evolved, but have faith (i must point out, to protect myself from later attack that this is not the christian type of faith) that one day it will find out Religion thrives on gaps when science cannot explain something, theists are eager to say therefore it must have been god i believe that the god theory is simply a device used by people who cannot explain something and therefore believe it to have been done by some supernatural force -------------- If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. Charles Darwin Vox populi, vox Dei

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,05:40    Quote I don't have to purchase it. It is full of darwinian nonsenses as well as doctor Myers' article is. You know how we call that Martin? We call that biased. As Hawk says, birds are far different from mammals. Where did you get schooled in biology again Martin? PS: Hawk, a PS2 is outdated, we all demand a PS3 now

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,10:02    Assasinator, you are such an amusing darwinian troll. The article states:         Quote A plausible, though at present untestable, scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted. You see there word "untestable", don't you? It's a pure neodarwinian story , nothing else. Btw. regarding  birds. Do you really mean that if their "spermatogenesis" had been disrupted they would have evolved also external testicles or what? Eagles with aeorodynamical balls or what? Otherwise they would die out. I suppose that mammals and birds have common ancestors where endodermy should have led to descent of testicles (at least according the article you have sent but didn't bothered to read it's abstract). I didn't know that for birds there has been different evolution of spermatogenesis as for mammals and no descent of testicles were needed even at 42 grad Celsius. Maybe mammals should have asked birds how to solve the curious problem without external testicles. I would say that adaptation of sperms to higher temperature would be a right solution (as is the case of birds having much more higher temperature than mammals). But of course to believe current explaination of descent of testicles you have to be a darwinist. Did you know that retina must be also cooled in order to work properly? Yet I have never heard about external eyes or "descent of retina" from the eye sockets. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,10:06    I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it. Quote (at least according the article you have sent but didn't bothered to read) How the hell can you say that when you haven't read it? Do you know how we call that? It's called biased. Quote Did you know that retina must be also cooled in order to work properly? Yet I have never heard about external eyes or "descent of retina" from the eye sockets. Here some information about the evolution of retinal structures http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/husband/avc4eye.htm Not that I think you will read any of of, nor understand any of it. And the question is still open, where did you study biology? Or are you studying it at the minute?

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,10:23    Quote I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it. Yeaah, they are working on it more than 100 years with the same result - it is "probably" due to cooling of sperms. They will go on working in such "untestable" ideas till the end of the world. But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma. They never cannot solve it using neodarwinian way of thinking. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,12:32    Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 27 2007,10:23) Quote I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it. Yeaah, they are working on it more than 100 years with the same result - it is "probably" due to cooling of sperms. They will go on working in such "untestable" ideas till the end of the world. But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma. They never cannot solve it using neodarwinian way of thinking. And what is your theory, backed by the tested, repeatable evidence? -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,14:08    Quote But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma. Well, you've got my attention, now. Please do tell, Martin. The meaning of descending testicles is...

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,14:22    Alan, Off topic...you need to optimize your catnap image...its downloading almost 500k -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,14:36    Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 27 2007,14:08)     Quote But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma. Well, you've got my attention, now. Please do tell, Martin. The meaning of descending testicles is... You know, some outdated theory no one cares anymore. Something like German mysticism. Polarity of mammalian bodies, two centres. Head and reproduction organs on the opposite side of the body. Centre of individuality and centre of species proliferation as opposing principles which are now displayed. Maybe not worth of mentioning for you. But this time darwinists have not better stance with the cooling sperms bullshits. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,15:20    I'll ask again Martin: where did you have your biology education? Where did you get educated in the evolutional theory and Darwinism? Where did you get science training?

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,15:24    Until you put forth and defend an actual idea in at least minimal detail, nobody is going to take anything you say seriously, VMartin. Every position you take seems engineered so you don't have to actually make any claims. It makes responding to anything you say a lost cause. For instance, many evolutionary mechanisms about both testicles and sex organs in general are fairly well demonstrated. If someone were actually trying to present a case for anything about testicles they might explain known cases in detail as a jumping-off point. It's simply not worth doing with you. However, if you want to keep people from seriously sitting down to explain anything to you, you've done a good job! Congratulations. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,23:03    Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 27 2007,14:36)   Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 27 2007,14:08)         Quote But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma. Well, you've got my attention, now. Please do tell, Martin. The meaning of descending testicles is... You know, some outdated theory no one cares anymore. Something like German mysticism. Polarity of mammalian bodies, two centres. Head and reproduction organs on the opposite side of the body. Centre of individuality and centre of species proliferation as opposing principles which are now displayed. Maybe not worth of mentioning for you. But this time darwinists have not better stance with the cooling sperms bullshits. Yes! Yes! I see it now! Polarity of bodies! Head and reproduction organs on opposite sides! That's why testicles are outside the body. Just like ovaries.... Wait. Hmm. Dammit! It was clear there for a second. Lessee...center of individuality...opposing principles...wave both hands about vigorously...talk out of both ends of the body.... Nope, I've lost the thread. Can you explain it again, V?

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,23:12    Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 27 2007,15:20) I'll ask again Martin: where did you have your biology education? Where did you get educated in the evolutional theory and Darwinism? Where did you get science training? Also, Marty, do you get to apply your 'knowledge' of biology at your bank job? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,23:14    Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 27 2007,14:36) You know, some outdated theory no one cares anymore. Something like German mysticism. Polarity of mammalian bodies, two centres. Head and reproduction organs on the opposite side of the body. Centre of individuality and centre of species proliferation as opposing principles which are now displayed. Maybe not worth of mentioning for you. Dunno. Doesn't sound simple and nice to me, Marty. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,00:16    Annyday       Quote For instance, many evolutionary mechanisms about both testicles and sex organs in general are fairly well demonstrated. If someone were actually trying to present a case for anything about testicles they might explain known cases in detail as a jumping-off point. It's simply not worth doing with you. Fairly well demonstrated? Really? I am not angry with you that you believe blindly in your neodarwinian fantasies.Perhaps you haven't read what I quoted about the problem from darwinian sources. Because you are obviously discussing issues without following the whole discussion - just for you (important words in bold): A plausible, though at present untestable, scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted. Do you see there "untestable"? ancestral proto-mammal had probably evolved a scrotum as a solution to its fertility requirements, and really, probably the best answer to why we have this odd scrotal arrangement is that that is the way great-great-greatn-grandpa did it. Do you see there "probably" mentioned twice or should I change the font? The most likely explanation is that there is something in the function of the testis that is optimized...This seems reasonable... And it seems reasonable also to assume that presenting untestable hypothesis is evidence of "fairly well demonstrated mechanism" for you. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,05:33    Did you notice that it's just ONE article (wich I quikly looked up just to give an example to you) from an entire research topic? Just one? How do you know there isn't more hmm? You know how we call that, that's called biased.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,05:41    Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 28 2007,00:16) Annyday       Quote For instance, many evolutionary mechanisms about both testicles and sex organs in general are fairly well demonstrated. If someone were actually trying to present a case for anything about testicles they might explain known cases in detail as a jumping-off point. It's simply not worth doing with you. Fairly well demonstrated? Really? I am not angry with you that you believe blindly in your neodarwinian fantasies.Perhaps you haven't read what I quoted about the problem from darwinian sources. Because you are obviously discussing issues without following the whole discussion - just for you (important words in bold): A plausible, though at present untestable, scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted. Do you see there "untestable"? ancestral proto-mammal had probably evolved a scrotum as a solution to its fertility requirements, and really, probably the best answer to why we have this odd scrotal arrangement is that that is the way great-great-greatn-grandpa did it. Do you see there "probably" mentioned twice or should I change the font? The most likely explanation is that there is something in the function of the testis that is optimized...This seems reasonable... And it seems reasonable also to assume that presenting untestable hypothesis is evidence of "fairly well demonstrated mechanism" for you. As opposed to *nothing* which is what you appear to be offering. Don't you get it yet VMartin? A educated guess is always better then "well, god did it", or in your case "                       " did it. Do I need to change the font to make it clearer? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,06:52    Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,05:33) Did you notice that it's just ONE article (wich I quikly looked up just to give an example to you) from an entire research topic? Just one? How do you know there isn't more hmm? You know how we call that, that's called biased. In fact I suppose there is no more of them. I had addressed the problem before you joined the party here, you know. And doctor Myers addressed the "research" in June 2004.   The topic is tricky, no one can say anything meaningful. So neodarwinists rather avoid discussing and exploring it. The "function" of the phenomenon is missing.   http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/ -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Pages: (17) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard