A Message to Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2012, 03:20 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
Your questions on parasitic wasps? Seems like they have been answered more than 10 years ago. Here is an article titled "How Parasitic Wasps find Their Hosts".

http://depot.knaw.nl/56/1/13583.pdf


I'm waiting for Part 3 Smile Maybe more substantiation and less strawman arguments, that will indeed make your article better. Keep the engaging style, it's very nice.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 07:34 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(30-03-2012 02:40 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  How the hell are you so sure what I see and what I don't? Have you ever been inside my mind? Then keep your stooopid neuron in check when making such statements.

And yet you see fit to tell us what we think. Strange, isn't it?

In other news, I know that you don't see anything we don't because all you're doing is raising the same failed arguments that have been debunked time and again since the theory of evolution was first conceived. You're using the same fallacies, the same incorrect assumptions, and so on. Tell me, if you were in my shoes, and saw someone repeatedly failing to make any kind of substantial objection to the theory of evolution, which would you believe? That they actually had some kind of magical super-knowledge, but had just entirely failed to demonstrate it? Or that they were deluded?

(30-03-2012 02:40 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Very smart. So I can't tell you what you can do and what you can't, and yet, a few lines up you told me you know what I can and cannot see.

Yep. Because I know your position on these matters, whereas you do not know mine.

And I'll be worried about your further "subtleties" after you've dealt with the points that I've already raised. You still haven't. You ran and hid behind "that isn't worth responding to", which is about the single weakest defense possible. You already looked like a condescending fool after making all of these posts. Now you look like a cowardly condescending fool.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
30-03-2012, 08:00 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(30-03-2012 07:34 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And I'll be worried about your further "subtleties" after you've dealt with the points that I've already raised. You still haven't. You ran and hid behind "that isn't worth responding to", which is about the single weakest defense possible. You already looked like a condescending fool after making all of these posts. Now you look like a cowardly condescending fool.

[Image: demotivational-posters-like-a-boss3.jpg]

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
30-03-2012, 08:20 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
Hey Jordan, is this your take on a Letter to a Christian Nation?

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 08:31 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 08:23 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I see something you and your buddies can't see and just because I can't make you see it too, it doesn't mean I'm going to stop seeing it all of a sudden.
I see unicorns, pink elephants, ghosts, sea monsters....and you can't prove that I don't.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 12:12 PM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2012 12:22 PM by tudorthetutor.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(30-03-2012 03:20 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Your questions on parasitic wasps? Seems like they have been answered more than 10 years ago. Here is an article titled "How Parasitic Wasps find Their Hosts".

http://depot.knaw.nl/56/1/13583.pdf

I'm waiting for Part 3 Smile Maybe more substantiation and less strawman arguments, that will indeed make your article better. Keep the engaging style, it's very nice.

Thanks. I read the whole thing and loved it. Great stuff. I had no idea the mechanism was so complex. The way I thought about it was kindergarten level prior to reading this paper, which showed the phenomenon to me at university level. Now my paper is obsolete, I guess, but that's okay. This new perspective takes my theory to a whole new level of understanding which dwarfs the previous one. It makes it a billion times more clear why the wasp could not have evolved to do that (the more complex a phenomenon the smaller the chances are to have developed by itself), although it also greatly increases the difficulty of understanding the process, which gives the evolutionists their way out of having to explain the process. This is a paradox, and if you don't see it, it is only because you don't want to let yourself see it. I can't help you there.

I'm going to quote from that paper: "This ability represents a level of sophistication previously unexpected in these insects." And another one: "We thought the wasp might have an innate ability keyed to the smell of hosts' feces." They were wrong and soon realized the process was much more complex, involving odors that the plant emanates as a response to being eaten by the caterpillars. So this game is a three-player game, not two! "Wasps seem thus to have a genetic inclination for odors from substances that have served as food sources for hosts." If someone looks at this and fails to see the impossibly weird math I was talking about earlier, they are indeed blinded by their own ignorance.

PS. I have many parts to post on my blog, but I have to proofread them before I post them. Thanks for the feedback, anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 12:16 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(30-03-2012 12:12 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  This new perspective takes my theory to a whole new level of understanding which dwarfs the previous one.

Oh noes! Self-referencing delusion! Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 12:47 PM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2012 01:08 PM by tudorthetutor.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 08:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As I suggested before, you need some Physics. Spacetime began at the Big Bang. There was no "before" the dimensions of spacetime began, (at the Big Bang). Read Laurence Kraus' "A Universe From Nothing", before you keep making a fool of yourself. If there is no infinity, there is no "before" the Big Bang. You have NO proof of "no infinities". If your god exists, she would have to be, (infinite). "Have been the last infinite number of years or so"....are you kidding me ? You just said there were no infinites except in Mathematics, and one sentence later, you contradicted yourself. You really need to use your zoomer to check your posts before you post that shit.

My friend, you need some physics, I'm afraid. There is no such thing as spacetime. It's a fabrication (called the "fabric" of spacetime!) desperately needed for some weird mathematical equations to fit together. You happen to have heard of this term and use it to show how smart you are and what deep knowledge you have about "science." In reality you have no idea what that concept is supposed to be. I can prove to you that time doesn't even exist in physics, and you want me to believe that time can be affected by gravitational fields? How can something that doesn't really exist be influenced by anything? How strong would the force of gravity have to be (we already know it's the weakest of the four fundamental forces in the universe) in order to affect the shadow of an object, for example? The shadow is immaterial. So is time.

To put your space-time fabric to rest I have written a paper which I will post on my blog (http://tudorthetutor.blogspot.com/). In it I prove that time is nothing more than an abstraction we invented to make more sense of our existence in the universe. You can come up with a million mathematical equations trying to disprove that, but simple logic will prove you wrong every single time.

PS. I also wrote some papers showing that the Big Bang theory is full of crap. I'll post them on my blog eventually.
(30-03-2012 12:16 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(30-03-2012 12:12 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  This new perspective takes my theory to a whole new level of understanding which dwarfs the previous one.

Oh noes! Self-referencing delusion! Tongue

Do you have any idea what I was talking about there? Did you read that paper on the behavior of wasps? The one that one of your friends recommended. Or do you like to contradict people who see things differently just to do something? You wanna prove how active you are in the war against God, or what? Do they give you prizes at the end of the week? Since I started posting on this forum you have not produced one single sample of intelligent thinking. Only blind denial of whatever I happened to have written. If I say I have a white dog, you barge in and say, "No you don't!" Why don't you save your precious neuron for a longer time and then you might come up with a statement that actually conveys information?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 01:43 PM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2012 01:47 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(30-03-2012 12:47 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  There is no such thing as spacetime. It's a fabrication (called the "fabric" of spacetime!) desperately needed for some weird mathematical equations to fit together.


No dear. You will die. There is spacetime. As for the crap on you webpage, Einstein proved space-time exists together.
Time does not exist separately, oh deluded one. Is the zoomer on the fritz ?

Ok you're on. Prove to us that time doesn't exist. Will I need a zoomer to understand it ?

Ooohh can't wait for the "papers". Not.
Speaking of Friday, better hurry, cuz your time is almost up as the nut job creationist of the week .. there will be a new one on Monday.
Zoom zoom.
Try answering just one argument.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study. "I believe Mr. Peanut is the Messiah" -- onlinebiker
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 02:07 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(30-03-2012 07:34 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Tell me, if you were in my shoes, and saw someone repeatedly failing to make any kind of substantial objection to the theory of evolution, which would you believe? That they actually had some kind of magical super-knowledge, but had just entirely failed to demonstrate it? Or that they were deluded?

You make me laugh! "...failing to make any kind of substantial objection to the theory of evolution"? My friend, you have no idea what your beloved theory of evolution suggests. If you did, you wouldn't be wasting your time on this forum. Let me tell you what it suggests, so you can at least be informed when you talk about evolution. It suggests that a certain chemical/physical process that has an absolute value of possibility ZERO did in fact take place! That process involves a particular animal, which I will refrain from mentioning. Do you understand what I'm saying here? One animal alive today clearly says: I did not evolve! So, what are my options? Believe you, or the animal? While that animal gives me an absolute certainty about what it claims, I don't even have to listen to your arguments to know who's telling the truth. You and that animal can't be both right. You say it evolved, it says it didn't.
It's like a game of Poker. You (evolution) against that animal (creation). I happen to be a neutral spectator, and accidentally glance at the cards the animal is holding. Ace, King, Queen, Jack and Ten of clubs. That's a Royal Flush, the highest possible hand in Poker. And now I am faced with the "difficult" task of telling who is going to win that hand! Do you understand why I don't even need to look at your hand to know that?
If you are curious (and I'm sure you are) what animal I'm talking about, I'm going to tell you just one thing: there are dozens of other animals at that poker table, and they all have very good hands, but if I want to be absolutely, positively one hundred percent certain I'm betting my money on the winner, I can only use that particular animal. It's the only one that has an unbeatable hand!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: