The lunacy of the Darwinists

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Science does not perpetually doubt the tools of the scientist, i.e. senses and intellect. The scientist makes a first assumption that the tools he is using are properly calibrated, when in fact they are calibrated against nothing but themselves...which of course is circular.

There is an element of faith, the same type of faith that is required for the theist, to doubt the doubt.

Quote from Ricter:

False. Science's methodology embraces doubt.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Science does not perpetually doubt the tools of the scientist, i.e. senses and intellect.

False. That is why grad students are busy everywhere repeating experiments. See also Peer Review.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Faith is there.

The repetition of experiments still relies on an assumption and faith of calibration of intellect and senses as capable instruments of observation of a truth independent of intellect and senses.

The foundation of science rests on faith, not knowledge.

Quote from Ricter:

False. That is why grad students are busy everywhere repeating experiments. See also Peer Review.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Faith is there.

The repetition of experiments still relies on an assumption and faith of calibration of intellect and senses as capable instruments of observation of a truth independent of intellect and senses.

The foundation of science rests on faith, not knowledge.

False. Scientists are not trying to observe anything independent of intellect and senses.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Every single time a blind man opens his eyes, he sees nothing.

Every single time a sighted man puts on a blind fold he sees nothing.

When the world of sight is not available, do the colors and shapes that are before each man actually vanish?

Every single experiment that is done is observed by the senses and/or intellect, and there is a faith that the observations of the senses and intellect are calibrated to perceive reality...yet it is not known that the perceptions of the senses and ruminations of the intellect are actually seeing the way things really are and actually exist....independent of human senses and human intellect.

Faith is there with the scientist, in spades....

Quote from Ricter:

False. Scientists are not trying to observe anything independent of intellect and senses.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I would think you might know by now, I have zero interest in responding to what I think are stupid questions from you....

The most recent question falls right into the same category as the other questions I think are stupid.

Does the fact that I think these questions of yours are stupid constitute a conclusion by me that you are in fact stupid?

Not necessarily.

As far a "losing" an argument, well you can get in line with kent who has appointed himself the judge of such matters....

ZZZZZ!!!! Unreal - it has started on page 3 of this thread! You know what I mean, Z. You get challenges to your assertions that you can't meet, and you start yelling that everyone's argument's are 'stupid' and that if you think an argument is 'stupid', then you won't answer to it.

For anyone interested in Z's dialectical technique, please see the thread on evolution here

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60861&perpage=6&pagenumber=1

The thread stats to devolve on about page 60 when Z is faced with multiple requests to clarify his assertions. He can't (because they are all faith based beliefs) so he starts to tell everyone that he will no longer be answering questions he deems 'stupid'. We tried for 45 pages to get him to provide clarifications and explanations for his assertions, but it didn't work.


I'll review some more of the posts in this thread and attempt to give the readers some insight into Z's motives.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I am yelling that everyone's arguments are "stupid"....???

Take some midol, and when you calm down try again.

Quote from traderNik:

ZZZZZ!!!! Unreal - it has started on page 3 of this thread! You know what I mean, Z. You get challenges to your assertions that you can't meet, and you start yelling that everyone's argument's are 'stupid' and that if you think an argument is 'stupid', then you won't answer to it.

For anyone interested in Z's dialectical technique, please see the thread on evolution here

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60861&perpage=6&pagenumber=1

The thread stats to devolve on about page 60 when Z is faced with multiple requests to clarify his assertions. He can't (because they are all faith based beliefs) so he starts to tell everyone that he will no longer be answering questions he deems 'stupid'. We tried for 45 pages to get him to provide clarifications and explanations for his assertions, but it didn't work.


I'll review some more of the posts in this thread and attempt to give the readers some insight into Z's motives.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Ok. let's see... when his prejudicial blanket statements are challenged, Z tells us that.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Since this article was not about all Darwinists but rather about a specific situation that spoke of some Darwinists, not all Darwinists,

Hmm... let's look at the facts. Here is the very first line in this thread

This story, posted online at Yahoo.com illustrates the lunacy of the Darwinists, and those who follow them.

Whoops!! Damn Z, don't you hate that? When the posts that help to expose you just sit there on the server? Looks like you weren't talking about some Darwinists. You were talking about "Darwinists and those who follow them|. So a group including but not limited to Darwinists. Let's see what else I can find. I found this one in about 30 seconds. This is fun, and so easy...

By the way.... wouldn't referring to Darwinists as 'lunatics' be slightly pejorative? Would that be the way that a calm, objective mind would open a debate on a difficult and complex question?

Doesn't that speak to the credibility of the original poster?

Why apologize for the lunacy of the Darwinists and those that follow them?

Hilariously, this is after he says that he was referring to only some Darwinists. Which was just after he said he was referring to all Darwinists.

Fun stuff.

 

[Ricter]

Recommending "midol" is an ad homimen too. Hopefully we don't hear any more criticism of using those in this thread from here on Z.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Did I say "midol?"

Oh, I meant a Valium...

Quote from Ricter:

Recommending "midol" is an ad homimen too. Hopefully we don't hear any more criticism of using those in this thread from here on Z.