Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Now with extra smileys :parrot: :popcorn:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Zombies!

1
No. of health problems "fixed" - 0
No. of people fed - 0
Area of degraded land reversed - 0

Top hit rate you got there.


Keep lying Fenrir.  Seems to be the norm in the life sciences.
Nice.  I like that Dave has dropped the pretence of Christianity.  A baby step toward honesty.
ETA: how about a dental check-up with decent X-rays, and then we all can count the healed teeth.  I lost track of your pivots in the teeth thread, are we agreed now that cavities can't heal shut?
2
Lol @ JonF ... he's hopelessly behind.
Apparently Dave has pivoted again?
3
If you want to talk about word definitions, then here's one for you to work on that I think is a lot more interesting and relevant than what you are talking about ...

FREEDOM

We in the USA claim to be "the land of the FREE and the home of the brave" ... but are we truly free?

Well ... it depends on your definition of "free."  I would say we are MORE free than say Jews in Nazi Germany ... I'm glad we are not restricted like they were.  Or people today in N. Korea.  We certainly have more freedom than they do.

But what if we compare ourselves to the people of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy that lived in what we call New England in Benjamin Franklin's day?  How does our freedom compare to theirs?

Or how about the Wai Wai people who live in the little jungle of village called Masakenari in Konashen District in southern Guyana, S. America?  How does our freedom compare to theirs?
What the hell does that have to do with "Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)"?  Focus, ffs.
4
I suppose the question is, does Dave not KNOW the definitions of the words he misuses, or is it intentional? 
It's that timeless question that auditors have had to contend with, is this ignorance or dishonesty?  neither is particularly appealing, but the intent is important.

In B4 "Why not both?" :smug:
6
And yes I still think Obamagate / Hillarygate is going to be 10 times bigger than Watergate ...
Would you like to bet?
lol
Are you familiar with Hawkins's history with bets?
Bottom line: make sure the stakes are in some sort of escrow, up front.
To make sure the check isn't    :airquote: lost in the mail :airquote:
No, I'm sure it's cool, he's a Christian, right? He wouldn't screw me. Would you Dave?  Care to put your money where your mouth is?
7
And yes I still think Obamagate / Hillarygate is going to be 10 times bigger than Watergate ...
Would you like to bet?
8
Serfs are part of the land so no.
So the rewards of a feudal battle was Serf and Turf?
(Ill show myself out)
10
Raw CAFO milk is dangerous.

Raw PASTURED milk is not.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?
^^^^^
No I don't.  I got the idea from Mercola, the Dangerous Quack(TM).
Well it's apparent that he is wrong that grass fed cattle's milk is safe.
11
But do they eat grains?

Read the pdf you lazy know-nothing.
I did.  I don't see anything in there about grains. I suppose this means that you didn't read it either?
What does the faq say the cows eat, Dave?
Grass and silage. Nothing about grain. So one is left to wonder.
What is there to wonder about? 
12
There you go Dave. Here's the most recent part where you made your begrudging admission regarding Popper:
OK all you people that wanna know my views on Popper ...

I thought I was very clear in my blog article here ... http://truthmatters.info/sir-karl-popper-and-the-demarcation-of-science-falsifiability-predictions-and-retrodictions/

What is unclear?

You have now made it absolutely clear that you never did understand what Popper's "demarcation" criterion was, nor how it related to anyone's distinction between "historical" and "experimental"- or is it "operational"?  or "theoretical"?  - science, or to AiG's stupid distinction, or to what Popper thought about Darwin's theory of natural selection, or to the theory of common descent.

So it is now absolutely clear - and even you half concede it - that Hawkinsing has failed in at least this instance.

And that all your invocations of "Popper science" are so much bullshit.

You have also demonstrated that you have no clue as to how a falsification test of a theory works, or what constitutes a "risky" hypothesis.  That you are incapable of thinking of a single alternative explanation to your preferred explanation, for a phenomenon that you cannot even specify.

So, "Dave sucks at science" and "Hawkinsing doesn't result in comprehension" remain unfalsified.
What I have always understood is that there are two kinds of science - experimental and historical - and that Darwinism and Creationism fall into the latter category.  What I did not understand at first is that Popper thought that the latter category could be falsified.  I was clear that he changed his mind about the scientific nature of the latter category, I just wasn't clear on WHY he changed his mind.  So now, 16 pages into this discussion, I do.  Great.  (Not sure how my life is better now, but anyway)  (Also, people like Ehrlich apparently disagreed with Popper on this point about being able to falsify "our theory of evolution")
No Dave, you're still wrong. At no point did Popper think that hypotheses in historical sciences couldn't be falsified. This has been stated multiple times.

He thought that Darwinism - specifically the "survival of the fittest" tautology - could not be falsified, but that was largely because "fitness" in that context pretty much has to be defined tautologically. When he realised that error he changed his mind.
Wonderful.  Whatever.  How is my life better because of what you just told me?
After that, you just babbled about how it wasn't a big deal and that you would "fix" it at some point. And you kept talking about your own ideas about science demarkation and categorization, as if your misrepresentation of Popper was no biggie.

And now, you've supposedly forgotten all of that, and you see nothing wrong with your blog post.

...

...How do you even live with yourself? Is it because you think it's ok to lie and deceive atheist evolutionists, like you did with your bet to NCSE?
QFT.
13
The most disturbing part of this thread for me was the narrative that I have some sort of criminal mind in spite of the fact that my comment was in the same spirit as the female reporter's own comments.  At worst, I am "just a naive tourist" yet you guys paint me as some sort of criminal.  You can yell "persecution complex" all you want to, but I am truly fearful of people who lie and slander in order to paint people as criminals.  This is EXACTLY what Goebbels did to the Jews.  Same exact thing.  No I won't stop saying it.
You are saying you aren't a criminal?  That you never been sentenced by a judge?
14
Grinding poverty? He has only 1 pot (bucket) to piss in.
15
What I will NOT do is make a second attempt.  Fortunately the NCSE scum bags don't have the power to put me in jail if they don't receive my check. The small town cop scumbags extorting revenue for their failing towns do.
Why won't you pay?
16
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Face it.  The real reason you're making such a fuss about this is that you just don't like me.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Why do you think that is?
Also, how do you feel about missionaries? 
17
Being charitable, I would argue Dave can't do this.
We have all noticed that he's forgetful, and he can't concentrate long enough to read paragraphs.  He won't even try to defend YEC any more.  He becomes abusive and belligerent.  He's letting his hygiene go.
All sarcasm aside, I think we all know why, and I for one am truly sad.
18
So Dave, how do you feel about missionaries? 
19

Checked my statement ... didn't clear ... I am very sure I mailed it ... and I'm usually pretty good about getting addresses right and I almost always use my return address on mail.  

They probably lost it.
Oh holy crap, that thread is a goldmine! :smug:
Did the check clear, Dave?
20
He added "Carol Cleland explained the differences between "historical" and "experimental" sciences HERE."


That's been there for a while.

The thing is, it's not easy to correct, because it's wrong from start to finish.  He simply did not understand Popper.  He also does not understand Cleland.

He does not understand AiG either, but it's nonsense anyway.

22
Have you suffered head trauma?
23
Quote
Quote
Quote
OK all you people that wanna know my views on Popper ...

I thought I was very clear in my blog article here ... http://truthmatters.info/sir-karl-popper-and-the-demarcation-of-science-falsifiability-predictions-and-retrodictions/

What is unclear?

You have now made it absolutely clear that you never did understand what Popper's "demarcation" criterion was, nor how it related to anyone's distinction between "historical" and "experimental"- or is it "operational"?  or "theoretical"?  - science, or to AiG's stupid distinction, or to what Popper thought about Darwin's theory of natural selection, or to the theory of common descent.

So it is now absolutely clear - and even you half concede it - that Hawkinsing has failed in at least this instance.

And that all your invocations of "Popper science" are so much bullshit.

You have also demonstrated that you have no clue as to how a falsification test of a theory works, or what constitutes a "risky" hypothesis.  That you are incapable of thinking of a single alternative explanation to your preferred explanation, for a phenomenon that you cannot even specify.

So, "Dave sucks at science" and "Hawkinsing doesn't result in comprehension" remain unfalsified.
What I have always understood is that there are two kinds of science - experimental and historical - and that Darwinism and Creationism fall into the latter category.  What I did not understand at first is that Popper thought that the latter category could be falsified.  I was clear that he changed his mind about the scientific nature of the latter category, I just wasn't clear on WHY he changed his mind.  So now, 16 pages into this discussion, I do.  Great.  (Not sure how my life is better now, but anyway)  (Also, people like Ehrlich apparently disagreed with Popper on this point about being able to falsify "our theory of evolution")

24
What's wrong with my Popper article?

Dave, you're not even solving your own hunger, let alone anyone else's. Where's your vegetable garden? Where's your preserved winter food? You could have a stockpile of potatoes, canned fruit, frozen veg that you harvested earlier. All kinds of stuff, and you'd still have several acres left over to muck about with your goats. You've done none of this,and dismissed any suggestion that this is even worth considering.

Given that you only have a couple of rabbits to look after while your goats are away, you might as well fix your blog post.
You're asking the wrong questions.  You are thinking like a "mainstreamer."  What you should already know - then you wouldn't have to ask - is that my "stored food" is in my pasture.  I let my grasses become mature and there is a heck of a lot of animal feed out there.  The feed in my pasture is enough to produce lots and lots of milk, meat and eggs via goats / cow, rabbits and chickens.  No I haven't got all those critters yet ... but I'm making good progress toward a sustainable, low labor model to utilize all that pasture grass.  I guess you keep forgetting that I don't view "vegetable gardening" as essential for feeding oneself.  I view animal foods as the most important so that's what I'm focusing on.

Dave, this thread is about your blog post on Popper, not about your goats.

Now that you have finally conceded that you misunderstood Popper, then it would be a good idea to change your blog post.  As others have said, it would be a matter of minutes simply to add a note to the top saying that after further consideration you non longer hold the understanding of Popper that you did when you wrote the post.

You don't even have any goats to milk this month, so you could use the time to fix the mistake.


I said I would fix it and I will.  Just like I said I would pay the NCSE and I did.  (They never sent me a receipt.  Bastards.)  Why do you want to hound me constantly about stuff that has so little impact on the world?  Could it be because you have nothing better to do?