simulacrum re: The emperor's new clothes
Kent Paul Dolan
>> To officially cast suspicion upon the theory
>> of evolution, hence exposing it for criticism,
>> is to confess your silliness and that you not
>> has grasped anything. H.C.Andersson's anec- dote
>> of the emperor's new closes gives a good
>> illustration. Persons who not were competent
>> for their jobs, could not see the nice clothes
>> the emperor was wearing, weaved by the lying and
>> cunning weavers. An innocent child said that
>> which the prudent peoples not dared to confess,
>> namely that the emperor was naked and that
>> his clothes just was bluff and humbug.
>> Darwin's theory is naked but very few dare
>> to confess it. What the theory has to offer
>> of solution of real biological problems are
>> only of pure fictive and imaginary nature,
>> in the same way as in the story of the emperor's
>> new clothes, lacking substance and content.
>> It's apparent that most problems, which
>> plead for a solution within the conceptual
>> framework of this theory only is of
>> artificial, fictive and imaginary nature.
Based on the quoting with no accompanying original
author cited, apparently you cut and pasted this
without change from you posting it an earlier time?
At any rate, it is an excellent example of a bogus
analogy used in an attempt to foist off an argument
which consists only of an assertion, with no
accompanying evidence.
In that sense, it is the weakest possible type of
argument to present in this forum.
The added joy that it is comprised of a large
fraction of pure baffle-gab just heightens that
effect.
Keep up the good work, you're making creationists
everywhere look like idiots.
xanthian.
[M]adman
Since your powers of search are so terrible, i went and found it for you.
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/9wb6sa
It looks as though they took the thesis on Einstein and simply substituted
the word "relativity" for "evolution" starting about 1/4 the way down the
project. Other then that one word, it looks verbatim
However. The two words can be substituted quite nicely. As we can see.
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Ron O
> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
> or
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/9wb6sa
>
> It looks as though they took the thesis on Einstein and simply substituted
> the word "relativity" for "evolution" starting about 1/4 the way down the
> project. Other then that one word, it looks verbatim
>
> However. The two words can be substituted quite nicely. As we can see.
>
> --
> It is all about the truth with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
Adman good for something!?
QUOTE:
To officially cast suspicion upon the theory of relativity,
hence exposing it for criticism, is to confess your silliness
and that you not has grasped anything. H.C.Andersson's anec-
dote of the emperor's new closes gives a good illustration.
Persons who not were competent for their jobs, could not see
the nice clothes the emperor was wearing, weaved by the lying
and cunning weavers. An innocent child said that which the
prudent peoples not dared to confess, namely that the emperor
was naked and that his clothes just was bluff and humbug.
Einstein's theory is naked but very few dare to confess it.
What the theory has to offer of solution of real physical
problems are only of pure fictive and imaginary nature,
in the same way as in the story of the emperor's new clothes,
lacking substance and content. It's apparent that most
problems, which plead for a solution within the conceptual
framework of this theory only is of artificial, fictive and
imaginary nature.
END QUOTE:
The first quote does sound like something Sean Pitman would have
written, but now it looks like just some troll trying to make anti-
science creationists look as bad as they are.
You have to remember that it is pretty much impossible to parody a
creationist. One of them somewhere has likely gone even farther out
of whack than the parody.
Ron Okimoto
[M]adman
But you missed this part:
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Yes. You can also substitute Christianity, the value of nice haircuts,
hard work in schools, or any number of other ideas and value systems.
Since there are no actual *arguments or *evidence involved, it really
doesn't matter what is substituted. The empty assertions are
worthless, whether or not you or I agree with the supposed conclusion.
Kermit
Ron O
The world doesn't revolve around you. I was talking about Lundslakt
trolling. Unless you are lundslakt. If you are, you didn't mention
the substitution in your first post. It might be interesting to see
if you could parody yourself, but it wouldn't be pretty.
Ron Okimoto
[M]adman
You think *I* am Lundslakt?
Do you believe in little green men too?
[M]adman
It looked like a well researched paper to me. AND the substitution looked
good as well. So what's the problem?
Ron O
You don't read for comprehension, do you?
Ron Okimoto
heekster
wrote:
The lad's brain is pristine, completely unblemished by the ravages of
comprehension.
[M]adman
You mean by the ravages of bullshit
Ron O
You need to start reading more carefully. "unblemished" does not mean
"polluted," and "pristine" does not mean "corroded." Although your
rendition would be more apt in this case. "The lad's brain is
[corroded], completely [polluted] by the ravages of [bullshit]."
Pretty much says it all about the person that you are, at least,
pretending to be. If you are pretending, a few thousand inane
trollish posts are enough to stick it to the ignorant and incompetent
anti-science league.
Ron Okimoto
[M]adman
It is you, not me that assumed i was Lundslakt even after i exposed the
accurate information.
THEN, you missed MY comment of:
""The two words can be substituted quite nicely. As we can see."
All in all, i would say "You don't read for comprehension, do you?"
unrestra...@hotmail.com
I was referring to the OP. Let's look at an excerpt from the paper you
linked to, and make appropriate substitutions. Do you think
**************************
[Darwin]'s theory of [evolution] from [1859] is founded
on two basic hypotheses or concepts, even named postulates,
which are as follows :
I. "THE SAME LAWS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS WILL
BE VALID FOR ALL FRAMES OF REFERENSES
FOR WHICH THE EQUATIONS OF MECHANICS
HOLD GOOD"
II. LIGHT IS ALWAYS PROPAGATED IN EMPTY
SPACE WITH A DEFINITE SPEED, c,
WHICH IS INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE OF
OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY.
*************************************************************************
...is a valid statement? How, exactly, does the speed of light affect
differential reproductive rates?
You claim to not only be more knowledgeable than other Christians (who
mostly have very different ideas than you on a number of theological
subjects), and biologists of all stripes, but also physicists. This is
pathetic. In another context it would be cute, but like the other
person's kid with sticky fingers and a constant whine... it's not.
You have been hanging around theologians - who can do naught but
speculate - for too long. You really are an ignorant and arrogant
idiot.
Please reconcile nuclear energy with the criticisms in that "paper".
When you say "well researched", you seem to mean "thought about it,
and decided that professionals with ten years of university and thirty
years of experience don't know what they're talking about". I saw no
research whatsoever. You have a knee-jerk response of approval to any
web page which claims "science bad".
And yet you want the approval of science. It ain't gonna happen.If you
want to play with the big kids, go wash your hands, stand in line, and
do your homework.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Ron said "Unless you are lundslakt. If you are, you didn't mention
the substitution in your first post. "
It was the comma that threw you, wasn't it?
Kermit
Ron O
Poor guy. I wonder what it must be like to be as incompetent as you,
at least, pretend to be. Do you really believe the interpretation
that you just wrote after rereading my post, or are you just trying to
gain sympathy from the crowd that doesn't like people beating up on
the incompetent?
Ron Okimoto
Allen
news:ihk5l.13250$mw2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
O. Tedenstig is a Swedish engineer/scientist(freelance) according to his
Netlog.Com webpage. His "blog" is a directory listing of .doc's. He
published 5 papers in "Electronics and Wireless World" between 1993 and
1997.
You are a lying faithless bibliolater.
Allen
heekster
wrote:
No, sunny jim, I said what I meant.
Learn to read with comprehension.
Allen
The evidence points to your being a lying faithless bibiolater of the
troll kind.
Allen
[M]adman
Are you trying to take Chris's place as TO's head drama queen?
It was only the OP's original post that i refered to.
[M]adman
You should uP^ your meds.
Kent Paul Dolan
[bogus, purloined, unattributed material]
> Since your powers of search are so terrible, i
> went and found it for you.
So tell me moron, why do you think I would care to
waste the time to search for it?
If lundslaktare wants to pilfer material without
giving credit, it's not _my_ reputation that is
getting tanked.
xanthian.
Robert Carnegie
>
> or
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/9wb6sa
>
> It looks as though they took the thesis on Einstein and simply substituted
> the word "relativity" for "evolution" starting about 1/4 the way down the
> project. Other then that one word, it looks verbatim
>
> However. The two words can be substituted quite nicely. As we can see.
Thank you. When people throw only quoted text at us as though it was
their own argument, it's quite annoying. Finding the source is an
effective criticism in itself, but some sources are not online - or
haven't been, although some catalogues are being placed online now.
There are curious unregarded little Christian publications, even a
parish magazine.
Pro-science people usually have sources and name them, or quickly
learn to do that if they don't want the same criticism.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
You said:
"It looked like a well researched paper to me. AND the substitution
looked good as well. So what's the problem? "
I explained the problems:
1. The paper was not researched at all. It was empty assertions, with
no supporting data, and no cites.
2. And when references to evolutionary science are substituted in most
of it, it look silly, not just wrong.
Kermit