“Paolo” returns for more IDiot nonsense.

Amazingly enough he actually responded again. I’m going to post my last reply to him here along with his latest missive so you can see things in context, then I’ll send him a reply pointing to this thread. We’ll see if he’s willing to take the discussion public. First, my last reply to him:

    Paolo wrote:

    Hi Les,
    Just quote me 1 fact in support of evolution! just one!

    Sure thing.

    The Theory of Evolution makes a number of predictions one of which is the fundamental nature of life, also known as common descent. It proposes that all of life is descended from a single species at some point in the past. All living things share four things in common (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). There are five confirmations of this prediction:

    1. The common polymers of life. Despite the amazing diversity of form life takes it all uses the same polymers to accomplish the four basic functions I listed above. There’s all manner of polymers out there, we’ve even invented a few never seen before, but all life relies on the same basic set consisting of polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides.
    2. Nucleic acids are the genetic material of life. All known life uses the same polymer (polynucleotide) for storing data (DNA) about the species. All known organisms base replication on the duplication of that molecule. All known life uses the same four nucleosides to make DNA despite the fact that there are dozens of nucleosides that could have been used.
    3. Protein catalysis. In order for the functions of life to take place all organisms must be able to catalyze chemical reactions. In all known life enzymatic catalysis is possible because of the abilities provided by protein molecules. Despite there being over 390 naturally occurring amino acids all known life uses the same set of 22 to work their magic.
    4. The Universal Genetic Code. All known organisms use the same genetic code for transmitting information from the genetic material to the catalytic material.
    5. Common Metabolism. Almost all known life uses the same metabolic pathways and metabolic enzymes in processing energy-containing molecules.

    All five of the above statements are facts about all known life discovered to date. All five of those facts support the prediction of common decent. You asked for one fact and I’ve given you five and that’s not even scratching the surface.

    It´s a religion and in order to believe it you have to have faith.

    It is not a religion and your claim that it is a religion shows your ignorance not only of what the Theory of Evolution actually is, but what a religion actually is. Show me the Evolution Churches or examples of the hymns sung to its glory. It doesn’t take faith to accept Evolution as true, it just takes a decent education.

    Evolution keeps on adjusting its statements as soon as new evidence that disproves it come up.

    Here’s a shocker: All scientific theories adjust their statements when new evidence comes along. Aspects of the theory have had to be revised or discarded as new evidence came to be known, but the entire theory as a whole has held up remarkably well. Revision with new evidence is the nature of science, as opposed to a religion where no matter what kind of evidence might show it to be wrong people still believe in it anyway.

    Look for instance at the finding of soft tissues and blood vessels of dinosaurs recently, instead of dismissing that dinosaurs have lived 65 millions of years ago they say :” Wow blood vessels can keep soft for that long ??!…”
    It beggars belief that elastic tissue like this could have lasted for 65 million years.
    Soft tissues like blood vessels should not be there if the bones were 65 million years old.
    How could these cells last for 65 million years?

    That’s not what they said at all. Those tissues were not soft when they were found. They were rehydrated by the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone. It’s also not known if the soft tissues were even original material from the fossil.

    The really idiotic part of your claim, however, is the simple fact that if the age of the Earth is only 6,000 years or so then we should expect to find examples of soft tissue in fossils quite often. Samples of DNA have been recovered from fossils more than 300,000 years old so anything in the 6,000 range would stand a pretty good chance of having soft tissues and it wouldn’t be a major news story.

    Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it.  What generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.
    So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say there’s something funny about the emperor’s clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years.

    That’s a pretty laughable statement for you to make when it’s clear you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

    I am amazed at the faith of certain people, it would make fanatic fundamentalist out of them and in fact they are !
    They keep on beliving against all odds .

    So we can add ignorance of how to calculate odds to your list of skills, eh? Figures.

    Les

His latest reply is after the jump.

    Paolo writes…

    Hi Les,
    how are you doing?
    I see you did your home work,
    very good, here we go…

    To prove the common descent theory you need a commodity such as time, that´s why you guys love long numbers when you talk about life on earth.
    But paradoxically the very thing you need the most turns out to be your worst enemy especially in the common descent theory.
    If it´s true that we all come from a common ancestor
    where are the transitional forms ?
    Shouldn´t we be submerged with missing links proving the GREAT TRUTH after billions of years of life ?
    (by the way you don´t need a church or to sing hymns to be religious.
    believing without seing it´s enough)

    Look at what your friend says:
    “… if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; ……….. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ……”
                  (Darwin,Origin, Chapter Six: Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties.)

    Les if evolution did occur, one would expect to find a gradual series of fossils embedded in the rocks, from simple to one-celled creatures, then two-celled creatures, on and on with greater complexity until you have the sponges and algae, the chordates and the trilobites and all of the invertebrates, then the vertebrates appearing , these last including fish, amphibians, reptiles, and man. That is only the Animal Kingdom, there is still the Plant Kingdom to be considered, with grapes and giant sequoia trees, carrots and flowers, potatoes and lawngrass, all of which supposedly evolved from the same common ancestor, according to evolutionists.

    I leave you with Darwin´s own admission:
    Have a great weekend Les.
    To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great.

You’ll note he simply ignores everything in my reply to him and moves on to the next idiotic argument cut and pasted from his favorite Creationist website. Facts don’t phase him, logic can’t penetrate his thick skull, he’s completely reality immune. Have at it.

32 thoughts on ““Paolo” returns for more IDiot nonsense.

  1. If the guy is so ignorant that he cannot understand “facts” and “science” and “scientific theory” then I would say that’s a failure of his brain and our educational system.
    As for examples of intermediary forms, there are lots and lots and lots of them.
    I know the next thing our friend is going to say: “Well, it is all fine and dandy that Eohippus and Mesohippus existed, but if they’re related, where’s the intermediate form for them?” Rinse, repeat.

    The short answer is, of course, that the fossil record is incomplete because it takes an incredibly large number of conditions that must be exactly right for a creature’s body to be fossilized. For hominids, we have a tiny, tiny number of fossilized individuals—-I’m guessing no more than a hundred—compared to the millions that lived. Not every form of every creature will be preserved. Some creature cannot ever be fossilized because they have no exo- or endo-skeletons (jellyfish, worms, etc).

    My answer to this would be to pose to our friend this simple question: can he construct his family lineage going back 10 centuries? Why not? Could it be that there are gaps in his lineage—even big ones?
    According to the KJB, God only created “Adam” and “Eve”—the rest of the schlubs sprang from their loins. Therefore, our friend’s lineage goes back to Adam and Eve. If this is true, by using his logic, where is the physical evidence? (psst: the bible is not physical evidence)

  2. My brother-in-law proves evolution. When I first met him he was an asshole and over the years has slowly evolved into a plain old ordinary idiot!\

    By the way, with our education system I always say that we should teach creationism in school the day they start teaching evolution in churhc!

    And that’s all I have to say about that.

    Allan

  3. To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great.

    This quote is taken from the origin of species, which was written in 1859.

    That passage was correct in 1859, and the lack of transitional fossils was a flaw in Darwins theory at the time. But it was 147 years ago! This dilemma has been answered as we’ve come to learn more about the Cambrian explosion and what preceded it.

    It’s good to see creationists are stuck in the 19th century, though. Some things you can always rely on.

  4. So, do you think you stand any chance of convincing this bloke contrary to his ideology?

    Really ?

    Or, is there some other motivation at work?
    I suspect it’s quite like his own. Peas in pod.

  5. My brother-in-law proves evolution. When I first met him he was an asshole and over the years has slowly evolved into a plain old ordinary idiot!\

    Fucking hilarious Moses. 

    Man if I had a better edumacation I would argue these points, but my stronghold is with computers and technology.  I would rather see what greater minds have to offer.

  6. Just take a look at some modern whales for your transitional species. Every so often they cut them suckers open and find hind limb bones tucked up inside the blubber doing nothing much these days but taking up space.
        I’ve heard the creationist arguments against this evidence. It’s pretty flat.
        It’s very difficult to find fossils period. Everything that collapses on the ground dead doesn’t become a fossil. It takes very specific conditions. We’re lucky we’ve found as many as we have. At one time there were so many passenger pigeons that a farmer described a flock which took 8 hours to fly over his farm.  …..now go try to find me a single fossil of one of them. I’ll pay you a nice shiny quarter for it.
        Long time no comment Les. I hope you’ve been well.
        Take care everybody.
                          Mayo

  7. So, do you think you stand any chance of convincing this bloke contrary to his ideology?

    Really ?

    Or, is there some other motivation at work?

    Of course there’s some other motivation at work. Entertainment. It’s funny as well watching this guy haplessly try to defend creationism.

  8. rob:  Or, is there some other motivation at work?

    Mick:  Of course there’s some other motivation at work. Entertainment. It’s funny as well watching this guy haplessly try to defend creationism.

    Speak for yourself, Mick.  When I debate creationists, my motivation is a desperate attempt to shore up my faith in evolution.  If I don’t repeat the Darwinian Liturgy over and over until I’m in a trance, it starts crumbling under the insistent weight of missing links and cud-chewing rabbits.

    That’s my motivation.  tongue wink

  9. It appears .rob is attempting to become our “conscious” telling us when we’re acting for less than noble reasons.

    No, .rob, I don’t seriously expect to convince this moron that he’s wrong for the reason I listed in the entry: He’s reality immune and obviously scientifically illiterate to the point that he can’t even begin to understand most of my last reply to him.

    Ridicule, however, is sometimes a useful motivator for bringing about change. Every now and then you piss people off enough that they really dig into a topic and manage to figure out that perhaps you were telling them the truth all along. And if that doesn’t happen then, as Mick pointed out, you at least get some amusement for a short while.

  10. I’m no one’s couscous.
    And, yes, i am conscious.

    That all said…
    I’ve never attempted to be anyone’s Conscience.
    I’m way too busy being my own in that regard.

    ;-]

  11. Welcome, Frankenbeasley.  Yep, that’s a classic Doonesbury, and a good object lesson for creationists, if only they’d listen.

    As long as I’m here- Mick, you pointed out that Paolo quoted from The Origin of Species and ignored the fact that evolutionary theory has moved on since then.  When debating creationists, I’ve often found that not only are they stuck in the 19th century, but that they seem to think that Darwin has the same kind of authority for Darwinists as Christ does for Christians: any and all aspects of Charles Darwin’s life and person are subject to criticism, as though that had any bearing whatsoever on modern evolutionary theory.

    It’s kind of touching in a way that creationists elevate Darwin to sainthood, but not really pertinent.  What it reveals is what Les pointed out: a mistaken idea about how science works.  Religion is based on authority and not evidence.  Science, when done properly, is based on evidence and not authority.

  12. I have heard so many sides through the years about this argument, I am a Sioux Indian, and a thankful one at that. Our people reduced the argument to a non-argument. And I don’t buy into this because of my heritage, I actually do believe this to be the answer. Here goes….

    The Sioux regard the universe as ultimately incomprehensible; life, growth, and death are mysterious and suggestive of powers difficult to understand. Since time itself is regarded as non-causal, and does not embody notions of change and progress, nothing in the universe can be considered to be inevitable. This incomprehensibility and unpredictability of the universe, anything difficult to understand, is called ‘wakan’, which also connotes the animating force of the universe, the totality of which is ‘Wakan Tanka’. Wakan Tanka is the sum total of the personified powers that brought all things into being.

    When a person adopts this type of thinking, it leaves more time to appreciate things. Our lives are so short. If I find a void, and later find that void filled. I accept the mystery, I accept that the mystery itself is a part of life. I don’t have to understand it, as it will change nothing. And if I do come to understand it to the point of   comprehension enough to change it. It may be for the worse. Humans are simple, they should keep it that way, and know when not to over-step there own boundaries.

  13. by the way you don´t need a church or to sing hymns to be religious.
    believing without seing it´s enough

    I can’t see the beer at home in my fridge from here at work but I do believe it is there and that my life would suck without it.  Does this mean I am religious?  Most importantly, what holliday’s am I entitled to?

    Craig

  14. That was incredibly interesting Paul.  Thanks for posting that.  I think if most religions would adopt that style of thinking the world would be a better place.

  15. Thanks Webs, Even though it ” Wakan Tanka ” is a Religion, many of us choose to call it ” Applied Life Mythology ” It is but a guide to living.

    I am going to plug my favorite movie, If you have not seen this Movie please do so.

    Defending Your Life – Stars Meryl Streep…

    It’s a true story, Well Sorta…

  16. He started by dividing himself into 4 and then back into 1, and then doubled up to produce Sun, Sky, Earth etc. Followed by branching out plus 4 more high ones, plus 4 Companions dividing the many acts of creation.

    The 4 Companions then added 4 Related ones = Whirlwind, Four Winds, Four Legs and Two Legs. Then came another 4 Godlike Ones which equals 16 into God knows what, all of which are divisible by WAKAN-TANKA as they retain a part of him to the value of W squared unless you know how to round it all up. He may even have Square Roots. This was all before decimalisation, Euros and Sales Tax.

    http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/native_american-mythology.php?deity=WAKAN-TANKA

  17. That site does not represent the Sioux. But it is a good example of what not to step in.

  18. Les:
    Ridicule, however, is sometimes a useful motivator for bringing about change. Every now and then you piss people off enough that they really dig into a topic and manage to figure out that perhaps you were telling them the truth all along. And if that doesn’t happen then, as Mick pointed out, you at least get some amusement for a short while.

    This turned out to be partially true for me.  Yall challenging my political beliefs helped bring me from 2,1 on the political compass to -5,-1.  I recently retook it and came in at -7,-5.  It seems reading all that anarchist philosophy is having an effect. wink

    Les:
    It doesn’t take faith to accept Evolution as true, it just takes a decent education.

    It takes a brand of faith to not be a nihilist or a solipsist.  This supposes the opposite of faith is skepticism.  If it is it would take faith to believe empiricism can amount to any praxical understanding of the universe in regards to ethics, ontology, cosmology, etc.

    I tried to post a challenge earlier in another thread, but it didn’t take so I’ll retry now.  I’m willing to read any one of Dennett’s books so long as someone sends it to me if I can send them and they promise to read either Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment or David Roochnik’s Retrieving the Ancients.  Any takers?

  19. Alas, it looks like the challenge to Paolo to take it public has scared him into running off with his tail between his legs. Here’s his last reply:

      You seem to be pretty confident but still have´t proved anything, the only thing that comes out of your head is cheap insults.
      As far as pasting texts from creationist web sites
      is obvious that YOU know what you are talking about.
      Have you never taken someone´s else thought? that agreed with your own? If so do you consider yourself a dummy for having done so ? There is nothing new under the sun… oh sorry ,expect for your thoughts of course.
      So fossil record is difficult to obtain because fossils are not easily produced, that´s your excuse, well then stop calling evolution a science and stick to the theory.
      And then of course the other argument that transitional life forms are everywhere that´s too much to bear really.
      I think I had enough, but keep in touch every once in awhile if you wish. I have a last question are you the guy pictured on your web site?  That to me looks like one of those transitional life forms you talk about.
      You want to go public so I can make a fool out of myself ? I have no problem with my identity and sure don´t need anyone´s approval to feel good about myself and what I believe, especially if the approval comes from someone that swallow a fairy tale as
      science. Let´s drop it here Les.

    Not like he was doing much more than cutting and pasting anyway (he even admits as much in his last reply).

  20. Wow, you handled that really nicely!  I’m really impressed by your knowledge of evolutionary science.  Kinda wish I could have helped in the rebuttal in some way but your the boss.  An excellent and well researched post Les.  Wish I was there.

  21. Theo, I’ll take you up on it.  We might want to wait until I’m in the states again, though, to save on postage.  Probably in February.  Email me.  Cheers, zilch.

  22. On a side note of evolution in action, has anyone here heard about the Hawaiian crickets? There was an interview on Quirks and Quarks regarding how the crickets on the island are losing their ability to produce their famous chirp. Due to a parasitic fly that locates and lays their eggs in the male cricket by following the chirp.

    It was a very good interview, if you can find it, I would suggest listening to it.

  23. I imagine lots of you have also heard from paolo by now.  For those who have missed out, here’s the mail he just sent me, with a link to our thread here:

    That’s the idiot you trust.
    Making up non-existing conversations to fuel his decrepit ego.
    For the real transcription go to Atheism vs Christianity forum.
    Your man of the hour is a hoaxer.
    And you are his sheep.

    Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately (life is short!) paolo didn’t provide a link to the particular “Atheism vs Christianity forum” he meant for us sheep, so we could see where the hoaxer is leading us.  Baad baad paolo.

    In other news: Japanese fishers just caught a dolphin with hindlimbs.

  24. Okay, I did a bit of digging, and came up with this gem of mind-bending inanity, right up there with the Body Thetans and the Raelians: God is Gravity!.  A sample from the abstract:

    As Relativists know, the eigenvector of the spacetime metric is caused by mass and is called Gravity.  As we shall demonstrate, the eigenvector of the psychometry metric is caused by brain growth and is called “God”.  Since real space causes psychometry space, God is caused by Gravity.

    It’s not clear whether this was written by paolo or merely quoted, but he posted it.  Warning: may cause brain meltdown.

  25. paola: For the real transcription go to Atheism vs Christianity forum.

    Yep, did that and found some paolathingy and Jonathan Brandmeier entrieshere‘s his profile.
    He’s a busy little fundie.  LOL
    I must say I’m rather disappointed in not receiving a personal email.  wink

  26. So, did you vote Democrat today, Consi?

    This guy blathers on more than you do LJ.

    Thanks Consi; I’m sure it was meant as a compliment.  wink
    Yep. You’ve made 566 entries in 2 years and I’ve made 1096 in one year.
    But we all know the comments you make come from a vastly superior intelligence and therefore are very important whereas the comments I make come from an inferior intelligence and rate nil on the Richter scale.
    Why does that not concern me.  LOL

  27. The thing is I don’t think the Paolo who sent you guys the email (and who’s been email-stalking me for the past couple of days) and the guy I was responding to in the original entry here are the same dude. The Paolo in this entry is way more articulate and intelligent sounding than the one who’s been harassing us the past day or so.

    Though I suppose it’s possible his fundamentalism may have finally driven him batshit insane.

  28. Maybe he has multiple-personality disorder (MPD) like Edward Norton (didn’t have) in Primal Fear …. or worser still – m m m maybe he’s a Gemini.  wink

    I read a very good novel last year: Matt Ruff – Set This House in Order – about a coupla people with MPD. It was an interesting ride – it even had a happy ending, sorta.

    Book Review: Ruff also has the ability to draw a character so vividly, that I started thinking of Andy and Penny’s other personalities as legitimate characters in this book.

    So did I.  LOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.