Holy Hallucinations 10


Uploaded by TheLivingDinosaur on 24.09.2010

Transcript:
This is a response to NephilimFree's video, “TheLivingDinosaur Wins!”
Firstly, Neph, I’d like to thank you for recognizing me with your little award. I shall
treasure it always. That and the fact that it only took you 6 hours to come up with it
and to respond to me suggests that I really got under your skin, so I must be doing something
right. Now, I took a look at your reply and was struck
by the fact is wasn’t so much of a response as a rambling and unbelievably tedious repetition
of all the same old crap that I’d addressed in my video. You tried to refute just one
of the points I made, and as I’ll demonstrate, you even failed at that.
Nevertheless, I found some of what you said quite amusing, and it also gives me the opportunity
to make a few points that I didn’t have time for earlier.
So strap on your crash helmet, Neph, and let’s get started.
“What you and many novice evolutionists attempt to do is redefine morphology as a
comparative anatomy. You’re not talking about morphology, pal. You don’t understand
science. You’re talking about anatomy. Anatomy. Not morphology.”
Neph, Neph, Neph. This was the only refutation you had to any of my points, and you even
failed terminally at that for two reasons. Firstly, you seem to have completely missed
the point I was making. Or did you just ignore it because you couldn’t come up with a response
of any substance? The point, Neph, wasn’t about the definition
of the word morphology, but that your pathetic semantic words games do nothing to change
the physical evidence that you’re attempting to refute. Let me give you another example
of what you’re trying to do and maybe this time it’ll sink in.
Science presents an insurmountable mountain of evidence that show that Kent Hovind is
a lying shitbag. Nephilimfree disagrees, but is unable to refute the obviously accurate
facts, so instead he says: “Sorry, Sporty, you lose. He’s not a shitbag, see? Look
at my dictionary, he’s a sack of shit. See the difference? You’re wrong and I just
squished you.” Does the word or words you use really change
the fact that Kent is filled to capacity with putrid fecal matter? I don’t think so. Changing
the linguistic label you slap on the facts doesn’t change the facts themselves, Neph.
It’s just intellectually dishonest. So feel free continue to change the meaning
of words that everyone else at the party is using, Neph, but do be aware that while they’re
happily chatting in the living room over a few drinks, you’ll be the sad bastard locked
in the bathroom talking to himself in gibberish. And the second reason you failed, Neph, is
that you were just plain wrong again. You claim that I was talking about anatomy, but
the definitions you showed us clearly state that deals exclusively with structure. How
exactly is this the same as the combination of external shape and internal structure?
Do you think that no one will read the words you put up on the screen?
“Heh, heh, heh. He’s not even talking about morphology. He’s talking about anatomy.
See? This is the evolutionist’s game. Because there’s not evidence of morphological change,
we’ll have to say that comparative anatomy provides evidence of evolution because organisms
look different, therefore morphology has changed.” OK Neph, I suppose you didn’t like the other
words I suggested. So let’s use anatomy. Makes no difference to me. Now, maybe you’ll
now finally explain exactly why the external and internal physical differences between
and within species that we choose to label with the sequence phonetic constructs that
make the sound “anatomical” aren’t formed by evolutionary processes.
It makes no difference what combination of vowels and consonants you use to describe
the physical differences between dog breeds, extant species or specimens in the fossil
record, it doesn’t change the fact that they exist and that they are beautifully explained
by the theory of evolution. All you’re doing is playing with labels in a transparent attempt
to avoid dealing with the issue that reality undoubtedly contradicts the veracity of the
simplistic bible stories to which you’re wed.
“Now what you just saw him do is describe… try to describe… me and my methodology.
What he’s really doing… this is called projection. What he’s trying to do is to
take his own failure and to apply it to me.” I almost pissed myself when I heard this.
Neph, if it were actually true, me projecting my failure onto you would be tantamount to
pinning a skid-mark onto the world’s biggest ball of dung.
Let’s take a little look at who’s actually doing the projecting here.
“Pay attention folks. This is a perfect example, what you’re about to see, of how
evolutionists deny science. How evolutionism is anti-science. Because, you see, evolutionism…
evolution… is a fantasy. It’s an illusion. They do this because evolution is not supported
by science and it’s not even science. It’s not scientific and that’s why they attempt
to change science, you see? Redefine it and deny science in their attempts to make evolution
seem like science. Because you ‘re an evolutionist and don’t understand science because you
don’t like science, and you’re anti-science because evolution is not science and not supported
by science.” Fucking hell, Neph, I’m surprised you didn’t
blow a bulb after all that. Considering that many “evolutionists”
actually have degrees in science and some are even working scientists, while you have
a two year certificate of bullshit from the University of Google and consistently prove
yourself to be completely ignorant in every field you claim to be an authority on, I think
its pretty obvious who’s doing the projecting, don’t you?
Also, I curious about what you think science actually is? Have you been redefining words
again when I wasn’t looking? Anyway, fortunately, the opinion of an ignorant
and uneducated blow-hard on what constitutes science won’t change what it is and why
it works. Your kind of science would have us praying to an empty sky to heal our sick,
to feed our children and to bring us together and will explain everything with just three
magic words. “You know, evolution happened because a
rat’s shaped differently form a horse. That’s proof of evolution right there. Heh, heh,
heh. Good job, sporty – for non-thinking.” Brrrrrrrr…. Why do I feel like I was just
groped on a crowded subway by a strange man in a dirty mac? Apart from pointing out the
blatantly dishonest misrepresentation of evolution the only reason I included this clip was to
if anyone else found this as creepy as I did. So, Neph. I don’t know if you’re going
to make a reply to this, but if you are, might I suggest that if you actually try addressing
some of the points I made instead of just repeating your bogus claims ad nauseum. As
a reminder, here are a few things that you neglected to tackle:
One: Why does wasp with a leg embedded in its head does not constitute a morphological
change by your definition or anyone else’s. And by the way, If you try your genetic reversion
argument, then be warned. I’ve read the actual paper involved and not the layman’s
summary you quote and will be more than happy to roll it up and ram it up your arse. Sideways.
Two: Why you think that 70 years of genetic mutation experiments should be expected to
produce a permanent morphological change in a species when this has never been the goal
of any such experiment, and why this fuck this is an argument against the veracity evolutionary
theory? Three: Why you were unable to locate a paper
that refuted your assertion when I was able to find it in seconds using the exact same
URL you were provided with? Four: After the evidence I presented, do you
still feel that scientists do not believe that the differences between dog breeds are
morphological? A retraction would be nice. Five: Why you act as though you feel yourself
qualified to comment on scientific issues as if you had actually studied these subjects.
Six: Do you have any evidence of you alleged squishing of Dr. Mark McPeek..
Seven: Why do the failings of Lamarckism have anything to do with modern evolutionary theory?
Eight: Can you provide a quantitative explanation of why it will take a sequence of at least
20 transitional fossils to satisfy you? Nine: What exactly is a kind?
Ten: In the absence of said definition, what qualifies you to be able to distinguish between
kinds? I’d be really interested in hearing your
responses to these points, but I all you’re going to do is subject us to another fifteen
minute tirade rehashing the same old shit, them please don’t bother because all you’ll
be doing is showing the world what you’re really made of.