Tom wrote: "hereâ€™s a real simple equation for ya: NO MATH = NO SCIENCE."
Plunge responded: "Did you do what I asked and actually read a biology journal? Youâ€™ll find that itâ€™s filled with math."
Tom responded: "yeah, the mathematics of chanceâ€¦.which is all â€˜evolutionâ€™ really is."
The astute reader will note two things:
First, that Tom has just admitted that he was aware that his claim of "NO MATH" in evolutionary biology was a falsehood -- he admits that there *is* math in evolutionary biology, and yet he claimed that there wasn't any. Not very honest of him, was it? Isn't there some kind of commandment against bearing false witness?
Second, that Tom really hasn't bothered to crack any biology textbooks or journals, because if he had he wouldn't have been able to say anything as transparently false (and goofy) as declaring that the math therein is just "the mathematics of chance". What's especially ironic about Tom exposing his ignorance like this is his following childish taunt: "you know you really make me sadâ€¦.you believe in something that doesnâ€™t even exist."
The irony here is that Tom, not just in this one instance but countless times throughout this thread, has confidently (even obnoxiously) made a great many declarations about things that he got only from his own imagination. Like all too may rabidly anti-evolution creationists, he makes the error of cocksurely mistaking his own notions of what he *presumes* about evolutionary biology, for the reality itself. He never once bothers to stop for a moment and go check his fantasies against the reality, by for example cracking open a biology textbook or reading science journals to learn what they're really about.
Even when faced with a patient explainer like Plunge, who takes the time to explain things to Tom and let him know when his notions about science are way off base and how, Tom can't deal with the disconnect between his beliefs and reality like an ordinary person, he instead can only 1) insult, 2) spew multiple other misguided attacks on science as red herrings and diversions, or 3) bray like a jackass (e.g. "HAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAH").
Now *that's* sad. Clearly, the education system has grossly failed Tom, and so have his parents for not instilling in him the maturity he so lacks.
Plunge, you've done a great job on this thread, and your knowledge of this topic is both accurate and wide, unlike, um, someone else on this thread. You've also got a good knack for explaining complex topics quickly, and far more patience with a spoiled, arrogant, ignorant brat that I would have been able to muster. Your talents are wasted on Tom though (obviously), but there are other venues where you might be able to make a difference. Please email me at email@example.com with your contact info, I'd like to discuss it with you. (And yes, that's a working temporary email address, no need to tweak it before using it.)Comment Posted By Ichneumon On 19.08.2006 @ 17:14
Another thing wrong with the whole nutty conspiracy theory is that it's so insanely baroque. Why would the alleged conspirators have to set charges in the buildings, THEN add the whole "hijack airliners and slam them into the buildings in order to 'cover' the bombs" nonsense? Why not just blow them up directly, like the 1993 bombers tried to do but didn't quite pull off, and blame that on the alleged scapegoats? Much simpler, much less likely to go wrong, and fewer layers of conspiracy to potentially leak and give away the game.
Conversely, why bother with pre-planted bombs that could be discovered prematurely and blow the plan, why not just load explosives into the planes themselves as air freight cargo and use them as giant cruise missiles? If *that* was discovered prematurely, you could just say it was part of the hijackers' plans, something the "planes as cover for bombs already in the buildings" silliness would be harder to explain?
Or why would conspirators have to risk getting caught planting bombs in the towers at all? Wouldn't slamming planes full of screaming passengers into the buildings and turning them into towering infernos have been enough to enrage the country and produced support for a war of reprisals even if the buildings hadn't fully collapsed? The death toll would have been almost as high -- most of the people below the impact locations had had time to evacuate before they collapsed, most of the dead were those who were trapped on the floors above the impacts, and they still would have died from fire and smoke even without the building collapse. For that matter, why WAIT close to an hour after the planes hit before "imploding" the buildings? Wouldn't the "cover story" have been better cover if the implosion charges had been triggered within seconds after the plane impacts, making it appear that the force of the impact and exploding jetliners itself had brought down the building?
...and how did they get the 19 Muslim hijackers to suicidally go along with the "cover story", anyway...?
The whole "conspiracy" thing is nutty from start to finish, and doesn't withstand even a moment's examination.
But there's a deeper issue here that hasn't really been touched on. The problem with teaching this conspiracy idiocy isn't just that professors are being allowed to teach their students complete nonsensical BS. Many kinds of BS are harmless enough, albeit a waste of class time. But *this* kind of BS isn't harmless. It's actively teaching and inducing paranoia, hatred, division, and distrust. And *that* is why this idiot deserves to be booted out on his ass.Comment Posted By Ichneumon On 13.07.2006 @ 11:24
Pages (1) :