• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Apes descended from Humans – NOT the other way around.

ptif219 said:
As always you make smart ass comments that mean nothing
Click to expand...

Translation:
ptif219 said:
You're a big poopyhead Dittohead Not!
Why can't everyone just believe everything I tell them to believe
Wahhh,wahh,wahhh!!
Why does everyone have to be such meanies.
wahh,wahh,wahh,
Why can't everyone accept that I'm better than them \
wahh,wahh,wahh
I pooped my diapers.
Click to expand...
 
ptif219 said:
I show sources. Your answers are opinions and attack my sources
Click to expand...

Translation:
ptif219 said:
Wahh wahh wahh I everybody has to listen to what I say.
why doesn't anyone on this thread have to realize that only what i have to say is important.
Whhaa wahh wahh,even with the research paper that someone else had to provide why doesn't everyone just believe that ardi descended from man like i said on post 30 even though the research paper never says that wahhwahhwahh
wahh wahh wahh why doesn't everyone believe me when i said on post 42 the time line is screwed up even though Lovejoys paper proves thats wrong on the very first page wahh wahh wahh
wahh wahh wahh why doesnt everyone on this thread accept that only my opinons matters and no body elses,wah wahh wahh,
wahh wah wahh I need my binky and my Mr.Snuggles
Click to expand...
 
ptif219 said:
Peer review is broken
Click to expand...

You do not have enough knowledge about the subject to actually make such a claim.

About the only thing you can say with any degree of honesty is, "I believe peer review is broken because I have a totally different standard of proof for things I want to believe than I do for things I do not want to believe. My requirement for proof (and willingness to accept evidence) is inversely proportional to my desire to believe something. I want to believe that peer review is broken, so I'll accept any piece of evidence towards that end (even if it isn't actually evidence) that I can without question, whereas I really do not want to believe in evolution, so I will obviously require a tremendous amount of evidence in order to believe it, but since my desire to not believe is infinite, my requirement for evidence is equally infinite, thus preventing any chance that I could actually emerge from my cocoon of willful ignorance."
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
What does this tell us? This is some small two bit journal (which anyone can start and run) that does not pop anywhere when searching for it - not even in a directory dedicated to open journals, hardly a reason for anything it does to be a damnation of peer review.
Click to expand...

Ptif, you posted this ^^^^ quote from me in your reply, but offered no explanation to it at all. Is this what you are viewing as me attacking your source?! If so I suggest you go back and reread both your source and my reply and look very carefully at what I was saying, and what the above quote is in reference to.

here let me help you, here is the source you offered: Has the peer review process lost credibility? | Sandy Starr | Independent Battle of Ideas Blogs - open it and take a look at it.

You will see at the top 5 bullet points with links that are used as evidence for his argument, heck he posted them all right at the top so everyone could see his supporting evidence. I addressed each and every one of these pieces of supporting evidence individually.

here is one of his bullet points:
A computer-generated hoax paper from the ‘Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology’ (CRAP) is accepted for publication in the Open Information Science Journal.

it contains a link, here is where that link takes you: OA publisher accepts fake paper - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences -open it, take a look at it.

He is using the article as evidence, it talks about an online open journal that accepted a computer generated "study". It is this journal that I looked into and dissected, it was his EVIDENCE used to support his argument. This is the two bit journal I posted the quote above in regards too (as well as a lot of other information if you care to revisit my post).

So no, this is NOT attacking your source (nor is it attacking his source for that matter) I did not touch your source, I examined the EVIDENCE that your source offered as the springboard for his argument, and it was found to be weak.

speaking of evidence, this seems to be evidence that you really do not have any clue whatsoever of what is contained in your links you offer. It also is apparently evidence that you do nothing other than the most basic skim of material for anything that you feel may bolster your point, and apparently ignore and/or are not able to see anything other than what you want to see, and that you have zero comprehension of what you are reading or how wrong you frequently are as a result.
 
Last edited:
You guys do know you're all just pissing up a rope here, right?
 
I pissed against the wind, once.
 
Tucker Case said:
You do not have enough knowledge about the subject to actually make such a claim.

About the only thing you can say with any degree of honesty is, "I believe peer review is broken because I have a totally different standard of proof for things I want to believe than I do for things I do not want to believe. My requirement for proof (and willingness to accept evidence) is inversely proportional to my desire to believe something. I want to believe that peer review is broken, so I'll accept any piece of evidence towards that end (even if it isn't actually evidence) that I can without question, whereas I really do not want to believe in evolution, so I will obviously require a tremendous amount of evidence in order to believe it, but since my desire to not believe is infinite, my requirement for evidence is equally infinite, thus preventing any chance that I could actually emerge from my cocoon of willful ignorance."
Click to expand...

No I give sources to back up what I say. No one else here has done that.
 
marduc said:
Ptif, you posted this ^^^^ quote from me in your reply, but offered no explanation to it at all. Is this what you are viewing as me attacking your source?! If so I suggest you go back and reread both your source and my reply and look very carefully at what I was saying, and what the above quote is in reference to.

here let me help you, here is the source you offered: Has the peer review process lost credibility? | Sandy Starr | Independent Battle of Ideas Blogs - open it and take a look at it.

You will see at the top 5 bullet points with links that are used as evidence for his argument, heck he posted them all right at the top so everyone could see his supporting evidence. I addressed each and every one of these pieces of supporting evidence individually.

here is one of his bullet points:
A computer-generated hoax paper from the ‘Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology’ (CRAP) is accepted for publication in the Open Information Science Journal.

it contains a link, here is where that link takes you: OA publisher accepts fake paper - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences -open it, take a look at it.

He is using the article as evidence, it talks about an online open journal that accepted a computer generated "study". It is this journal that I looked into and dissected, it was his EVIDENCE used to support his argument. This is the two bit journal I posted the quote above in regards too (as well as a lot of other information if you care to revisit my post).

So no, this is NOT attacking your source (nor is it attacking his source for that matter) I did not touch your source, I examined the EVIDENCE that your source offered as the springboard for his argument, and it was found to be weak.

speaking of evidence, this seems to be evidence that you really do not have any clue whatsoever of what is contained in your links you offer. It also is apparently evidence that you do nothing other than the most basic skim of material for anything that you feel may bolster your point, and apparently ignore and/or are not able to see anything other than what you want to see, and that you have zero comprehension of what you are reading or how wrong you frequently are as a result.
Click to expand...

You gave opinions not proof. That means nothing you have not shown where they are wrong. You attacked them as a source not their content
 
ptif219 said:
You gave opinions not proof. That means nothing you have not shown where they are wrong. You attacked them as a source not their content
Click to expand...

PLFrontier-1.png
 
ptif219 said:
No, always because you have nothing of substance
Click to expand...

You really need to expand your horizons. I've made some very substantive posts. It's just that I've learned that irrationality can't be countered with either substance or empirical facts.
 
ptif219 said:
No, always because you have nothing of substance
Click to expand...
Look here sir.

Various posters have been displaying well-reasoned arguments this entire time, myself among them (I'd like to think, at least).

Have you ever examined those arguments and countered them with your own?

THAT is how you debate - so we've been debating you, whereas you appear to simply throw broken-record statements at us, or new links that ALSO fail to support your position.

How can you seriously be thinking you've won?

Everyone I can think of in this thread, outside yourself, has concluded that you are incorrect in the majority of your statements - and yet you continue to make those claims, without any indication that you have even considered glancing at our well-reasoned disagreements with your statements.

If you are unwilling to even consider alternates to your position, then how can you reasonably expect to expand your knowledge?

Or is it that you don't expect to?

Ahhhh, **** it.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not always.

Just when the level of discussion demands it.
Click to expand...

And this level of discussion definately demands it.
Since the only thing that matters is ptif 219 being right.

Here I'll admit it YOU'RE RIGHT ptif 219.
You are right and everyone else on this thread is wrong.
There,happy now.

I believe something I recently wrote bears repeating.

There are a few an old Discordian sayings when it comes to threads like this:

"When it comes to internet forum debating,sometimes beating the person you are debating is not as important as the number of people who pressed the "like" button on what you have to say.

"Sometimes trying to convince your opponent you are right is not as important as convincing everyone else who is viewing the thread."

"Sometimes it is better to be wrong,admit it, and apologize, then to be right and have everyone on the thread still think you are a total jerkwad".


Congragulations, you've won.
 
ptif219.
You have given links and people have posted their objections to the content of and trustworthiness of those links. People have posted links and you have refused to respond to them in a substantial manner. Please try to put at least as much effort into understanding and responding to people's posts and their objections to your posts as they have to yours.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You really need to expand your horizons. I've made some very substantive posts. It's just that I've learned that irrationality can't be countered with either substance or empirical facts.
Click to expand...

You have nothing and show nothing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom