It should go without saying, but I’m with you, Firx. Jorolat has been avoiding posting in good faith, and he is an outrageous jackass. And so…
Jorolat wrote (in the OT):
Well, considering that later on you write,
then I feel completely justified in labelling you a tremendous hypocrite. Since it’s okay, in your world, for you to label and dismiss natural selection as supernatural or a knee-jerk response, it must be okay for me to label and dismiss you as a crackpot.
Wait, that word doesn’t really sum up what I’m thinking. Neither does ‘jerk’, ‘twit’, ‘fuckwad’, ‘jackass’, or numerous other labels. You dismiss natural selection as metaphysical without any supporting evidence, you claim incorrect things about Galilleo and the heliocentrist/geocentrist controversy of ages past, and you appear to think that the Fibonacci sequence stuff has merit in supporting your theory (not to mention other nonsense). You have held these positions for at least seven months, despite gentle and not-so-gentle reminders that you are probably deluding yourself.
I must say that you appear to be willfully ignorant.
On a message board devoted to fighting ignorance, the above is probably one of the worst insults I could employ.
(I’m fairly sure that Jorolat won’t read what’s below - as if I thought he’d read what’s above - but allow me to vent some more, please: I’ve seen a lot of ‘Jorolats’ but restrained myself due to the idealistic hope that the Jorolats will respond well to rational arguments. How wrong I was…)
The ‘answer’ to how evolution occurs is internal - genetic mutation followed by natural selection based on how well the mutated organisms fit into their environment. What, exactly, is “supernatural” about this?
Just because you don’t understand what the term “natural selection” means doesn’t mean it’s supernatural in any way.
Cite? (Bwahahahaha!)
You’ve been doing a fine job of it so far.
Yes, like “natural selection is metaphysical.” Very tedious, indeed, especially when the claimant ignores those who respond.
History repeats itself all the time, as you have proven. Look at how well your current GQ thread has repeated the one you began in February. Beyond that, you have now directly compared yourself to Galilleo by saying, “I have been accused of not being a scientist and as geocentrism was the science of its day I do not consider this a crime.”. The funny part is that geocentrism in the time of Galilleo, based as it was on a dogmatic, Church-driven desire to prove that the Earth was the center of the universe, was never truly a ‘science’. Your own writings compare well with geocentrism, not heliocentrism.
No, wait, I take that back - your own ‘work’ compares well to neither. The people researching geocentrism actually did work on it. From what I can see, you’ve just read some articles, jumped to a conclusion, and then dismissed every attempt to actually answer your posts. You have yet to make a single calculation or run a single experiment. In this light, the geocentrists of the days of yore would be better company than you.
Natural life is not a ‘scientist’, but it can be investigated scientifically. (Or are you denying that, say, biology is a valid science? If so, you are knowingly basing your own argument on a non-science, and dropping yourself into the dung-heap of ridiculous propositions.) Scientific investigations have been done for natural selection, evolution, heliocentrism, etc. You claimed you cannot investigate your own theory scientifically because you don’t have the time or materials. I doubt you could do it because you appear to not understand what science is.
Which is a decent explanation of why you deny natural selection. And since you have no good evidence to support what you claim, then “religious zealot” fits you very well: your attachment to your hypothesis can only be described as a deep faith.
(Oh, and I take back the “worst kind of pseudoscientist” crack. You don’t sell anything, but you are arrogant enough to have started a newsletter, and that puts you one tiny step above the “worst kind,” who do both.)
On a slightly different note, Captain Amazing wrote:
I think you’re giving Jorolat waaay too much credit in that comparison. It implies that he’s taking easy science and making it too complex to understand, when all he’s really doing is spewing ignorance of, and intolerance to, accepted and well-tested theories. A true “anti-Carl Sagan” would take something simple and explain it using lots of ten-cent words, and probably end with “but since you don’t have a PhD, you won’t understand.” Jorolat isn’t an anti-Carl Sagan, he’s a complete anti-scientist who denies the evidence before him in favor of his own unsupported thoughts.