MaskedDeviantReturns
Watchers 9
Collection
- Jan 1
- Canada
- Deviant for 9 years
- He / Him
Profile Comments 206
Oi there, how are ya doing, Masked? Haven't seen ya in a long, long time.
Rejoice:
The Vaxzombies "won" - I'm actually BANNED from the stupid Forums.
Well, MORE FREE TIME TO MYSELF, then.
LOL!
Also, I see a rather heated discussion down there.
To sum up:
EA is very correct about one thing that I keep telling you and other deaf morons:
Science. Requires. Direct. Observation.
Now, go and continue BELIEVING otherwise, like you always do.
After all, you are a very obedient SLAVE to your own dumb FALLACIES.
Oh wow, it finally actually happened. It only took how many years of you running rampant and breaking the rules with zero consequences to your actions for it all to eventually catch up to you? I'm sure that this is what your goal was the whole time, now you can really play the victim card. Though I suppose you should be greatful that the mods you spent so long spewing insults at didn't just ban your whole account, not that you use DA for anything other than throwing tantrums on the forums.
Also, "vaxzombies"? So are you anti-vax on top of everything else? Not surprising. You say this means more free time to yourself, that is interesting because normal people only go on the DA forum to kill time. The way you put that makes it out as more of a job or an addiction of yours. That being said, do yourself a favor and not do what you did last time you rage quit the forums. As in don't lurk the forums and then post your opinions on people's userpages.
But alas, it looks like the bitter crusade of Koshej trying to destroy the SCIENCE of paleontology with the power of fallacy riddled temper tantrums has come to an end. Throwing in one last limp wristed jab before fading away into irrelevance. Maybe one day, you'll look back at the years you spent here and feel ashamed of yourself.
I'm anti-stupid.
ANY type of stupid.
There's no SCIENCE where there's no DIRECT OBSERVATION.
It is very nicely explained (much better than I'd have patience to) here:
Even though things like the speed of light is based entirely on things that are directly observable, but you still make up unobservable unprovable claims and say that God did it because I say God did it and if you don't believe me then you are an arrogant God hater, prove me wrong lol.
This is something that many people have spent many years telling you, but you didn't listen then and you certainly are not going to start listening now. So it is pointless to keep trying to reasoning with you. All I can say is that the forums will be a whole lot more civil without you around to tarnish the reputation of Jewish people.
Goodbye.
As comments are closed on the forum (about giraffes and evolution) where you replied to me, I hope you will be willing to continue the discussion here on your page.
Just as broken shards of glass on a floor is evidence of an intruder but not proof that there is one.
Broken shards of glass are not evidence for an intruder, they are evidence of a broken window. Do not confuse the two. While a narrative might presume an intruder broke the window, it by itself cannot prove anything beyond itself. A broken window is a broken window, which could have happened in any number of ways. Unless there are actual footprints, fingerprints, or other substantial evidence that indicates something other than a broken window, you have no narrative, and no answer for the cause of your broken window. Instead of an intruder, it could instead have been a vandal, or if a baseball is present, it could suggest (but not prove) that it was an accident by a local child playing. There is no evidence of an intruder, unless there is actual evidence of a person being where it would be intruding.
And your observable evidence for God is...?
Beyond your comprehension, and beyond your desire to know. Leave it at that, lest you be cursed beyond what you already are for your irreverence and dishonest arguments.
I am setting up no such thing, giraffes and okapi are animals which share a common ancestor with the likes of deer and bovine.
Then produce the evidence of this common ancestor. Bones would be good, but would not be substantial enough proof as it is. A living example of the animal would be best, as well as the direct observation of that animal's breeding habits producing such biodiversity. DNA does not prove ancestry, it proves the genetic codification of biological traits, just as your window does not prove an intruder.
I am exemplifying how given enough generations, you can take the wolf and result in descendents ranging from a chihuahua to a great dane.
All of the DNA code necessary for the chihuahua to exist already existed in the original dogwolf creature that was standalone created. What you are describing is hybridization and selective breeding, not evolution, or at least, not evolution as seen by the narrative of macro-evolution. Every Dog and Wolf are still biologically fertile with every other Dog and Wolf. It is not macroevolution going on, and every dog is still concurrent living with every other dog. It did not require millions of years to accomplish, and even after a mass extinction, the dogs and wolves will remain fertile with each other. There is no DNA that was added for us to get the variety of dogs we have today, it's all just a matter of dominant and recessive genes and their expression or submission.
I am going through the parameters step by step to make sure that you agree upon the standard of evidence.
I probably don't.
And if that were a crime scene of a suspecting breaking and entering, the broken window would be accounted as evidence for how the intruder got in. Just like with your entirely pointless "ah ha" moment regarding the ancient fabric which inspired the cautionary tale of the Emperor's new cloths, you are arguing over the wrong things. Perhaps on purpose to drown out the actual topic.
"Beyond your comprehension, and beyond your desire to know. Leave it at that, lest you be cursed beyond what you already are for your irreverence and dishonest arguments."
That is exactly what I expected to hear from you. Since you are too prideful to disclose this evidence for God, I can just as well claim that you are lying and that you don't actually have any. Either that or you are mentally ill and have deluded yourself into believing that you can see and/or hear God. That which is presented without evidence, can just as easily be dismissed without evidence.
"A living example of the animal would be best, as well as the direct observation of that animal's breeding habits producing such biodiversity."
Do you know what the word "extinct" means? I just want to make sure that you understand that you are demanding an impossible standard of evidence by wanting to see a living example of an extinct species. Should I demand that you present to me Moses living in the flesh so that may personally interview him? Would you be satisfied if I simply said that I do possess the evidence you want, but that it is simply beyond your comprehension or your desire to know?
"All of the DNA code necessary for the chihuahua to exist already existed in the original dogwolf creature that was standalone created"
Then explain to me why a wolf never gives birth to a chihuahua.
"There is no DNA that was added for us to get the variety of dogs we have today"
New genetic material is added often in both quantity and novel genotypes. Mutation and duplication work to constantly add new DNA and new patterns of nucleotides. Mostly this results in neutral and unfit changes. Very rarely this results in adaptive changes, but when they do happen they spread fast to everyone in the population.
"I probably don't."
Well, given that you take ancient folklore and your vague personal observations that you are too prideful to disclose as evidence for God, yet do not take the entirety of genetic research and the fossil record as evidence that long ago entirely different animals lived on this planet than there are today, then your standard of evidence is heavily biased towards religious belief.