| Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry19-03-2022 13:12 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
Biogeochemisty is at the interface of biology, geology, and chemistry.
Biochemistry and geochemisty are real fields of science too.
To master biogeochemistry requires far more years of study than any of the three fields alone.
But there are natural phenomenon that just don't make sense unless you know all three.
What you have at this website is a library of biogeochemistry.
A quiet place to study where the trolls can't get you.
If you don't already know the reputation of this website, it a notorious den of trolls who wait in ambush to attack as a team.
But don't have to see any of the troll garbage.
The library here is quiet and doesn't stink like the rest of the place.
And you don't even have to be a member of the site to use the library.
It may even be better NOT to become a member if you just want to use the library.
Just click "sealover" by the avatar to see the list of available science lessons.
The subject titles of each post should help you find what you may be looking for
Why do I encourage you to have you your old college professors check it out?
Because there really aren't that many biogeochemists in the world who have ever explained all this stuff so clearly.
They didn't have as many years of study to get as broad a base.
Much of this will likely be new to them.
They are likely to find at least some of it very interesting.
They may also find the humiliation of Ignoramus that is going on in the troll-infested discussion of interest as well. |
| 19-03-2022 18:31 |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★
(5197) |
Why are you even here? Just free web storage? You aren't intelligent to find your own free host, or just like to steal from others? There are several social media platforms, free to use, which likely provide a generous amount of space to store you 'lessons'. I don't use those sites, since they are data-mines, and an abundance of advertisement, propaganda... But still, free to use your space, as you please, long as it's democrat approved, you won't get banned or censored.
This is a debate forum, which sort of requires opposing views/opinions. You won't get much debate, if everyone is forced to agree. It's the wrong place for authoritarian rule.
I'm sure you really enjoy juggling test tube sized sample in the lab. The planet isn't a lab though, and you don't have the level of control needed to scale up to a global scale. Too many factors beyond your control, to mess up your experiments. |
| 19-03-2022 20:47 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21597) |
sealover wrote:
Biogeochemisty is at the interface of biology, geology, and chemistry.
There isn't one.
sealover wrote:
Biochemistry and geochemisty are real fields of science too.
Nope. Just chemistry and biology. You still don't seem to understand what science is, though I've explained it to you, and so have others.
sealover wrote:
To master biogeochemistry requires far more years of study than any of the three fields alone.
Study means nothing. People study the position of a rock. What does it get them?
sealover wrote:
But there are natural phenomenon that just don't make sense unless you know all three.
You haven't listed any. All you've done is throw buzzwords around.
sealover wrote:
What you have at this website is a library of biogeochemistry.
What library?
sealover wrote:
A quiet place to study where the trolls can't get you.
You're a troll telling people how to avoid trolls. Gotit.
sealover wrote:
If you don't already know the reputation of this website, it a notorious den of trolls who wait in ambush to attack as a team.
Nah. You're only one troll.
sealover wrote:
But don't have to see any of the troll garbage.
Except yours, right?
sealover wrote:
The library here is quiet and doesn't stink like the rest of the place.
And you don't even have to be a member of the site to use the library.
It may even be better NOT to become a member if you just want to use the library.
Just click "sealover" by the avatar to see the list of available science lessons.
What science lessons?
sealover wrote:
The subject titles of each post should help you find what you may be looking for
Why do I encourage you to have you your old college professors check it out?
Because there really aren't that many biogeochemists in the world who have ever explained all this stuff so clearly.
You aren't explaining anything.
sealover wrote:
They didn't have as many years of study to get as broad a base.
Much of this will likely be new to them.
They are likely to find at least some of it very interesting.
They may also find the humiliation of Ignoramus that is going on in the troll-infested discussion of interest as well.
Arrogance. Insult fallacies. Trolling. Spamming. No argument presented.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 19-03-2022 20:48 |
| RE: Ignoramus already introduced himself19-03-2022 22:19 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
I see I won't have to introduce you to the characters.
The trolls are already descending.
I don't anyone even needs to be a high school graduate to see the absurdity of the claims being made.
Keep it up. You're going to be famous. You are the climate change Ignoramus!
He provides excellent points to quote for science lessons. Seriously!
I'm sure we'll be hearing more from him. He just can't get himself to stay away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Biogeochemisty is at the interface of biology, geology, and chemistry.
There isn't one.
sealover wrote:
Biochemistry and geochemisty are real fields of science too.
Nope. Just chemistry and biology. You still don't seem to understand what science is, though I've explained it to you, and so have others.
sealover wrote:
To master biogeochemistry requires far more years of study than any of the three fields alone.
Study means nothing. People study the position of a rock. What does it get them?
sealover wrote:
But there are natural phenomenon that just don't make sense unless you know all three.
You haven't listed any. All you've done is throw buzzwords around.
sealover wrote:
What you have at this website is a library of biogeochemistry.
What library?
sealover wrote:
A quiet place to study where the trolls can't get you.
You're a troll telling people how to avoid trolls. Gotit.
sealover wrote:
If you don't already know the reputation of this website, it a notorious den of trolls who wait in ambush to attack as a team.
Nah. You're only one troll.
sealover wrote:
But don't have to see any of the troll garbage.
Except yours, right?
sealover wrote:
The library here is quiet and doesn't stink like the rest of the place.
And you don't even have to be a member of the site to use the library.
It may even be better NOT to become a member if you just want to use the library.
Just click "sealover" by the avatar to see the list of available science lessons.
What science lessons?
sealover wrote:
The subject titles of each post should help you find what you may be looking for
Why do I encourage you to have you your old college professors check it out?
Because there really aren't that many biogeochemists in the world who have ever explained all this stuff so clearly.
You aren't explaining anything.
sealover wrote:
They didn't have as many years of study to get as broad a base.
Much of this will likely be new to them.
They are likely to find at least some of it very interesting.
They may also find the humiliation of Ignoramus that is going on in the troll-infested discussion of interest as well.
Arrogance. Insult fallacies. Trolling. Spamming. No argument presented. |
| 19-03-2022 23:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
sealover wrote:
I see I won't have to introduce you to the characters.
The trolls are already descending.
I don't anyone even needs to be a high school graduate to see the absurdity of the claims being made.
Keep it up. You're going to be famous. You are the climate change Ignoramus!
He provides excellent points to quote for science lessons. Seriously!
I'm sure we'll be hearing more from him. He just can't get himself to stay away.
Spamming. Trolling. Buzzword fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| RE: Or they will just call you a "liar"19-03-2022 23:51 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
Need I say more?
It is utter futility and perhaps a bit masochistic to try to "debate" these fools.
The counter argument is often "There isn't one." "Nope" "Science is not facts"
"You still don't seem to know what science is."
Well, they wouldn't have to call it gibber-babble buzzwords if they were capable of learning the language.
Projection of their own ignorance makes them think nobody else understands the language.
I apologize if the language gets tough.
I try to use the most precise terms because it saves a lot of time.
They are the same precise terms that other scientists use, and they can be looked up easily by anyone with basic research skills.
To follow up on the "spetic" tank by the coral reef.
I was simply called a "liar".
Then "proof" of my lie was submitted (pictures of coral reef not yet dead)
As well as the assertion that NO coral reef ANYWHERE has been harmed.
As well as the assertion that I was simply a puppet of Communist masters who gave me the "lie" to cut and paste and spread as propaganda.
If I were, indeed, a "liar", perhaps it would be intimidating to have my "lie" exposed.
But intimidating or not, it is ALWAYS insulting. And that's the point.
Plus, you don't need no stinkin' evidence to win the debate that way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Biogeochemisty is at the interface of biology, geology, and chemistry.
There isn't one.
sealover wrote:
Biochemistry and geochemisty are real fields of science too.
Nope. Just chemistry and biology. You still don't seem to understand what science is, though I've explained it to you, and so have others.
sealover wrote:
To master biogeochemistry requires far more years of study than any of the three fields alone. But there are natural phenomenon that just don't make sense unless you know all three.
You haven't listed any. All you've done is throw buzzwords around.
What library?
You're a troll telling people how to avoid trolls. Gotit.
[quote]sealover wrote:
If you don't already know the reputation of this website, it a notorious den of trolls who wait in ambush to attack as a team.
Nah. You're only one troll.
sealover wrote:
But don't have to see any of the troll garbage.
Except yours, right?
What science lessons?
Arrogance. Insult fallacies. Trolling. Spamming. No argument presented. |
| 20-03-2022 00:02 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
sealover wrote:
Need I say more?
It is utter futility and perhaps a bit masochistic to try to "debate" these fools.
The counter argument is often "There isn't one." "Nope" "Science is not facts"
"You still don't seem to know what science is."
Well, they wouldn't have to call it gibber-babble buzzwords if they were capable of learning the language.
Projection of their own ignorance makes them think nobody else understands the language.
I apologize if the language gets tough.
I try to use the most precise terms because it saves a lot of time.
They are the same precise terms that other scientists use, and they can be looked up easily by anyone with basic research skills.
To follow up on the "spetic" tank by the coral reef.
I was simply called a "liar".
Then "proof" of my lie was submitted (pictures of coral reef not yet dead)
As well as the assertion that NO coral reef ANYWHERE has been harmed.
As well as the assertion that I was simply a puppet of Communist masters who gave me the "lie" to cut and paste and spread as propaganda.
If I were, indeed, a "liar", perhaps it would be intimidating to have my "lie" exposed.
But intimidating or not, it is ALWAYS insulting. And that's the point.
Plus, you don't need no stinkin' evidence to win the debate that way.
Random phrases. No apparent coherency. No argument presented.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-03-2022 00:18 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2933) |
geobiowhiner wrote:
The counter argument is often "There isn't one." "Nope" "Science is not facts"
"You still don't seem to know what science is.
Fine. Let's go a different direction. Forget about anything you call "science" for just a second.
Let's discuss observation for a bit. It seems to me every time I hear about some "climate change" disaster, it is always under the ocean or in the Arctic, or somewhere no one ever goes. If this "climate change" thing (still undefined) is so awful, I should be able to see it.
I live in the Midwest and have an acreage. Please name one thing I can observe on my land that could be linked to climate change.
Thanks.
Edited on 20-03-2022 00:19 |
| RE: In the Mirror They See "Trolls who play word games"20-03-2022 00:36 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
If you want to find the right phrases to humiliate an Internet bully, look no farther than their own posts.
What did they just call you?
They thought that it would hurt you for some reason.
Apparently, I am one of the "trolls who play word games..."
Hmmm.
Well, I do post science lessons on my own thread.
That sounds like an "unambiguous definition" of a "troll", doesn't it? |
| 20-03-2022 01:32 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14407) |
seal over wrote:Need I say more?
You haven't said anything yet.
seal over wrote:"You still don't seem to know what science is."
You must find that embarrassing. On the one hand, you claim to have a Ph.D. in biographimetricity but on the other, you can't seem to find a valid excuse for not knowing what science is.
Of course you blame others for your shortcomings. Typical.
seal over wrote:Well, they wouldn't have to call it gibber-babble buzzwords if they were capable of learning the language.
My command of the English language exceeds yours by a substantial degree. You simply spew technical-sounding gibberish at the uneducated in an effort to bamboozle them into submission, i.e. I am not your target audience. This is why you are so intently focused on newcomers.
seal over wrote:I try to use the most precise terms because it saves a lot of time.
You were forced to pivot on this after I mocked you for claiming that your gibberish was intended to bring the level of discussion down to the layman's level. Now you are claiming that you are trying to be precise. At least you are not claiming to be accurate.
seal over wrote: They are the same precise terms that other scientists use,
Some of them are, just not the terms you pulled from your religious doctrine to regurgitate here in your attempt to indoctrinate as many as possible.
seal over wrote:
[quote]seal over wrote:To follow up on the "spetic" tank by the coral reef.
I really wish you would.
seal over wrote:I was simply called a "liar".
That was the most accurate wording.
seal over wrote:Then "proof" of my lie was submitted (pictures of coral reef not yet dead)
I bet you felt the splash of cold water on that one, eh? You weren't expecting anyone to call you on your booolsch't. Preachers such as yourself never see it coming.
seal over wrote:As well as the assertion that NO coral reef ANYWHERE has been harmed.
Now you are pulling a tmiddles, i.e. assigning a bogus position to someone and then attacking him for the bogus position you assigned to him.
Nobody claimed that no coral reefs have ever been harmed.
Oh, regarding your claim of having been called a liar ... it's because you are a liar.
seal over wrote:As well as the assertion that I was simply a puppet of Communist masters who gave me the "lie" to cut and paste and spread as propaganda.
The correct wording is "Marxist" masters, not "Communist" masters.
seal over wrote:If I were, indeed, a "liar", perhaps it would be intimidating to have my "lie" exposed.
It sure sent you into a panic.
Cheers! |
| RE: The Tale of the Disruptive Student20-03-2022 01:54 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
The Tale of the Disruptive Student
She arrived late to class that day, as usual.
The unusual part was HOW late she arrived.
She missed the first half of the lecture.
She required that the instructor stop everything and fill her in.
The instructor was patient, but it was a nightmare.
The was a high point in the process.
When the instructor told her that the sun was a star, there was that beautiful moment when she got it. It was an important piece of the puzzle of the universe that she understood for the first time. That look of delight!
It delayed the lecture and required omitting some of the material.
Maybe it was worth it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
seal over wrote:Need I say more?
You haven't said anything yet.
seal over wrote:"You still don't seem to know what science is."
You must find that embarrassing. On the one hand, you claim to have a Ph.D. in biographimetricity but on the other, you can't seem to find a valid excuse for not knowing what science is.
Of course you blame others for your shortcomings. Typical.
seal over wrote:Well, they wouldn't have to call it gibber-babble buzzwords if they were capable of learning the language.
My command of the English language exceeds yours by a substantial degree. You simply spew technical-sounding gibberish at the uneducated in an effort to bamboozle them into submission, i.e. I am not your target audience. This is why you are so intently focused on newcomers.
seal over wrote:I try to use the most precise terms because it saves a lot of time.
You were forced to pivot on this after I mocked you for claiming that your gibberish was intended to bring the level of discussion down to the layman's level. Now you are claiming that you are trying to be precise. At least you are not claiming to be accurate.
seal over wrote: They are the same precise terms that other scientists use,
Some of them are, just not the terms you pulled from your religious doctrine to regurgitate here in your attempt to indoctrinate as many as possible.
seal over wrote:
[quote]seal over wrote:To follow up on the "spetic" tank by the coral reef.
I really wish you would.
seal over wrote:I was simply called a "liar".
That was the most accurate wording.
seal over wrote:Then "proof" of my lie was submitted (pictures of coral reef not yet dead)
I bet you felt the splash of cold water on that one, eh? You weren't expecting anyone to call you on your booolsch't. Preachers such as yourself never see it coming.
seal over wrote:As well as the assertion that NO coral reef ANYWHERE has been harmed.
Now you are pulling a tmiddles, i.e. assigning a bogus position to someone and then attacking him for the bogus position you assigned to him.
Nobody claimed that no coral reefs have ever been harmed.
Oh, regarding your claim of having been called a liar ... it's because you are a liar.
seal over wrote:As well as the assertion that I was simply a puppet of Communist masters who gave me the "lie" to cut and paste and spread as propaganda.
The correct wording is "Marxist" masters, not "Communist" masters.
seal over wrote:If I were, indeed, a "liar", perhaps it would be intimidating to have my "lie" exposed.
It sure sent you into a panic.
Cheers! |
| 20-03-2022 02:01 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14407) |
seal over wrote:If you want to find the right phrases to humiliate an Internet bully (singular), look no farther than their (plural) own posts.
English is not your strong suit.
seal over wrote:What did they (plural) just call you?
I (singular) called you a liar. Your memory is failing.
seal over wrote:They (plural) thought that it would hurt you for some reason.
Sticks and stones, etc...
seal over wrote:Apparently, I am one of the "trolls who play word games..."
Your lack of English proficiency precludes you from playing word games or engaging in wordcraft. |
| RE: Nobody will see this unless I just quote the most ignorant part20-03-2022 02:20 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
Nobody will see this unless I just quote the most ignorant part.
Or leave the whole thing at a safe enough distance from my response.
They won't see it if they came to join the rational discussion part of this website.
They won't have to.
They could if they wanted.
It's easy enough to find the absurd and often disgusting things you post.
But who would want to?
They don't have to.
I imagine they would prefer not to, so they'll take the short cut past you.
IBdaMann wrote:
seal over wrote:If you want to find the right phrases to humiliate an Internet bully (singular), look no farther than their (plural) own posts.
English is not your strong suit.
seal over wrote:What did they (plural) just call you?
I (singular) called you a liar. Your memory is failing.
seal over wrote:They (plural) thought that it would hurt you for some reason.
Sticks and stones, etc...
seal over wrote:Apparently, I am one of the "trolls who play word games..."
Your lack of English proficiency precludes you from playing word games or engaging in wordcraft. |
| 20-03-2022 08:19 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
sealover wrote:
Nobody will see this unless I just quote the most ignorant part.
Or leave the whole thing at a safe enough distance from my response.
They won't see it if they came to join the rational discussion part of this website.
They won't have to.
They could if they wanted.
It's easy enough to find the absurd and often disgusting things you post.
But who would want to?
They don't have to.
I imagine they would prefer not to, so they'll take the short cut past you.
Trolling. Omniscience fallacies. No argument presented.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| RE: The other girl who really was smart enough to get it.27-04-2022 06:42 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
The other girl who really was smart enough to get it.
The disruptive student who was delighted to finally learn that the sun was a star at age 20 wasn't too bright.
This is the story about the other girl who really was smart enough to get it.
She already knew that the sun was a star. Like, since she was six.
What she DIDN'T know was that the sun was a star of increasing luminosity since the time of the primordial earth.
This made it possible to imagine how earth's climate must have changed over the incredibly long time as luminosity increased and increased.
It was a natural history class, and the lecture was to provide a context for the evolutionary biology, geologic history, and biogeochemistry of Earth's history.
She wasn't like that other idiot girl who wasted so much of the class time that day.
This other girl wasn't just smart, she was REALLY smart.
This was a community college where it was rare to have a girl so smart.
She was the only one in the audience who was actually getting it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sealover wrote:
The Tale of the Disruptive Student
She arrived late to class that day, as usual.
The unusual part was HOW late she arrived.
She missed the first half of the lecture.
She required that the instructor stop everything and fill her in.
The instructor was patient, but it was a nightmare.
The was a high point in the process.
When the instructor told her that the sun was a star, there was that beautiful moment when she got it. It was an important piece of the puzzle of the universe that she understood for the first time. That look of delight!
It delayed the lecture and required omitting some of the material.
Maybe it was worth it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
seal over wrote:Need I say more?
You haven't said anything yet.
seal over wrote:"You still don't seem to know what science is."
You must find that embarrassing. On the one hand, you claim to have a Ph.D. in biographimetricity but on the other, you can't seem to find a valid excuse for not knowing what science is.
Of course you blame others for your shortcomings. Typical.
seal over wrote:Well, they wouldn't have to call it gibber-babble buzzwords if they were capable of learning the language.
My command of the English language exceeds yours by a substantial degree. You simply spew technical-sounding gibberish at the uneducated in an effort to bamboozle them into submission, i.e. I am not your target audience. This is why you are so intently focused on newcomers.
seal over wrote:I try to use the most precise terms because it saves a lot of time.
You were forced to pivot on this after I mocked you for claiming that your gibberish was intended to bring the level of discussion down to the layman's level. Now you are claiming that you are trying to be precise. At least you are not claiming to be accurate.
seal over wrote: They are the same precise terms that other scientists use,
Some of them are, just not the terms you pulled from your religious doctrine to regurgitate here in your attempt to indoctrinate as many as possible.
seal over wrote:
[quote]seal over wrote:To follow up on the "spetic" tank by the coral reef.
I really wish you would.
seal over wrote:I was simply called a "liar".
That was the most accurate wording.
seal over wrote:Then "proof" of my lie was submitted (pictures of coral reef not yet dead)
I bet you felt the splash of cold water on that one, eh? You weren't expecting anyone to call you on your booolsch't. Preachers such as yourself never see it coming.
seal over wrote:As well as the assertion that NO coral reef ANYWHERE has been harmed.
Now you are pulling a tmiddles, i.e. assigning a bogus position to someone and then attacking him for the bogus position you assigned to him.
Nobody claimed that no coral reefs have ever been harmed.
Oh, regarding your claim of having been called a liar ... it's because you are a liar.
seal over wrote:As well as the assertion that I was simply a puppet of Communist masters who gave me the "lie" to cut and paste and spread as propaganda.
The correct wording is "Marxist" masters, not "Communist" masters.
seal over wrote:If I were, indeed, a "liar", perhaps it would be intimidating to have my "lie" exposed.
It sure sent you into a panic.
Cheers! |
|
| RE: For the other student, it absolutely WAS worth it.28-04-2022 00:02 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
For the other student, it absolutely WAS worth it.
The tale of the disruptive student was about a not so bright 20 year old community college student who learned for the first time that the sun is a star.
That joy of discovery, that delighted look on her face. That feeling of joy that someone understood. Despite all the trouble she caused...
"Maybe it was worth it".
For the other student, it absolutely WAS worth it. Every lecture.
She was freakin' SMART and she DID get it. Every time. Every lecture.
"Get what?".
That is what the OTHER student would have asked.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sealover wrote:
The other girl who really was smart enough to get it.
The disruptive student who was delighted to finally learn that the sun was a star at age 20 wasn't too bright.
This is the story about the other girl who really was smart enough to get it.
She already knew that the sun was a star. Like, since she was six.
What she DIDN'T know was that the sun was a star of increasing luminosity since the time of the primordial earth.
This made it possible to imagine how earth's climate must have changed over the incredibly long time as luminosity increased and increased.
It was a natural history class, and the lecture was to provide a context for the evolutionary biology, geologic history, and biogeochemistry of Earth's history.
She wasn't like that other idiot girl who wasted so much of the class time that day.
This other girl wasn't just smart, she was REALLY smart.
This was a community college where it was rare to have a girl so smart.
She was the only one in the audience who was actually getting it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sealover wrote:
The Tale of the Disruptive Student
She arrived late to class that day, as usual.
The unusual part was HOW late she arrived.
She missed the first half of the lecture.
She required that the instructor stop everything and fill her in.
The instructor was patient, but it was a nightmare.
The was a high point in the process.
When the instructor told her that the sun was a star, there was that beautiful moment when she got it. It was an important piece of the puzzle of the universe that she understood for the first time. That look of delight!
It delayed the lecture and required omitting some of the material.
Maybe it was worth it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
seal over wrote:Need I say more?
You haven't said anything yet.
seal over wrote:"You still don't seem to know what science is."
You must find that embarrassing. On the one hand, you claim to have a Ph.D. in biographimetricity but on the other, you can't seem to find a valid excuse for not knowing what science is.
Of course you blame others for your shortcomings. Typical.
seal over wrote:Well, they wouldn't have to call it gibber-babble buzzwords if they were capable of learning the language.
My command of the English language exceeds yours by a substantial degree. You simply spew technical-sounding gibberish at the uneducated in an effort to bamboozle them into submission, i.e. I am not your target audience. This is why you are so intently focused on newcomers.
seal over wrote:I try to use the most precise terms because it saves a lot of time.
You were forced to pivot on this after I mocked you for claiming that your gibberish was intended to bring the level of discussion down to the layman's level. Now you are claiming that you are trying to be precise. At least you are not claiming to be accurate.
seal over wrote: They are the same precise terms that other scientists use,
Some of them are, just not the terms you pulled from your religious doctrine to regurgitate here in your attempt to indoctrinate as many as possible.
seal over wrote:
[quote]seal over wrote:To follow up on the "spetic" tank by the coral reef.
I really wish you would.
seal over wrote:I was simply called a "liar".
That was the most accurate wording.
seal over wrote:Then "proof" of my lie was submitted (pictures of coral reef not yet dead)
I bet you felt the splash of cold water on that one, eh? You weren't expecting anyone to call you on your booolsch't. Preachers such as yourself never see it coming.
seal over wrote:As well as the assertion that NO coral reef ANYWHERE has been harmed.
Now you are pulling a tmiddles, i.e. assigning a bogus position to someone and then attacking him for the bogus position you assigned to him.
Nobody claimed that no coral reefs have ever been harmed.
Oh, regarding your claim of having been called a liar ... it's because you are a liar.
seal over wrote:As well as the assertion that I was simply a puppet of Communist masters who gave me the "lie" to cut and paste and spread as propaganda.
The correct wording is "Marxist" masters, not "Communist" masters.
seal over wrote:If I were, indeed, a "liar", perhaps it would be intimidating to have my "lie" exposed.
It sure sent you into a panic.
Cheers! |
| 28-04-2022 17:03 |
GretaGroupie ★★☆☆☆
(350) |
sealover wrote:
Just click "sealover" by the avatar to see the list of available science lessons.
Seelover I will tell the prof about your website to see if he wants to look at it but does it have boys in speedos cause if it does he will for sure want to look at it.
 |
| RE: A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper01-05-2022 02:16 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper.
Dr. Gersper was a soil scientist at UC Berkeley.
He taught the graduate seminar course about how to teach science.
He said to imagine that your target audience is comprised of above average intelligence 7th graders.
Can you make your point in a way that an above average intelligence 7th grader would understand?
He suggested that if we couldn't do that, we had failed to make our point clearly.
But an above average intelligence 7th grader knows that alligators are NOT amphibians.
You can't set the bar TOO low for the target audience.
A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper. |
| 01-05-2022 05:38 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14407) |
sealover wrote:He said to imagine that your target audience is comprised of above average intelligence 7th graders. Can you make your point in a way that an above average intelligence 7th grader would understand?
He suggested that if we couldn't do that, we had failed to make our point clearly.
Intelligent 7th-graders cannot understand your undefined buzzwords or your rambling, pointless gibber-babble.
Your posts fail the test.
Perhaps you could unambiguously define your terms. That would be a game-changer. |
| 01-05-2022 06:59 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
sealover wrote:
A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper.
Dr. Gersper was a soil scientist at UC Berkeley.
He taught the graduate seminar course about how to teach science.
He said to imagine that your target audience is comprised of above average intelligence 7th graders.
Can you make your point in a way that an above average intelligence 7th grader would understand?
He suggested that if we couldn't do that, we had failed to make our point clearly.
But an above average intelligence 7th grader knows that alligators are NOT amphibians.
You can't set the bar TOO low for the target audience.
A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper.
So, you failed English class, repeatedly... Your articles are written in techno-babble, where only others in that field might follow along. This isn't a university, and no biogeochemist, or even climatologists to be found. Those articles weren't written for this site, and probably no other climate site either. Just articles you scrounged/lifted, to confuse. You figure few would question them, since they make little sense, and no point at all. Doubt seriously you were an educator. lack basic communication skills. |
| RE: "Alligators are not amphibians." - Duncan6103-05-2022 00:27 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
"Alligators are not amphibians." - Duncan61
This is as low as you should set the bar.
Above average 7th grader intelligence.
Doesn't have to be taught the most basic basics.
Doesn't need to be given an unambiguous definition for "amphibian" before you are allowed to continue the presentation.
The local word cops are quick to identify rules of debate, or at least the fallacies used for deceptive debate tactics.
Can you give us an unambiguous definition for "ad hominem" attacks?
That is as sleazy as it gets in debate.
Actually, you can find an example at the bottom of this post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper.
Dr. Gersper was a soil scientist at UC Berkeley.
He taught the graduate seminar course about how to teach science.
He said to imagine that your target audience is comprised of above average intelligence 7th graders.
Can you make your point in a way that an above average intelligence 7th grader would understand?
He suggested that if we couldn't do that, we had failed to make our point clearly.
But an above average intelligence 7th grader knows that alligators are NOT amphibians.
You can't set the bar TOO low for the target audience.
A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper.
So, you failed English class, repeatedly... Your articles are written in techno-babble, where only others in that field might follow along. This isn't a university, and no biogeochemist, or even climatologists to be found. Those articles weren't written for this site, and probably no other climate site either. Just articles you scrounged/lifted, to confuse. You figure few would question them, since they make little sense, and no point at all. Doubt seriously you were an educator. lack basic communication skills. |
| 03-05-2022 01:39 |
James_★★★★★
(2238) |
And next you'll be saying that T-Rex was a reptile. And as everyone knows, his hind legs were much larger. Next you'll say he had a tail and spines growing out of his back. Where will this madness end?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muUZjovOFRg
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIP7JaYv9OU
but never
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX0sMVwagrk
Im a BM wrote:
"Alligators are not amphibians." - Duncan61
This is as low as you should set the bar.
Above average 7th grader intelligence.
Doesn't have to be taught the most basic basics.
Doesn't need to be given an unambiguous definition for "amphibian" before you are allowed to continue the presentation.
The local word cops are quick to identify rules of debate, or at least the fallacies used for deceptive debate tactics.
Can you give us an unambiguous definition for "ad hominem" attacks?
That is as sleazy as it gets in debate.
Actually, you can find an example at the bottom of this post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper.
Dr. Gersper was a soil scientist at UC Berkeley.
He taught the graduate seminar course about how to teach science.
He said to imagine that your target audience is comprised of above average intelligence 7th graders.
Can you make your point in a way that an above average intelligence 7th grader would understand?
He suggested that if we couldn't do that, we had failed to make our point clearly.
But an above average intelligence 7th grader knows that alligators are NOT amphibians.
You can't set the bar TOO low for the target audience.
A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper.
So, you failed English class, repeatedly... Your articles are written in techno-babble, where only others in that field might follow along. This isn't a university, and no biogeochemist, or even climatologists to be found. Those articles weren't written for this site, and probably no other climate site either. Just articles you scrounged/lifted, to confuse. You figure few would question them, since they make little sense, and no point at all. Doubt seriously you were an educator. lack basic communication skills.
Edited on 03-05-2022 01:55 |
| RE: T-Rex - Here's some Jurassic Park kind of stuff.03-05-2022 02:16 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
T-Rex - Here's some Jurassic Park kind of stuff.
T-Rex wasn't an amphibian, either.
He was one of the "bird-hipped" dinosaurs.
The only ones left from his group are the birds.
Warm blooded birds have feathers instead of reptile scales or mammal hairs.
Feathers made good insulation long before any got modified into flight organs.
Early in the movie Jurassic Park, this connection to the birds was noted.
But to write good science fiction takes good knowledge of science.
The author of the book, a global warming denier, had little such knowledge.
Trying to come with a mechanism to allow the critters to reproduce, he invoked FROG DNA.
They spliced in frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps.
Some frogs can change gender (Where IS Gretagroper, anyway?)
Easy enough. So this means a little frog DNA can make a dinosaur change gender.
Wouldn't you want to fill in the missing pieces with something a little closer to a dinosaur.
Like a good global warming denier, maybe he thought dinosaurs were amphibians.
Cognitive dissonance prevented him from making the bird connection.
Would have been much more plausible to use TURKEY DNA to fill the gaps.
Much closer relatives to the dinosaurs.
And turkeys can do parthenogenesis.
The female can lay unfertilized eggs that are clones of herself.
And turkeys can lay a LOT of eggs. So many velociraptors at once!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James_ wrote:
And next you'll be saying that T-Rex was a reptile. And as everyone knows, his hind legs were much larger. Next you'll say he had a tail and spines growing out of his back. Where will this madness end?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muUZjovOFRg
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIP7JaYv9OU
but never
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX0sMVwagrk
Im a BM wrote:
"Alligators are not amphibians." - Duncan61
This is as low as you should set the bar.
Above average 7th grader intelligence.
Doesn't have to be taught the most basic basics.
Doesn't need to be given an unambiguous definition for "amphibian" before you are allowed to continue the presentation.
The local word cops are quick to identify rules of debate, or at least the fallacies used for deceptive debate tactics.
Can you give us an unambiguous definition for "ad hominem" attacks?
That is as sleazy as it gets in debate.
Actually, you can find an example at the bottom of this post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper.
Dr. Gersper was a soil scientist at UC Berkeley.
He taught the graduate seminar course about how to teach science.
He said to imagine that your target audience is comprised of above average intelligence 7th graders.
Can you make your point in a way that an above average intelligence 7th grader would understand?
He suggested that if we couldn't do that, we had failed to make our point clearly.
But an above average intelligence 7th grader knows that alligators are NOT amphibians.
You can't set the bar TOO low for the target audience.
A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper.
So, you failed English class, repeatedly... Your articles are written in techno-babble, where only others in that field might follow along. This isn't a university, and no biogeochemist, or even climatologists to be found. Those articles weren't written for this site, and probably no other climate site either. Just articles you scrounged/lifted, to confuse. You figure few would question them, since they make little sense, and no point at all. Doubt seriously you were an educator. lack basic communication skills. |
| 03-05-2022 02:32 |
James_★★★★★
(2238) |
You need to remember, these guys don't know that their mothers had kids.
Their mothers weren't that stupid. Just common sense.
What's not explained is how to go from a dinosaur to a bird. How did scales like fish have become feathers? If scales are protein based like feathers, then why is their structure different?
And then we're into what about the atmosphere?
This is for sealover. If you flap your fingernails long enough, can you fly? The answer is if you have wings. Function follows form.
sealover wrote:
T-Rex - Here's some Jurassic Park kind of stuff.
T-Rex wasn't an amphibian, either.
He was one of the "bird-hipped" dinosaurs.
The only ones left from his group are the birds.
Warm blooded birds have feathers instead of reptile scales or mammal hairs.
Feathers made good insulation long before any got modified into flight organs.
Early in the movie Jurassic Park, this connection to the birds was noted.
But to write good science fiction takes good knowledge of science.
The author of the book, a global warming denier, had little such knowledge.
Trying to come with a mechanism to allow the critters to reproduce, he invoked FROG DNA.
They spliced in frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps.
Some frogs can change gender (Where IS Gretagroper, anyway?)
Easy enough. So this means a little frog DNA can make a dinosaur change gender.
Wouldn't you want to fill in the missing pieces with something a little closer to a dinosaur.
Like a good global warming denier, maybe he thought dinosaurs were amphibians.
Cognitive dissonance prevented him from making the bird connection.
Would have been much more plausible to use TURKEY DNA to fill the gaps.
Much closer relatives to the dinosaurs.
And turkeys can do parthenogenesis.
The female can lay unfertilized eggs that are clones of herself.
And turkeys can lay a LOT of eggs. So many velociraptors at once!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James_ wrote:
And next you'll be saying that T-Rex was a reptile. And as everyone knows, his hind legs were much larger. Next you'll say he had a tail and spines growing out of his back. Where will this madness end?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muUZjovOFRg
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIP7JaYv9OU
but never
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX0sMVwagrk
Im a BM wrote:
"Alligators are not amphibians." - Duncan61
This is as low as you should set the bar.
Above average 7th grader intelligence.
Doesn't have to be taught the most basic basics.
Doesn't need to be given an unambiguous definition for "amphibian" before you are allowed to continue the presentation.
The local word cops are quick to identify rules of debate, or at least the fallacies used for deceptive debate tactics.
Can you give us an unambiguous definition for "ad hominem" attacks?
That is as sleazy as it gets in debate.
Actually, you can find an example at the bottom of this post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper.
Dr. Gersper was a soil scientist at UC Berkeley.
He taught the graduate seminar course about how to teach science.
He said to imagine that your target audience is comprised of above average intelligence 7th graders.
Can you make your point in a way that an above average intelligence 7th grader would understand?
He suggested that if we couldn't do that, we had failed to make our point clearly.
But an above average intelligence 7th grader knows that alligators are NOT amphibians.
You can't set the bar TOO low for the target audience.
A teaching tip from Professor Paul Gersper.
So, you failed English class, repeatedly... Your articles are written in techno-babble, where only others in that field might follow along. This isn't a university, and no biogeochemist, or even climatologists to be found. Those articles weren't written for this site, and probably no other climate site either. Just articles you scrounged/lifted, to confuse. You figure few would question them, since they make little sense, and no point at all. Doubt seriously you were an educator. lack basic communication skills.
Edited on 03-05-2022 02:43 |
| RE: How would I know? I wasn't there. I didn't see it.03-05-2022 03:00 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
How would I know? I wasn't there. I didn't see it.
I didn't see the Holocaust either, but that is poor logic for denying it happened.
Fluffy bird feathers (down) are better insulation than mammal hairs.
Function follows form. Yes, indeed.
Perhaps some flying squirrel type dinosaur was already using his arms, not as flight organs, but just to glide a bit.
The mutant freak with freakishly long down on his arms may have been a better glider.
His mutant freak great grandson with a more solid spine on the down feathers might have been an even better glider.
And some mutant freak down the line had much stiffer down feathers on his arms.
The best glider yet.
Won't be long before some mutant can use those things to fly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]James_ wrote:
You need to remember, these guys don't know that their mothers had kids.
Their mothers weren't that stupid. Just common sense.
What's not explained is how to go from a dinosaur to a bird. How did scales like fish have become feathers? If scales are protein based like feathers, then why is their structure different?
And then we're into what about the atmosphere?
This is for sealover. If you flap your fingernails long enough, can you fly? The answer is if you have wings. Function follows form.
[quote]sealover wrote:
T-Rex - Here's some Jurassic Park kind of stuff.
T-Rex wasn't an amphibian, either.
He was one of the "bird-hipped" dinosaurs.
The only ones left from his group are the birds.
Warm blooded birds have feathers instead of reptile scales or mammal hairs.
Feathers made good insulation long before any got modified into flight organs.
Early in the movie Jurassic Park, this connection to the birds was noted.
But to write good science fiction takes good knowledge of science.
The author of the book, a global warming denier, had little such knowledge.
Trying to come with a mechanism to allow the critters to reproduce, he invoked FROG DNA.
They spliced in frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps.
Some frogs can change gender (Where IS Gretagroper, anyway?)
Easy enough. So this means a little frog DNA can make a dinosaur change gender.
Wouldn't you want to fill in the missing pieces with something a little closer to a dinosaur.
Like a good global warming denier, maybe he thought dinosaurs were amphibians.
Cognitive dissonance prevented him from making the bird connection.
Would have been much more plausible to use TURKEY DNA to fill the gaps.
Much closer relatives to the dinosaurs.
And turkeys can do parthenogenesis.
The female can lay unfertilized eggs that are clones of herself.
And turkeys can lay a LOT of eggs. So many velociraptors at once!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]James_ wrote:
And next you'll be saying that T-Rex was a reptile. And as everyone knows, his hind legs were much larger. Next you'll say he had a tail and spines growing out of his back. Where will this madness end?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muUZjovOFRg
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIP7JaYv9OU
but never
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX0sMVwagrk |
| 03-05-2022 03:20 |
James_★★★★★
(2238) |
13 million non-Jews died as a result of the Holocaust.
Jews ignore those deaths. They also ignore the 21 to 27 million
Russian deaths.
How to move forward when we ignore history? We don't.
sealover wrote:
How would I know? I wasn't there. I didn't see it.
I didn't see the Holocaust either, but that is poor logic for denying it happened.
Fluffy bird feathers (down) are better insulation than mammal hairs.
Function follows form. Yes, indeed.
Perhaps some flying squirrel type dinosaur was already using his arms, not as flight organs, but just to glide a bit.
The mutant freak with freakishly long down on his arms may have been a better glider.
His mutant freak great grandson with a more solid spine on the down feathers might have been an even better glider.
And some mutant freak down the line had much stiffer down feathers on his arms.
The best glider yet.
Won't be long before some mutant can use those things to fly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]James_ wrote:
You need to remember, these guys don't know that their mothers had kids.
Their mothers weren't that stupid. Just common sense.
What's not explained is how to go from a dinosaur to a bird. How did scales like fish have become feathers? If scales are protein based like feathers, then why is their structure different?
And then we're into what about the atmosphere?
This is for sealover. If you flap your fingernails long enough, can you fly? The answer is if you have wings. Function follows form.
[quote]sealover wrote:
T-Rex - Here's some Jurassic Park kind of stuff.
T-Rex wasn't an amphibian, either.
He was one of the "bird-hipped" dinosaurs.
The only ones left from his group are the birds.
Warm blooded birds have feathers instead of reptile scales or mammal hairs.
Feathers made good insulation long before any got modified into flight organs.
Early in the movie Jurassic Park, this connection to the birds was noted.
But to write good science fiction takes good knowledge of science.
The author of the book, a global warming denier, had little such knowledge.
Trying to come with a mechanism to allow the critters to reproduce, he invoked FROG DNA.
They spliced in frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps.
Some frogs can change gender (Where IS Gretagroper, anyway?)
Easy enough. So this means a little frog DNA can make a dinosaur change gender.
Wouldn't you want to fill in the missing pieces with something a little closer to a dinosaur.
Like a good global warming denier, maybe he thought dinosaurs were amphibians.
Cognitive dissonance prevented him from making the bird connection.
Would have been much more plausible to use TURKEY DNA to fill the gaps.
Much closer relatives to the dinosaurs.
And turkeys can do parthenogenesis.
The female can lay unfertilized eggs that are clones of herself.
And turkeys can lay a LOT of eggs. So many velociraptors at once!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]James_ wrote:
And next you'll be saying that T-Rex was a reptile. And as everyone knows, his hind legs were much larger. Next you'll say he had a tail and spines growing out of his back. Where will this madness end?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muUZjovOFRg
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIP7JaYv9OU
but never
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX0sMVwagrk |
| 03-05-2022 03:26 |
James_★★★★★
(2238) |
For sealover, Bye!!
And someone has been editing posts again.
Edited on 03-05-2022 03:41 |
| 03-05-2022 04:41 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
sealover screwed up.
Should have explicitly identified the "How would I know?" reference.
Parrot Boy denies much documented historic reality by saying:
"How do you know? Were you there?"
That pair of sentences is displayed repeatedly in Parrot Boy posts.
Repeatedly. And repeatedly. And repeatedly to the point it looks like a spam bot must be doing the thinking.
Also, "Holocaust" is the reference to basic denial of history.
The Jewish Holocaust was only one big part of the larger Nazi genocide.
But sealover should know better than to even post the word "Holocaust".
Too loaded a term with too many potentials for terrible misunderstandings..
James_ wrote:
13 million non-Jews died as a result of the Holocaust.
Jews ignore those deaths. They also ignore the 21 to 27 million
Russian deaths.
How to move forward when we ignore history? We don't.
sealover wrote:
How would I know? I wasn't there. I didn't see it.
I didn't see the Holocaust either, but that is poor logic for denying it happened.
Fluffy bird feathers (down) are better insulation than mammal hairs.
Function follows form. Yes, indeed.
Perhaps some flying squirrel type dinosaur was already using his arms, not as flight organs, but just to glide a bit.
The mutant freak with freakishly long down on his arms may have been a better glider.
His mutant freak great grandson with a more solid spine on the down feathers might have been an even better glider.
And some mutant freak down the line had much stiffer down feathers on his arms.
The best glider yet.
Won't be long before some mutant can use those things to fly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]James_ wrote:
You need to remember, these guys don't know that their mothers had kids.
Their mothers weren't that stupid. Just common sense.
What's not explained is how to go from a dinosaur to a bird. How did scales like fish have become feathers? If scales are protein based like feathers, then why is their structure different?
And then we're into what about the atmosphere?
This is for sealover. If you flap your fingernails long enough, can you fly? The answer is if you have wings. Function follows form.
[quote]sealover wrote:
T-Rex - Here's some Jurassic Park kind of stuff.
T-Rex wasn't an amphibian, either.
He was one of the "bird-hipped" dinosaurs.
The only ones left from his group are the birds.
Warm blooded birds have feathers instead of reptile scales or mammal hairs.
Feathers made good insulation long before any got modified into flight organs.
Early in the movie Jurassic Park, this connection to the birds was noted.
But to write good science fiction takes good knowledge of science.
The author of the book, a global warming denier, had little such knowledge.
Trying to come with a mechanism to allow the critters to reproduce, he invoked FROG DNA.
They spliced in frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps.
Some frogs can change gender (Where IS Gretagroper, anyway?)
Easy enough. So this means a little frog DNA can make a dinosaur change gender.
Wouldn't you want to fill in the missing pieces with something a little closer to a dinosaur.
Like a good global warming denier, maybe he thought dinosaurs were amphibians.
Cognitive dissonance prevented him from making the bird connection.
Would have been much more plausible to use TURKEY DNA to fill the gaps.
Much closer relatives to the dinosaurs.
And turkeys can do parthenogenesis.
The female can lay unfertilized eggs that are clones of herself.
And turkeys can lay a LOT of eggs. So many velociraptors at once!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]James_ wrote:
And next you'll be saying that T-Rex was a reptile. And as everyone knows, his hind legs were much larger. Next you'll say he had a tail and spines growing out of his back. Where will this madness end?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muUZjovOFRg
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIP7JaYv9OU
but never
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX0sMVwagrk |
| 03-05-2022 05:44 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14407) |
squeal over's sock wrote:sealover screwed up.
That's a wee bit of an understatement.
squeal over's sock wrote:Parrot Boy denies much documented historic reality by saying:
Nope. Into the Night simply does not accept your claims of omniscience. Do you see any rational reason he should?
squeal over's sock wrote:"How do you know? Were you there?"
This is known as a "valid question." You need to answer it, not dismiss it. The question won't merely vanish. Your claims of omniscience remain summarily dismissed.
squeal over's sock wrote:That pair of sentences is displayed repeatedly in Parrot Boy posts.
Your claims of omniscience appear repeatedly in your posts. They are legion, seemingly without end and you never explain; you demand others accept that you know things that you simply don't.
Your relentless barrage of omniscience claims are but a part of your overarching spam package ... like you are a cut-n-paste bot who is carrying out someone else's orders. |
| 03-05-2022 08:18 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
sealover wrote:
How would I know? I wasn't there. I didn't see it.
I didn't see the Holocaust either, but that is poor logic for denying it happened.
Fluffy bird feathers (down) are better insulation than mammal hairs.
Function follows form. Yes, indeed.
Perhaps some flying squirrel type dinosaur was already using his arms, not as flight organs, but just to glide a bit.
The mutant freak with freakishly long down on his arms may have been a better glider.
His mutant freak great grandson with a more solid spine on the down feathers might have been an even better glider.
And some mutant freak down the line had much stiffer down feathers on his arms.
The best glider yet.
Won't be long before some mutant can use those things to fly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]James_ wrote:
You need to remember, these guys don't know that their mothers had kids.
Their mothers weren't that stupid. Just common sense.
What's not explained is how to go from a dinosaur to a bird. How did scales like fish have become feathers? If scales are protein based like feathers, then why is their structure different?
And then we're into what about the atmosphere?
This is for sealover. If you flap your fingernails long enough, can you fly? The answer is if you have wings. Function follows form.
[quote]sealover wrote:
T-Rex - Here's some Jurassic Park kind of stuff.
T-Rex wasn't an amphibian, either.
He was one of the "bird-hipped" dinosaurs.
The only ones left from his group are the birds.
Warm blooded birds have feathers instead of reptile scales or mammal hairs.
Feathers made good insulation long before any got modified into flight organs.
Early in the movie Jurassic Park, this connection to the birds was noted.
But to write good science fiction takes good knowledge of science.
The author of the book, a global warming denier, had little such knowledge.
Trying to come with a mechanism to allow the critters to reproduce, he invoked FROG DNA.
They spliced in frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps.
Some frogs can change gender (Where IS Gretagroper, anyway?)
Easy enough. So this means a little frog DNA can make a dinosaur change gender.
Wouldn't you want to fill in the missing pieces with something a little closer to a dinosaur.
Like a good global warming denier, maybe he thought dinosaurs were amphibians.
Cognitive dissonance prevented him from making the bird connection.
Would have been much more plausible to use TURKEY DNA to fill the gaps.
Much closer relatives to the dinosaurs.
And turkeys can do parthenogenesis.
The female can lay unfertilized eggs that are clones of herself.
And turkeys can lay a LOT of eggs. So many velociraptors at once!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]James_ wrote:
And next you'll be saying that T-Rex was a reptile. And as everyone knows, his hind legs were much larger. Next you'll say he had a tail and spines growing out of his back. Where will this madness end?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muUZjovOFRg
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIP7JaYv9OU
but never
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX0sMVwagrk
Why must a work of fiction, conform to liberal science? It's entertainment, and only need be close enough for the target audience. Not unlike your 'library' of articles, even though there is no target audience on this site. Not really seeing people joining this site, just to browse your library, and discuss the riveting content. Then again, what's to discuss, each article is complete, and beyond reproach. Who would dare question.
Frogs have some interesting properties, other than liberal reproduction. They lose a limb, it grows back... Frogs are more tolerant to cold. If you bothered to read the book, watch the movie, they didn't want reproduction at all, in case of escape. Not exactly the invasive species most countries need to deal with. |
|
| RE: Sustainable frog farming?04-05-2022 00:09 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
Sustainable frog farming?
"Frogs have some interesting properties, other than liberal reproduction. They lose a limb, it grows back..."
Apparently, frogs are the ONLY vertebrates capable of regrowing a severed limb besides the end of their tail.
Maybe they are like crustaceans and get new limbs when they molt?
Well, perhaps we can farm frogs in a more humane and sustainable manner.
With proper medication to ease the pain, we could amputate their hind legs.
Then just feed them until next time they molt, and they'll have new legs!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
How would I know? I wasn't there. I didn't see it.
I didn't see the Holocaust either, but that is poor logic for denying it happened.
Fluffy bird feathers (down) are better insulation than mammal hairs.
Function follows form. Yes, indeed.
Perhaps some flying squirrel type dinosaur was already using his arms, not as flight organs, but just to glide a bit.
The mutant freak with freakishly long down on his arms may have been a better glider.
His mutant freak great grandson with a more solid spine on the down feathers might have been an even better glider.
And some mutant freak down the line had much stiffer down feathers on his arms.
The best glider yet.
Won't be long before some mutant can use those things to fly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]James_ wrote:
You need to remember, these guys don't know that their mothers had kids.
Their mothers weren't that stupid. Just common sense.
What's not explained is how to go from a dinosaur to a bird. How did scales like fish have become feathers? If scales are protein based like feathers, then why is their structure different?
And then we're into what about the atmosphere?
This is for sealover. If you flap your fingernails long enough, can you fly? The answer is if you have wings. Function follows form.
[quote]sealover wrote:
T-Rex - Here's some Jurassic Park kind of stuff.
T-Rex wasn't an amphibian, either.
He was one of the "bird-hipped" dinosaurs.
The only ones left from his group are the birds.
Warm blooded birds have feathers instead of reptile scales or mammal hairs.
Feathers made good insulation long before any got modified into flight organs.
Early in the movie Jurassic Park, this connection to the birds was noted.
But to write good science fiction takes good knowledge of science.
The author of the book, a global warming denier, had little such knowledge.
Trying to come with a mechanism to allow the critters to reproduce, he invoked FROG DNA.
They spliced in frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps.
Some frogs can change gender (Where IS Gretagroper, anyway?)
Easy enough. So this means a little frog DNA can make a dinosaur change gender.
Wouldn't you want to fill in the missing pieces with something a little closer to a dinosaur.
Like a good global warming denier, maybe he thought dinosaurs were amphibians.
Cognitive dissonance prevented him from making the bird connection.
Would have been much more plausible to use TURKEY DNA to fill the gaps.
Much closer relatives to the dinosaurs.
And turkeys can do parthenogenesis.
The female can lay unfertilized eggs that are clones of herself.
And turkeys can lay a LOT of eggs. So many velociraptors at once!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]James_ wrote:
And next you'll be saying that T-Rex was a reptile. And as everyone knows, his hind legs were much larger. Next you'll say he had a tail and spines growing out of his back. Where will this madness end?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muUZjovOFRg
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIP7JaYv9OU
but never
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX0sMVwagrk
Why must a work of fiction, conform to liberal science? It's entertainment, and only need be close enough for the target audience. Not unlike your 'library' of articles, even though there is no target audience on this site. Not really seeing people joining this site, just to browse your library, and discuss the riveting content. Then again, what's to discuss, each article is complete, and beyond reproach. Who would dare question.
Frogs have some interesting properties, other than liberal reproduction. They lose a limb, it grows back... Frogs are more tolerant to cold. If you bothered to read the book, watch the movie, they didn't want reproduction at all, in case of escape. Not exactly the invasive species most countries need to deal with. |
| 04-05-2022 02:33 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
sealover wrote:
Sustainable frog farming?
Now there's a thought!
sealover wrote:
"Frogs have some interesting properties, other than liberal reproduction. They lose a limb, it grows back..."
Apparently, frogs are the ONLY vertebrates capable of regrowing a severed limb besides the end of their tail.
Nope. Certain lizards can also regrow a lost limb.
sealover wrote:
Maybe they are like crustaceans and get new limbs when they molt?
Well, perhaps we can farm frogs in a more humane and sustainable manner.
With proper medication to ease the pain, we could amputate their hind legs.
This is humane?
sealover wrote:
Then just feed them until next time they molt, and they'll have new legs!
Takes more than a molting.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| RE: What lizards?04-05-2022 12:40 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
What lizards?
"Certain lizards can also regrow a lost limb." - Parrot Boy
Science is not lizards. Lizards are not frogs. Alligators are not amphibians.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Sustainable frog farming?
Now there's a thought!
sealover wrote:
"Frogs have some interesting properties, other than liberal reproduction. They lose a limb, it grows back..."
Apparently, frogs are the ONLY vertebrates capable of regrowing a severed limb besides the end of their tail.
Nope. Certain lizards can also regrow a lost limb.
sealover wrote:
Maybe they are like crustaceans and get new limbs when they molt?
Well, perhaps we can farm frogs in a more humane and sustainable manner.
With proper medication to ease the pain, we could amputate their hind legs.
This is humane?
sealover wrote:
Then just feed them until next time they molt, and they'll have new legs!
Takes more than a molting. |
| 04-05-2022 19:38 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
sealover wrote:
What lizards?
"Certain lizards can also regrow a lost limb." - Parrot Boy
Some geckos and iguanas can replace a lost leg, for example.
sealover wrote:
Science is not lizards.
Never said it was, moron.
sealover wrote:
Lizards are not frogs.
Never said they were, moron.
sealover wrote:
Alligators are not amphibians.
Yes they are.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| RE: Climate change is NOT real, because alligators ARE amphibians.06-05-2022 19:15 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
Climate change is NOT real, because alligators ARE amphibians.
This bit of sarcasm is intended to point out an important dynamic of this "debate".
Simply repeat an unsupported contrarian assertion.
First assert that alligators are amphibians.
When someone else points out that this must be why alligators lay their eggs in water, "being amphibians", so their tadpoles can undergo the first phase of their life cycle as water breathing creatures, before becoming air breathing adults.
Back and forth, repeating the unsupported contrarian assertion.
As you see below, STILL INSISTING that alligators ARE amphibians.
And that is also how they "debate" about climate change.
And that is also the extent of scientific knowledge displayed to support the claim that climate change is NOT real.
DON'T LOOK UP!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
What lizards?
"Certain lizards can also regrow a lost limb." - Parrot Boy
Some geckos and iguanas can replace a lost leg, for example.
sealover wrote:
Science is not lizards.
Never said it was, moron.
sealover wrote:
Lizards are not frogs.
Never said they were, moron.
sealover wrote:
Alligators are not amphibians.
Yes they are. |
| 06-05-2022 19:28 |
Swan ★★★★★
(5722) |
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
What lizards?
"Certain lizards can also regrow a lost limb." - Parrot Boy
Some geckos and iguanas can replace a lost leg, for example.
sealover wrote:
Science is not lizards.
Never said it was, moron.
sealover wrote:
Lizards are not frogs.
Never said they were, moron.
sealover wrote:
Alligators are not amphibians.
Yes they are.
Hey goofy, alligators are not amphibians................
So you are still on a 100 percent wrong streak
Edited on 06-05-2022 19:29 |
| 06-05-2022 20:54 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
What lizards?
"Certain lizards can also regrow a lost limb." - Parrot Boy
Some geckos and iguanas can replace a lost leg, for example.
sealover wrote:
Science is not lizards.
Never said it was, moron.
sealover wrote:
Lizards are not frogs.
Never said they were, moron.
sealover wrote:
Alligators are not amphibians.
Yes they are.
Hey goofy, alligators are not amphibians................
So you are still on a 100 percent wrong streak
Yes they are. You can't change what they are by bulverism, dude.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-05-2022 22:57 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
I've got a few decades living in Florida, and never heard mention of alligators being amphibians. They've always been reptiles. Nothing about them, would make me think otherwise. They wander quite a bit during mating season, and not always near water either. |
| 06-05-2022 23:40 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've got a few decades living in Florida, and never heard mention of alligators being amphibians. They've always been reptiles. Nothing about them, would make me think otherwise. They wander quite a bit during mating season, and not always near water either.
They are both reptiles and amphibian. The live just as happily in the water as out of it. Yes, they DO wander quite a bit during mating season. They get everywhere.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 06-05-2022 23:41 |
| RE: Alligators classified as reptiles by Linnaeus, long before Darwin.07-05-2022 01:16 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1247) |
Alligators classified as reptiles by Linnaeus, long before Darwin.
Where do scientists get the word "amphibian"?
It was part of the Linnaeus classification system, unambiguously defined long before Darwin had any theories about the significance of lineage.
Alligators were clearly identified in the classification as STRICTLY reptiles, more than 200 years ago.
Primary school students have learned from universally agreed upon textbooks that alligators are NOT amphibians for more than 150 years.
So, when one member of the website asserts that this is not true, they are making an unsupported contrarian assertion.
Apparently there is no source more credible than the master of word games.
So, new members, here's a tip.
If you see such an absurd assertion, don't waste any thought or effort on it.
He will just keep coming back with the contrarian "no, it isn't.." for the sole purpose of seeking to enrage you.
That's what gets him off - provoking rage in others.
Please don't feed the troll whose stupidity is self evident. Amphibian alligators?
This one is unteachable and he's just trying to obnoxiously derail discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've got a few decades living in Florida, and never heard mention of alligators being amphibians. They've always been reptiles. Nothing about them, would make me think otherwise. They wander quite a bit during mating season, and not always near water either.
They are both reptiles and amphibian. The live just as happily in the water as out of it. Yes, they DO wander quite a bit during mating season. They get everywhere. |
