The Tiger Challenge

[AN2]

lol FFS.. He's still going on about this years later..

Tiger, you asked me me how can this living thing have these living features before natural selection existed. You still don't understand, do you

So this why I asked him - When did natural selection not exist?

He actually gave the (basic) correct answer (to Myles) - Before living things existed but he'll never understand why his question was stupid

(and please don't post pictures of yourself)

 

[Tiger]

lol FFS.. He's still going on about this years later..


Tiger, you asked me me how can this living thing have these living features before natural selection existed. You still don't understand, do you

(and please don't post pictures of yourself)

Haha, so you DO need it explained to you like a kid with a severe brain injury.

I’ll try to add a colourful child-like illustration to go with it.

Gaire, gaire….when I think of you now, in that private chat with Myles, egging him on to ask me about ‘before natural selection existed’. A right pair of buffoons!!



Kids…beware of the dangers of alcohol damage to cognitive function. James and Myles should be a warning to everyone!!

 

[AN2]

I can actually sort of get into your dumb, creationist mind

You're asking who put all this life stuff into the (lifeless) rocks?

The point is, you were asking me about living things. Natural selection has always existed since life itself, like water has always been wet since it (water) existed

 

[AN2]

How did non-living matter acquire the algorithmic information necessary to self-replicate and encode error-correcting genetic instructions before natural selection existed to favour such systems?

So, he's a talking about a living thing as a non-living thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Tiger]

How did non-living matter acquire the algorithmic information necessary to self-replicate and encode error-correcting genetic instructions before natural selection existed to favour such systems?

So, he's a talking about a living thing as a non-living thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The gift that keeps giving.

I can’t wait to unpack this in the morning. You’re obviously STILL confused.

50/50

#bestthreadever

 

[AN2]

lol He'll be on ChatGPT all night trying to figure out an answer..

Meanwhile, reminder -

Post in thread 'The Tiger Challenge' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/the-tiger-challenge.1357/post-145866

 

[AN2]

The gift that keeps giving.

You certainly are

I can’t wait to unpack this in the morning. You’re obviously STILL confused.

50/50

#bestthreadever

No, thank you, Tiger

Here's a fun thing to do when Tiger asks one of his dumb, creationist questions:

"How did this thing that never happened, happen?"

Simply remove the first word, "how", and then google it..

how did lifeless matter, before evolution could act, generate the coded, error-correcting information necessary for self-replication

Of course, he'll come back with his usual schtick - That's not an argument (, it's Y)! Dodger! Spoofer! etc.. But that should only make us shake our head at him more

Would you like me to break it down into simpler terms like you are a 5 year old with a head injury?

 

[Tiger]

You certainly are



No, thank you, Tiger

Here's a fun thing to do when Tiger asks one of his dumb, creationist questions:

"How did this thing that never happened, happen?"

Simply remove the first word, "how", and then google it..


View attachment 8261

Of course, he'll come back with his usual schtick - That's not an argument (, it's Y)! Dodger! Spoofer! etc.. But that should only make us shake our head at him more

James, I am starting to genuinely feel sorry for you. This is too easy for me.

When I posted my original question, they idea was for you to simply deflect and do your usual hand waving with some lame "that's a mystery" and some of your usual promissory scientism added on for good measure. However, what has shocked even me, was that you couldn't (at the time) and still can't even understand what was being asked.

You actually had to Google it, like a student bluffing through an exam. If you’d understood the question, you’d know your copy-and-paste answer only exposes that you don’t see the problem at all. Every line you type confirms that you lazily borrow your opinions wholesale and haven’t had a single original thought about them. It's starting to make sense why you are a big fan of Fake Dave and his charlatan grifter YouTube channel.

Your AI response is simply more evidence of the precise moment where most materialists quietly smuggle in philosophical magic under the word “self-organisation.” You don't even have the bloody where-with-all to be able to judge if your AI answer is actually a satisfactory answer.

Here's the bit where I educate you James - “autocatalysis” and “self-organisation” are descriptions of already existing systems with feedback, not explanations for how coded information arose in the first place. Chemical reactions can repeat, amplify, or stabilise; but none of that creates symbolic information or error-correcting algorithms. It's describing a puddle finding its shape, not a program writing itself.

The moment you invoke “self-organisation,” you’ve left empirical chemistry and entered metaphysics; because atoms don’t “self-organise” into code without a set of rules, syntax, and semantics already in play. Even in autocatalytic systems, the molecules simply react; they don’t encode instructions for replication. The information problem; the origin of the digital genetic code remains completely untouched.

You’re AI response admits the central mystery, then tries to disguise it with a label. “Autocatalysis” is chemistry; “information” is logic. No known law of physics can bridge that gap. Until someone can show how lifeless molecules produce encoded, symbolic information capable of error correction, they haven’t explained life from non-life.

 

[AN2]

James, I am starting to genuinely feel sorry for you. This is too easy for me.

When I posted my original question, they idea was for you to simply deflect and do your usual hand waving with some lame "that's a mystery" and some of your usual promissory scientism added on for good measure. However, what has shocked even me, was that you couldn't (at the time) and still can't even understand what was being asked.

You actually had to Google it, like a student bluffing through an exam. If you’d understood the question, you’d know your copy-and-paste answer only exposes that you don’t see the problem at all. Every line you type confirms that you lazily borrow your opinions wholesale and haven’t had a single original thought about them. It's starting to make sense why you are a big fan of Fake Dave and his charlatan grifter YouTube channel.

Your AI response is simply more evidence of the precise moment where most materialists quietly smuggle in philosophical magic under the word “self-organisation.” You don't even have the bloody where-with-all to be able to judge if your AI answer is actually a satisfactory answer.

Here's the bit where I educate you James - “autocatalysis” and “self-organisation” are descriptions of already existing systems with feedback, not explanations for how coded information arose in the first place. Chemical reactions can repeat, amplify, or stabilise; but none of that creates symbolic information or error-correcting algorithms. It's describing a puddle finding its shape, not a program writing itself.

The moment you invoke “self-organisation,” you’ve left empirical chemistry and entered metaphysics; because atoms don’t “self-organise” into code without a set of rules, syntax, and semantics already in play. Even in autocatalytic systems, the molecules simply react; they don’t encode instructions for replication. The information problem; the origin of the digital genetic code remains completely untouched.

You’re AI response admits the central mystery, then tries to disguise it with a label. “Autocatalysis” is chemistry; “information” is logic. No known law of physics can bridge that gap. Until someone can show how lifeless molecules produce encoded, symbolic information capable of error correction, they haven’t explained life from non-life.

I didn't AI anything before I gave my own answers to you

The AI just makes it black & white that what you're asking are dumb, nonsensical questions

It's the same every day and it's why I say that you're mentally retarded, I think you clearly are

 

[Tiger]

I didn't AI anything before I gave my own answers to you

The AI just makes it black & white that what you're asking are dumb, nonsensical questions

It's the same every day and it's why I say that you're mentally retarded, I think you clearly are

And normal service has resumed.

James reaching for immature insults when the debate is over his head. He’s left hoping that nobody has noticed his ignominious defeat. My question has clearly exposed him once again.

If this was a boxing match, his corner would have already thrown in the towel several rounds ago.

 

[AN2]

All this (deluded) guy has is gifs and regurgitated ID nonsense

 

[AN2]

James, I am starting to genuinely feel sorry for you. This is too easy for me.

When I posted my original question, they idea was for you to simply deflect and do your usual hand waving with some lame "that's a mystery" and some of your usual

promissory scientism

added on for good measure. However, what has shocked even me, was that you couldn't (at the time) and still can't even understand what was being asked.

You actually had to Google it, like a student bluffing through an exam. If you’d understood the question, you’d know your copy-and-paste answer only exposes that you don’t see the problem at all. Every line you type confirms that you lazily borrow your opinions wholesale and haven’t had a single original thought about them. It's starting to make sense why you are a big fan of Fake Dave and his charlatan grifter YouTube channel.

Your AI response is simply more evidence of the precise moment where most materialists quietly smuggle in philosophical magic under the word “self-organisation.” You don't even have the bloody where-with-all to be able to judge if your AI answer is actually a satisfactory answer.

Here's the bit where I educate you James - “autocatalysis” and “self-organisation” are descriptions of already existing systems with feedback, not explanations for how coded information arose in the first place. Chemical reactions can repeat, amplify, or stabilise; but none of that creates symbolic information or error-correcting algorithms. It's describing a puddle finding its shape, not a program writing itself.

The moment you invoke “self-organisation,” you’ve left empirical chemistry and entered metaphysics; because atoms don’t “self-organise” into code without a set of rules, syntax, and semantics already in play. Even in autocatalytic systems, the molecules simply react; they don’t encode instructions for replication. The information problem; the origin of the digital genetic code remains completely untouched.

You’re AI response admits the central mystery, then tries to disguise it with a label. “Autocatalysis” is chemistry; “information” is logic. No known law of physics can bridge that gap. Until someone can show how lifeless molecules produce encoded, symbolic information capable of error correction, they haven’t explained life from non-life.

 

[AN2]

James, I am starting to genuinely feel sorry for you. This is too easy for me.

When I posted my original question, they idea was for you to simply deflect and do your usual hand waving with some lame "that's a mystery" and some of your usual promissory scientism added on for good measure. However, what has shocked even me, was that you couldn't (at the time) and still can't even understand what was being asked.

You actually had to Google it, like a student bluffing through an exam. If you’d understood the question, you’d know your copy-and-paste answer only exposes that you don’t see the problem at all. Every line you type confirms that you lazily borrow your opinions wholesale and haven’t had a single original thought about them. It's starting to make sense why you are a big fan of Fake Dave and his charlatan grifter YouTube channel.

Your AI response is simply more evidence of the precise moment where most materialists quietly smuggle in philosophical magic under the word “self-organisation.” You don't even have the bloody where-with-all to be able to judge if your AI answer is actually a satisfactory answer.

Here's the bit where I educate you James - “autocatalysis” and “self-organisation” are descriptions of already existing systems with feedback, not explanations for how coded information arose in the first place. Chemical reactions can repeat, amplify, or stabilise; but none of that creates symbolic information or error-correcting algorithms. It's describing a puddle finding its shape, not a program writing itself.

The moment you invoke “self-organisation,” you’ve left empirical chemistry and entered metaphysics; because atoms don’t “self-organise” into code without a set of rules, syntax, and semantics already in play. Even in autocatalytic systems, the molecules simply react; they don’t encode instructions for replication. The information problem; the origin of the digital genetic code remains completely untouched.

You’re AI response admits the central mystery, then tries to disguise it with a label. “Autocatalysis” is chemistry; “information” is logic. No known law of physics can bridge that gap. Until someone can show how lifeless molecules produce encoded, symbolic information capable of error correction, they haven’t explained life from non-life.

If you want to know where Tiger gets his information/computer code/semantics stuff from, I recommend this video -

Post in thread 'The probable reason that Tiger hates Jambo and Myles hates Muslims but thinks Hindus are great lads.' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.co...thinks-hindus-are-great-lads.1278/post-145891

 

[Tiger]

View attachment 8264

For the reading audience trying to understand why James posted this copy and paste image - it’s basically his way of conceding that he has no answer to my challenging question.

 

[Tiger]

If you want to know where Tiger gets his information/computer code/semantics stuff from, I recommend this video -

Post in thread 'The probable reason that Tiger hates Jambo and Myles hates Muslims but thinks Hindus are great lads.' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.co...thinks-hindus-are-great-lads.1278/post-145891

Haha - a Fake Dave video. I love it!

James, you really are the gift that keeps giving

 

[AN2]

Haha - a Fake Dave video. I love it!

James, you really are the gift that keeps giving

lol Fake? I'm pretty sure he's a real person

 

[AN2]

For the reading audience trying to understand why James posted this copy and paste image - it’s basically his way of conceding that he has no answer to my challenging question.

What challenging question?

Did anyone see Tiger ask me a challenging question?

 

[AN2]

What challenging question?

Did anyone see Tiger ask me a challenging question?

Yeah, so, there wasn't any question let alone a "challenging" one in @Tiger's post

Obviously some part of him knows that to ask the same dumb, nonsensical question again would be met with howls of laughter..

 

[Tiger]

Yeah, so, there wasn't any question let alone a "challenging" one in @Tiger's post

Obviously some part of him knows that to ask the same dumb, nonsensical question again would be met with howls of laughter..

Day drink in again Jimmy?

Has anyone seen Jimbob’s dignity? Last seen about 10 months ago.

 

[AN2]

Day drink in again Jimmy?

Has anyone seen Jimbob’s dignity? Last seen about 10 months ago.

There wasn't any question in your post, let alone a challenging one. Why can't you stop making a fool of yourself?

 

[AN2]

I think we're now reaching stage 4 tigermentia, he's now imagining that I "dodged" questions of his that he never asked

 

[Tiger]

I think we're now reaching stage 4 tigermentia, he's now imagining that I "dodged" questions of his that he never asked

Actually, I never said you dodged a question you drunken fool. The humiliation of the last 24 hours has lead to a bottle of Jameson being opened it in the late afternoon it would seem. I suspect we have an evening of low level spam to look forward to.

Anyhoo, as you’re clearly drunk, I may as well have a little light amusement asking you questions you can’t answer or understand.

Here goes…

If, as evolutionists believe, consciousness is merely an emergent property of neural complexity shaped by natural selection, by what precise physical mechanism does quantitative neural activity give rise to qualitative subjective experience; and how can any third-person, material description of brain states ever logically entail the first-person awareness of being?

 

[AN2]

Actually, I never said you dodged a question you drunken fool.

Of course you did

The humiliation of the last 24 hours has lead to a bottle of Jameson being opened it in the late afternoon it would seem. I suspect we have an evening of low level spam to look forward to.

Anyhoo, as you’re clearly drunk, I may as well have a little light amusement asking you questions you can’t answer or understand.

Now that the two opening paragraphs of obligatory ad hom is out of the way..

Here goes…

If, as evolutionists believe, consciousness is merely an emergent property of neural complexity shaped by natural selection, by what precise physical mechanism does quantitative neural activity give rise to qualitative subjective experience; and how can any third-person, material description of brain states ever logically entail the first-person awareness of being?

lol He's literally changed the subject (to his other original Tiger Challenge question)

 

[AN2]

James, I am starting to genuinely feel sorry for you. This is too easy for me.

When I posted my original question, they idea was for you to simply deflect and do your usual hand waving with some lame "that's a mystery" and some of your usual promissory scientism added on for good measure.

So now that we've established what "promissory scientism" is, the (alleged) promise that "materialism" will eventually have all the answers, let's ask Tiger who these promissory scientists (because no one knows) actually are? And I certainly haven't engaged in it

In fact, here is an older post in which I literally said to him that I don't think that's what's going to happen -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-117937

"Prommisory scientism" is just a fake term used by whiny-ass, titty-baby creationists

However, what has shocked even me, was that you couldn't (at the time) and still can't even understand what was being asked.

You actually had to Google it, like a student bluffing through an exam. If you’d understood the question, you’d know your copy-and-paste answer only exposes that you don’t see the problem at all. Every line you type confirms that you lazily borrow your opinions wholesale and haven’t had a single original thought about them. It's starting to make sense why you are a big fan of Fake Dave and his charlatan grifter YouTube channel.

Your AI response is simply more evidence of the precise moment where most materialists quietly smuggle in philosophical magic under the word “self-organisation.” You don't even have the bloody where-with-all to be able to judge if your AI answer is actually a satisfactory answer.

Here's the bit where I educate you James - “autocatalysis” and “self-organisation” are descriptions of already existing systems with feedback, not explanations for how coded information arose in the first place. Chemical reactions can repeat, amplify, or stabilise; but none of that creates symbolic information or error-correcting algorithms. It's describing a puddle finding its shape, not a program writing itself.

The moment you invoke “self-organisation,” you’ve left empirical chemistry and entered metaphysics; because atoms don’t “self-organise” into code without a set of rules, syntax, and semantics already in play. Even in autocatalytic systems, the molecules simply react; they don’t encode instructions for replication. The information problem; the origin of the digital genetic code remains completely untouched.

You’re AI response admits the central mystery, then tries to disguise it with a label. “Autocatalysis” is chemistry; “information” is logic. No known law of physics can bridge that gap. Until someone can show how lifeless molecules produce encoded, symbolic information capable of error correction, they haven’t explained life from non-life.

 

[Tiger]

Of course you did


Now that the two opening paragraphs of obligatory ad hom is out of the way..


lol He's literally changed the subject (to his other original Tiger Challenge question)

Haha, no….unfortunately for you and your diminishing dignity James it isn't the same question.

Once again, exposing that this subject matter is far beyond your intellectual capabilities. You think it's the same question simply because they both deal with consciousness. You are literally THAT dumb.

Claiming it’s the same question misses the point entirely; one asks about consciousness in general, the other forces evolutionists to explain how Darwinian, third-person processes could ever generate first-person subjective experience, a gap no generic “emergence” argument addresses.

I'm going to continue to beat you up on this thread indefinitely you spoofing moron.

 

[AN2]

Haha, no….unfortunately for you and your diminishing dignity James it isn't the same question.

Once again, exposing that this subject matter is far beyond your intellectual capabilities. You think it's the same question simply because they both deal with consciousness. You are literally THAT dumb.

Claiming it’s the same question misses the point entirely; one asks about consciousness in general, the other forces evolutionists to explain how Darwinian, third-person processes could ever generate first-person subjective experience, a gap no generic “emergence” argument addresses.

I'm going to continue to beat you up on this thread indefinitely you spoofing moron.

lol Yes you did change the subject (to your other question).. realising that if you were to stick with the first question and stop lying that I had dodged anything, you'd have to ask the same dumb, nonsensical question again..

 

[Tiger]

lol Yes you did change the subject (to your other question).. realising that if you were to stick with the first question and stop lying that I had dodged anything, you'd have to ask the same dumb, nonsensical question again..

Ladies and gentlemen….. James ‘the question dodger’ Dawson in action

 

[AN2]

Ladies and gentlemen….. James ‘the question dodger’ Dawson in action

I have answered all of your questions, you have dodged every single one of mine

What the heck do we call this Projection just doesn't seem right..

 

[AN2]

So now that we've established what "promissory scientism" is, the (alleged) promise that "materialism" will eventually have all the answers, let's ask Tiger who these promissory scientists (because no one knows) actually are? And I certainly haven't engaged in it

In fact, here is an older post in which I literally said to him that I don't think that's what's going to happen -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-117937

"Prommisory scientism" is just a fake term used by whiny-ass, titty-baby creationists

 

[Tiger]

I have answered all of your questions, you have dodged every single one of mine

What the heck do we call this Projection just doesn't seem right..

Here lieth James Dawson’s dignity…

1973 - 2025

I have answered all of your questions, you have dodged every single one of mine

What the heck do we call this Projection just doesn't seem right..

God love you James. I can see why you are an unemployed bachelor.

Sometimes I feel guilty beating the shit out of you.

 

[AN2]

Here lieth James Dawson’s dignity…

1973 - 2025

Hr

God love you James. I can see why you are an unemployed bachelor.

That's the obligatory ad hom out of the way..

Sometimes I feel guilty beating the shit out of you.

You're completely deluded, and an asshole, that's why I call you - a mentally retarded asshole

 

[Tiger]

That's the obligatory ad hom out of the way..


You're completely deluded, and an asshole, that's why I call you - a mentally retarded asshole

Haha, you are clearly wallowing in defeat.

Why (as a professional question dodger) do you avoid answering questions? I’m sure the listening audience will be interested in your lies.

If, as evolutionists maintain, the universe is fully described by physical laws, what known physical process explains the emergence of algorithmic, context-dependent biological information; such as DNA or protein-coding sequences - from purely random or thermodynamically driven chemical reactions, and how can such a process be reconciled with the fact that functional biological sequences occupy an astronomically small fraction of chemical sequence space?

 

[AN2]

Haha, you are clearly wallowing in defeat.

Why (as a professional question dodger) do you avoid answering questions? I’m sure the listening audience will be interested in your lies.

More delusion..

If, as evolutionists maintain,

WTF is an "evolutionist", someone who accepts evolution as the scientifically sound theory that it is?

What's an IDiot?

the universe is fully described by physical laws, what known physical process explains the emergence of algorithmic, context-dependent biological information; such as DNA or protein-coding sequences - from purely random or thermodynamically driven chemical reactions, and how can such a process be reconciled with the fact that functional biological sequences occupy an astronomically small fraction of chemical sequence space?

 

[Tiger]

More delusion..


WTF is an "evolutionist", someone who accepts evolution as the scientifically sound theory that it is?

What's an IDiot?

Ladies and gentlemen - James ‘the question dodger’ in action

He’s like a professional question dodger. Exhibit A above.

 

[AN2]

So now that we've established what "promissory scientism" is, the (alleged) promise that "materialism" will eventually have all the answers, let's ask Tiger who these promissory scientists (because no one knows) actually are? And I certainly haven't engaged in it

In fact, here is an older post in which I literally said to him that I don't think that's what's going to happen -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-117937

"Prommisory scientism" is just a fake term used by whiny-ass, titty-baby creationists

"Prommisory scientism" is of course related to "Materialism of the gaps", perhaps the stupidest thing I've heard in my life from a creationist

 

[AN2]

WTF is an "evolutionist", someone who accepts evolution as the scientifically sound theory that it is?

What's an IDiot?

Yet more dodging.. It's endless

 

[Tiger]

"Prommisory scientism" is of course related to "Materialism of the gaps", perhaps the stupidest thing I've heard in my life from a creationist

Ladies and gentlemen - James ‘the question dodger’ in action

He’s like a professional question dodger. Exhibit A above

 

[Tiger]

Yet more dodging.. It's endless

Ladies and gentlemen - James ‘the question dodger’ in action

He’s like a professional question dodger. Exhibit A above

 

[AN2]

Okay, perhaps his strategy was to bore me to death..

 

[Tiger]

Okay, perhaps his strategy was to bore me to death..

Ladies and gentlemen - James ‘the question dodger’ in action

He’s like a professional question dodger. Exhibit A above