Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 127 128 129 130 131 [132] 133 134 135 136 137 ... >

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,12:14    I would like to lodge a slightly tongue in cheek protest at calling Dave Scott a Springer spaniel.  The Spaniels I have met have been many times nicer than Dave, eager to please, helpful, and generally worth their keep.  Dave is the exact opposite.   Possibly you could compare him to some mis-bred UK pit bull with an owner with a room temperature IQ and a tendency to violence, but I suppose that isnt short and snappy enough.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,12:55    Thanks Robert, I think I'd like a rotten banana. DaveTard left my response off for hours, then proceeded to miss the context once again in order to malign: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1236#comments Obviously I'm writing here to document my entanglements with DaveTard, but it is interesting to see RMagruder show up once more and whine piteously.  He was the "subject of abuse" on the thread at issue, with no acknowledgement whatsoever of his attacks upon us for our "religion" or the old creo BS that he assaulted us with.  He had noted here once that his approach was not beyond reproach, but he's managed to evade responsibility through the kindness of DaveTard. DaveTard is so solicitous of dunces that he took RMagruder off of the moderation list right away.  Don't say that the moron has no heart for "his own", he just doesn't have a brain (he may be intelligent at engineering, in fact, but he really does appear to be intellectually stunted with regard to all of the wider aspects of science, let alone the humanities). -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,17:35    Re "he can't compose a single post without fundamentally confusing himself." fundamentally confusing himself, hmm? Was that on purpose? --------------------------- Minor thought about the demonstration of relativity via the GPS system - while that's obviously not "in a lab", it is an experiment with observable results, which is imnsho a more important point that whether or not said experiment is contained within a building. Henry

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,19:03    Quote (Henry J @ June 19 2006,22:35) Re "he can't compose a single post without fundamentally confusing himself." fundamentally confusing himself, hmm? Was that on purpose? --------------------------- Minor thought about the demonstration of relativity via the GPS system - while that's obviously not "in a lab", it is an experiment with observable results, which is imnsho a more important point that whether or not said experiment is contained within a building. Henry Yes, thanks for noticing!

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,19:45    Gak!! I thought I got the spelling right   Palynology = the study of pollen fossils http://www.palynology.org/ http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/midewin/palynology.html And since the oil companies find it so useful in  exploration, the science has had significant growth and investment allowing ancient enviroments and climates to be documented. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,19:59    Quote (GCT @ June 19 2006,14:31) http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1229#comment-44063 Quote Going by the fact that archeology has validated every historical biblical claim it has ever examined, I am persuaded that all science will eventually concur with the Bible’s view on origins, and much else. I wasn't aware that archeology had validated the global flood. This is also the source of this gem: Quote It may come as a surprise to some to be told that the Bible, rather than being the operating manual of ignorant flat-earthers, actually declared the earth to be round some 2,707 years ago. A good many centuries before scientists came round to that notion. The prophet Isaiah (Chapter 40:21-22), writing circa 701 BC, said this of God: “Have you not understood since the earth was founded? He sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.” Only an atheistic evilutionist would think that circles are flat, naturally. Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Aardvark Posts: 134 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,20:19    I don't know how he managed it, but Michaels7 just jumped to the top of my IDiot Leaderboard with this: Quote Glenn, I’m curious to see a real answer. The point of the question was two-fold and I think its fairly well thought out. 1) produce it in a lab 2) why do insects or higher level organisms fight against mutation? You stated… “The question I asked was in response to this question, which I included in my post: “Where, precisely, has macro-evolution been done in a lab (in the sense that nature didn’t ‘fight back’ when you were done meddling and revert to the original species.” Then followed my question: “Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab. … So show us how the more difficult aspects of gravity have been studied in the lab.” You said you did this to “counter the old canard about the lab…”. In truth, all your doing is avoiding the difficult question others have not answered after 150 years. Lets remain focused on the issues and problems with macro-evolution. Its a valid question. If scientist today with 1000’s of years of cumulative lab experience amongst them, in nature and genetics cannot randomly mutate a new insect with novel features and have it naturally selected for survival in the lab and then have it survive in nature, then its a valid question. Pointing fingers elsewhere is not an adequate response. The experiments done in on insects, fruit flies, etc., were not successful. If RM/NS were true for McEvo, you could reproduce it. You could morph flies all day long with new features that would survive. Secondly, the overlooked question of why higher level organisms such as insects, fish, etc., in fact fight against mutations. This leads to more questoins which I’ve yet to see answered by the RM/NS answer. The regulatory process limits mutations. Why is there error correction, editing and splicing? Why are there dual pathways as backup systems? These are valid questions. I’ve got the feeling scientist will design a new insect before evolutionist ever randomly mutate one. I’m very curious to know Glen if you think one day scientist will Randomly Mutate a new insect, or design one. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1236#comments

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,20:40    Lots of nice ironies in this OttoTard quote from a year ago: Quote (DaveScot @ May 2 2005 3:51 PM) My comments were arbitrarily deleted and disemvoweled at Panda’s Thumb. Trying to escape that treatment I resorted to using randomly selected names. I was then banned for using multiple names. Professor Emeritus of Biology John Davison,University of Vermont, has suffered the same treatment at Panda’s Thumb except they still allow him to post comments on “The Bathroom Wall” like he’s not qualified to comment elsewhere. Professor Davison has been a practicing doctor in biology for nearly 50 years. Their treatment of him is outrageous. They call him every derogatory name you can think of and accuse him of senility. I correspond with him a lot. He’s got more wits about him now at 76 years of age than any of those cretins ever had at any time in their miserable lives. I’ve also been a subscriber and dedicated reader of Scientific American for almost 40 years. I found that the editor, John Rennie, has a blog at http://sciam-editor.typepad.com Rennie is a flaming blind believer in the Darwinian narrative. I began posting my thoughts on evolution on his blog some weeks ago and he also summarily deleted all my comments and banned me. Some way to treat a subscriber of many decades. I’m a retired computer scientist and accomplished inventor in the field. I know a design when I see one and can easily point out some of the myriad things about the machinery of life, in common personal computer parlance, that make it as obviously intelligently designed as the computer y’all are using to read this. I guess they can’t take that. I’m not any kind of a conspiracy theorist, nor am I religious (I follow the evidence, wherever it leads) but it sure looks to me like there’s a concerted effort by the mainstream science establishment to censor criticism of the Darwinian narrative. The only thing holding up the monumental atheist fraud is the judicial system and the tortured latter 20th century interpretation of the establishment clause. It’s really turns my stomach to see what these Darwin worshippers are doing to science. This is doing great damage to science in the eyes of the public. The Darwinian narrative is going to fall. It’s just a matter of time. The longer and more doggedly the atheist scientific establishment dishonestly clings to their fantasy the worse they look when the cookie finally crumbles. Man, I’m sure glad I call myself an engineer instead of a scientist. Science is spelled “reverse-engineering” in our world. We resort to it when necessary instead of making a career out of it. Sorry to rant. Comment by DaveScot — May 2, 2005 @ 3:51 pm -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,01:12    Quote (guthrie @ June 19 2006,17:14) I would like to lodge a slightly tongue in cheek protest at calling Dave Scott a Springer spaniel.  The Spaniels I have met have been many times nicer than Dave, eager to please, helpful, and generally worth their keep. They're probably smarter too.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,01:29    Anyone remember Avocationist's thread?  Well, here she is lying about her exchange here. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1229#comment-44234 Quote “Theism allows both ID as well as a form of evolution in which God’s purposes in nature are accomplished in a way that is scientifically undetectable.” I argued about this to no avail with some people at After the Bar Closes. It makes no sense, although many scientist-Christians like Miller adhere to it. If we posit that there is a God, then we cannot possibly say that our universe shows no evidence of it, for we live in a universe that must be caused by God and we have no way to know what a universe would look like or behave like if it did not have a God. Certainly, a Catholic like Miller believes in a God who has purpose, and how can that be compatible with a willy-nilly universe in which life and man may or may not have ever come about? Apparently, Miller thinks God acts on the quantum level. That’s fine with me, but this is an utterly different scenario than the one posited by Dawkins type of evolutionist. Also, if that is the case, who can say what science will one day be able to detect? Considering how far we have come scientifically in detecting many, many things that were quite recently utterly undreamed of, it strikes me as odd to insist that God’s workings will be forever undetectable. The most deeply incoherent part of this belief system is the assumption that although there is a God, everything looks just as though there wasn’t one. Comment by avocationist — June 18, 2006 @ 12:25 am So, now she says that she was arguing that we can't know what a universe without god would be like?  That was my argument against her assertion that we know a universe with a god is much better than a universe without a god.  Once again Avo has co-opted my argument and passed it off as her own. I'd also like to point out her stupid comments about "science detecting many, many things that were quite recently utterly undreamed of."  How many of those things were attributed to god?  How many times did science detect those things and say, "Goddidit." I'd also like to point out the stupidity of her last comment.  Considering that we can't know whether there is a god or not or what things would look like under other conditions, I find this remark to be incredibly stupid.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,01:45    Here is some breath-taking inanity from both Rude and DT. Quote Surely no responsible person can argue with responsibily managing resource consumption. But as for global warming—the folks here (near Hells Canyon) tell me how ferocious the winters used to be—most appreciate the warming trend. Also when one drives along a wilderness road, why is it that there’s always so much more vegetation along the road. I’m told it’s the CO2. If we’re truly to green the world we need more CO2 in the atmosphere. The rain forest is a steady state affair—as much CO2 is released as taken in. What we need are more forests, more vegetation, more population, more flesh. If the biomass of the planet is to increase we need that CO2. Sometimes I joke with my supremely concerned elite friends: Don’t knock the overweight masses. They’re just doing their part to stave off global warming. OK, it’s a serious subject. But I don’t make public policy. However I do see all those nihilistic casualties of the Sixties: Darwinism is a fact, therefore why give a #### if this species goes down the toilet. What’s the diff, so many say. I won’t be here, and I won’t be there either. That’s why we need to know more. A lot of global warming effects will be welcome. Who doesn’t want wheat and corn growing in Alaska and Siberia while bananas and oranges thrive in North Dakota? Flooding of coastal cities due to melting of glaciers and rise of ocean level is the main concern. But what’s the cost of moving away from the shoreline or building levees and how much time do we have to do it? If migrating away from the shore can be done over 1000 years then it’s a task whose cost can be ammortized into annual payments of next to nothing. This must be contrasted against the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions not to mention finding a way to enforce the measures around the world. And we have to have a real good idea of how much reduction in gas emission will slow global warming. Right now we don’t know if it would have any effect at all. The earth periodically goes through hot and cold cycles and has been doing it long before humans came on the scene. -ds Comment by Rude — June 19, 2006 @ 2:24 pm The real thing to consider here though is that DT seems to be going for a third denial, which is AFAIK unprecedented.  Steve, you might have to update your "Second Denial Theory" to incorporate this new data point.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,03:48    Hey otto forget about hellish insurance premiums for coastal dwellers how about an intollerable spike in CO2 emmisions once siberia melts. Global warming= climate change( an orwellian invention by BushCo)= Global meltdown. Sand anyone? Oh you want water with that ...how about whiskey? its cheaper!! -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

thurdl01 Posts: 99 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,04:46    Quote Who doesn’t want wheat and corn growing in Alaska and Siberia while bananas and oranges thrive in North Dakota? ::Raises hand::

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,05:22    http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1235 I could make so many comments about the moronity and tardity of this post and the comments that go with it, but I won't.  I'll instead just ask this question. Is it ironic for IDiots who engage in projection as an everyday occurrance to accuse the other side of projecting, or is it just plain stupidity?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,05:32    If global warming happens, they'd better *start praying* for evolution. Environmental change would be a catalyst for new species - and the end of some current ones. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,05:59    Quote If global warming happens, they'd better *start praying* for evolution. Environmental change would be a catalyst for new species - and the end of some current ones. Oh, don't worry, the intelligent space aliens who designed life on this planet will show up and fix things. Most likely by getting rid of the species that messed up their beautifully designed world

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,06:06    RH I would be more worried about tiny bugs moving to warmer climes. Malaria, nile river virus, ross river virus, dengue  fever..etc ect. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,06:17    Is DaveTard the most stupid person on the planet? Quote "The first experiment in a laboratory confirming relativistic effects of gravity fields was in 1959. Here’s a clue from old Dave, Glen. When you find you’ve dug yourself into a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging. Of course if you took that bit of advice you’d have to turn in your Darwinian chance worshipping paraphernalia and face reality head on. I don’t suppose that’s likely is it? -ds" I did not, of course, claim that no relativistic effects of gravity can be seen in the lab.  In fact LIGO is designed to detect gravity waves, though no unambiguous results have been reported yet.  While mere detection of gravity waves is not a huge use of relativistic gravity effects in the laboratory, at least it would be something. I would suggest that you quit trying to bury someone else into the holes you dig. I would like to see some evidence for LABORATORY confirmation of relativistic effects of gravity fields from 1959. "By the way, gravity is the strongest force in nature. It overwhelms the electromagnetic force to form neutron stars. It overwhelms the weak nuclear force to form quark stars. And finally, when it overwhelms the strong nuclear force, a black hole is formed. Thanks for playing." Of course this is one of the least informed comments that you have ever made.  Even high school physics students often know better than that.  Gravity IS cumulative, which is why relativistic effects of gravity appear around black holes and neutron stars, but it is the weakest of the four fundamental forces.  These matters are explained further here: http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm I mentioned finding the graviton in my post, because it is considered to be practically impossible to do.   Glen D http:tinyurl.com/b8ykm I can hardly believe that he is so stupid and ignorant that he thinks that gravity is the strongest force. -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,06:31    DaveTard did link to an experiment confirming relativistic gravitational effects in 1959, so that's all well and good.   Of course I never asked for "an experiment" that showed gravitational effects, I asked, "“Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab. … So show us how the more difficult aspects of gravity have been studied in the lab.” [Emphasis added] -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,06:41    Magruder continues to indicate his rejection of science and its methods: Quote "At PT, Glen responded to this little exchange: “While I did put in a few digs at her, she was hardly my target, so mostly I had been responding to Randy’s YEC-inspired attacks on those of us who accept science.” What’s funny is that there was nothing in my posts that would say I was a YEC. In fact, I don’t consider myself one. I’ve allowed for the possibility of that, but generally I would be an OEC. And of course, to argue with anyone there means that we “don’t accept science”. *sigh*. " I'm waiting for any evidence that IDists/creationists do accept science across the board.   I didn't write that you are YEC, I said that they were "YEC-inspired attacks."  See, none of your argumnents are new, but rather they come from YEC sources orginally, whether you know it or not. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm id='postcolor'> -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,07:03    Randy also shows that his legal scholarship is right in line with Disco: Quote Randy, something in your email address seems to be causing your comments to land in the moderation queue. I haven’t figured out what it is yet. You’re not being moderated on purpose. -ds LOL. Maybe you have an automation filter that says: “If E-mail address has posted on PT, moderate until proven innocent” Randy Comment by rmagruder — June 20, 2006 @ 11:53 am   emphasis mine That's what we like here in America: Guilty until proven innocent...Luskin may need an errand boy. Also, I think Randy may have somewhere accidently posted something lucid...that would explain be moderated at UD.  Though this lucid posting may be just a rumor. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,07:07    Continuing to answer the IDiot DaveTard, who wants to beg off from his stupid comment about gravity being the strongest force, by bringing up the accumulation of weak gravitational effects.  He lacks in class as much as he lacks in intelligence (outside of engineering, anyhow): Again, DaveTard shows his class, and his incapacity to deal with both what I had written and with his ignorance regarding the strength of forces.   Quote Quote “Keep digging that hole deeper, dummy. Pound-Rebka is no secret. “ Fine, it’s an experiment indicating relativistic effects of gravity. Something I didn’t deny was possible or that ever happened. So you avoid the real issue that I brought up, which is that the relativistic effects of gravity remain largely outside of laboratory effects, and resort to what you know how to do, put down others. Quote “It confirmed with 10% accuracy the relativistic prediction of time dilation in gravity fields in 1959. Pound-Snider in 1964 confirmed it to 1% accuracy. Links to the original articles which appeared in Physical Review can be found at the first link I left for you. I can spoonfeed this stuff to you if you’d stop making faces and spitting it out.” You’re like the Jesuit (sorry, RCs, but I’m just recounting the story, not claiming that it tells us anything about Jesuits like one of my teachers was) accused of killing nine men and a dog who triumphantly produces the dog alive. You can’t find any denial of mine that there are experiments that confirm one aspect or another of relativistic gravity. Quote “Gravity is only weak in low mass regimes. In high mass regimes it overwhelms the other forces and becomes the strongest. What part of it overwhelming the electromagnetic force in neutron stars and the strong nuclear force in black holes didn’t you understand, Glen? -ds” First of all, I had not seen that post, which may not even have been up when I started to write. Secondly, gravity is the weakest force. That is how it is characterized in physics, while strong gravity fields are understood as cumulative. I was responding to your post, which indeed was terribly mistaken Magnetic forces also become very strong when they are able to be condensed down to small spaces, such as in magnetars. Nevertheless, the electromagnetic forces have never been condensed down as much as gravitational forces have been. It’s a shame that you try to cover up your egregious mistake by bringing up the cumulative effects of gravity. I had already alluded to the strength possible in high mass objects by mentioning how relativistic effects are typically studied astronomically, around neutron stars, massive galaxies, and the like. Glen D [URL=http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,07:14    More of DaveTard's inability to read: Quote Dave wrote: Gravitons aren’t a relativistic effect of gravity. That's why I wrote: "...I mentioned the graviton because I want quantum gravity effects to be demonstrated in the lab." -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,07:21    Makes you wonder if DaveTard is amazed that he can pick up a gallon of milk out of his fridge all by himself--against the gravitational field of the entire planet Earth.  With strength like that, he must have worked in a circus freak show. From the OED-American Edition: Quote regime = a system of government, administration DaveTard: Quote Gravity is only weak in low mass regimes. In high mass regimes it overwhelms the other forces... Is he saying that gravity follows a two party system: Lilliputians and Beer-guzzling, Braut-eating Couch Potato-Guys? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,07:22    Davetard should really do some research before creating his own physiscs.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_force Force                   Relative Strength Strong                 10^38 Electromagnetic     10^36 Weak                   10^25 Gravity                 1 Davetard logic       10^-150 (UPB!!! ) (altough it is the strongest farce) It's the strongest in MPH, NOT KPH, Homo - DT also please not the VERY sciencey gay marrige bashing thread on UD. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Seizure Salad Posts: 60 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,07:23    I fail to believe that DaveTard is actually that ignorant about the fundamental forces. Electromagnetic repulsion is approximately 10 to the power of 42 (that's a million billion billion billion billion) times stronger than gravity. If your left bicep represented the strength of gravity, then your right bicep would have to extend beyond the length of the known universe to represent the strength of the electromagnetic force. Experiments have also show that the nuclear strong force is approximately one hundred times as strong as the electromagnetic force, and about one hundred thousand times as strong as the nuclear weak force. "High mass regimes" be damned, DaveTard. The only reason the electromagnetic force does not completely overwhelm gravity in the world around us is that most things are composed of an equal amount of positive and negative electric charges whose forces cancel eachother out. We're lucky! Why do you think we can't find the gravitron? Finding the smallest bundle of the weakest force is quite the challenge.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,07:29    It seems our Randy Magruder seems to be fitting right in. Quote Glen wrote: “I didn’t write that you are YEC, I said that they were “YEC-inspired attacks.” See, none of your argumnents are new, but rather they come from YEC sources orginally, whether you know it or not.” So they are messing with my unconscious mind, is that it? I think I know what it is that inspires me. Please do not presume to know my motivations or inspirations. Thanks. “I’m waiting for any evidence that IDists/creationists do accept science across the board.” Science, as defined experimentally, is not under attack in any way, shape or form. There are two fundamental questions being asked of evolutionists: 1. can it happen and 2. did it happen. Much time is spent trying to create mechanisms to answer #1 in the affirmative, and if you get a single positive hit, you use it as proof of #2. But by definition, if it COULD NOT happen, then it DID NOT happen. Similarly, if you propose a mechanism whereby it COULD happen, but the odds against it happening randomly are sufficiently enormous, you still accept it, and say that we are ‘arguing from incredulity’ if we argue that the odds are so long that it’s virtually impossible. But at the same time, your arguments against design are often ‘arguing from incredulity’ as well. It just puts both sides in the same boat. One has ‘faith’ in something occurring naturally in spite of overwhelming odds against, and the other has ‘faith’ in a design pointing to a designer. Science has nothing to do with it at that point. Science goes as far as it can, and where it leaves off, faith takes over. You see faith being exercised all the time when someone like Dawkins refers to the first cell formation being a “happy chemical accident” or someone says: “we don’t know today, but science will tell us tomorrow”. That’s faith. Just because it’s not faith in a deity makes it no less a matter of faith. Randy Comment by rmagruder — June 20, 2006 @ 12:02 pm It's the "Darwinism is just another faith" argument.  Yep, he'll fit in quite nicely over at UD.

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,07:30    Quote (blipey @ June 20 2006,12:21) Makes you wonder if DaveTard is amazed that he can pick up a gallon of milk out of his fridge all by himself--against the gravitational field of the entire planet Earth.  With strength like that, he must have worked in a circus freak show. From the OED-American Edition:   Quote regime = a system of government, administration DaveTard: Quote Gravity is only weak in low mass regimes. In high mass regimes it overwhelms the other forces... Is he saying that gravity follows a two party system: Lilliputians and Beer-guzzling, Braut-eating Couch Potato-Guys? Perhaps gravity is stronger around the Vatican.  In the Establishment-clause US, people just float away... Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,07:48    Quote (GCT @ June 20 2006,12:29) It seems our Randy Magruder seems to be fitting right in. It's the "Darwinism is just another faith" argument.  Yep, he'll fit in quite nicely over at UD. Remember, however, that he is NOT a creationist! -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,07:59    Randy says.. Quote Actually, I’m opposed to teaching religion in public schools, so ID is out.... Preach it, Randy! -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Pages: (1000) < ... 127 128 129 130 131 [132] 133 134 135 136 137 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard