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... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 3

Pages: (501) < ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... >

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,13:05    Clive Hayden proposes that the laws of nature have changed since duh flud.  When astonished Nakashima asks for any evidence of that, Clive responds:   Quote It’s in Genesis. If you think Nature, in her present form, explains herself, you’re mistaken. She doesn’t now and she didn’t before the Fall. All we have are repetitions of nature, where is the evidence that we should believe this to have always been the case? Repetition? That’s not a real reason, not a reason perceived reasonably, for the repetitions in nature are not connected philosophically like the laws of logic are, they only repeat. Why they repeat, or why they must be as they are, we have no evidence for, and since we have no evidence for why whether or not they are necessities or not, we cannot reasonably say that they couldn’t have been otherwise. The narrative is the real story, the real explanation, the physical repetitions are, and can only be, descriptions. But descriptions are not explanations. And what point does a literalist worldview bring me to? If you claim that nature is immutable, you are begging the question, for that is your philosophical point of view, which is not empirically evidential. If this guy is someone's sock, congrats to the owner on infiltrating the inner sanctum of the ID movement and moderating the TARD.  If, on the other hand, he is real... O well, I can't imagine that Clive is for real.  It just boggles the mind. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,13:09    Clive should be introduced to the original Isaac newton. http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/intro.PS/newton's-rules.html -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,13:12    c'mon Oleg the woods are full of lunatics like clive,baby the amazing thing is that one of these sorts of willful tards has the keys to drive the tard bus the only difference between this bozo and the shaman with a bone in his nose, worshipping the corn goddess, is clive,baby only has sex with at the most one woman (and she probably hates it) -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,13:13    Quote (franky172 @ Oct. 01 2009,09:34) Rasputin keeps the ball rolling with KF, by explaining the difference between what is being simulated (evolutionary mechanisms) and what is taken as given (the laws of physics) in antennae design with GA's.  Of course, KF should understand this already, having penned well over 20,000 words on GA's in the past few weeks alone. Will KF understand the difference?  Magic 8-Ball says "Ask again later". Mine said "What are you high?  Of course not." -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,14:02    Quote (olegt @ Oct. 01 2009,13:05) Clive Hayden proposes that the laws of nature have changed since duh flud.  When astonished Nakashima asks for any evidence of that, Clive responds:       Quote It’s in Genesis. If you think Nature, in her present form, explains herself, you’re mistaken. She doesn’t now and she didn’t before the Fall. All we have are repetitions of nature, where is the evidence that we should believe this to have always been the case? Repetition? That’s not a real reason, not a reason perceived reasonably, for the repetitions in nature are not connected philosophically like the laws of logic are, they only repeat. Why they repeat, or why they must be as they are, we have no evidence for, and since we have no evidence for why whether or not they are necessities or not, we cannot reasonably say that they couldn’t have been otherwise. The narrative is the real story, the real explanation, the physical repetitions are, and can only be, descriptions. But descriptions are not explanations. And what point does a literalist worldview bring me to? If you claim that nature is immutable, you are begging the question, for that is your philosophical point of view, which is not empirically evidential. If this guy is someone's sock, congrats to the owner on infiltrating the inner sanctum of the ID movement and moderating the TARD.  If, on the other hand, he is real... O well, I can't imagine that Clive is for real.  It just boggles the mind. I wonder if Dr. Dr. D. can feel intellectually fullfilled with company like this. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,14:35    lololol who is the bigger moron, cornytard or clive,baby? i just made the mistake of going to corny's blog.  christ what an insufferably stupid little man.  i am in awe of the warriors who can stand to attempt to engage it in conversation.  i do wondery why bother.  much like scraping a squirrel off the pavement and attempting to feed it an oatmeal creme pie. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Raevmo Posts: 235 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,15:05    Alas, clivebaby is not a sock. I share Oleg's utter amazement, being from the sophisticated Ole Urup and all, but I believe Clive really is that stupid. I suspect he is one of Dr^n Dembski's student-fans from his retarded babble college that sucked up to him for so long that the good Dr^n had to give him a bone or people would start to talk about that weird boy hanging on to his pants all the time. -------------- After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM. --GilDodgen

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,15:10    I am interested in why D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-embski would tolerate YEC stupidity on UD when he knows good and goddam well that this is a fatal liability to his push for "ID=Science". of course some of y'all done long pointed out that THAT ship sailed many moons ago.  so mebbe he is just pretending of course that's all they ever have done is pretend to do science, or to care about science as a process. but letting corny tard and clive,baby and steve fuller use UD as their own glory hole is a bit much.  the postmoderns are storming the gate and Billy D is waiting for them in a garter belt and stirrups. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,15:14    Quote I am interested in why D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-embski would tolerate YEC stupidity on UD when he knows good and goddam well that this is a fatal liability to his push for "ID=Science". Dave made a pretense of trying to discourage discussion of religion at UD. Pretty much a floodgate that failed. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,15:26    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 01 2009,15:10) I am interested in why D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-embski would tolerate YEC stupidity on UD when he knows good and goddam well that this is a fatal liability to his push for "ID=Science". of course some of y'all done long pointed out that THAT ship sailed many moons ago.   Ship's name: Titanic -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Raevmo Posts: 235 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,15:30    My guess is that the Drrrrrrr  allowed this simply to get more traffic and more sales of his pathetic books. -------------- After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM. --GilDodgen

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,16:23    I think he's gone further than just allowing blantant YECers - I appear to have been the subject of a silent (gasp) unbanning. My Fortran weasel program a few weeks ago, never appeared, but since then I've posted three times. One of my posts was a poem on Dembski's blasphemy thread in which I asked who designed the designer etc., and finished with the word "tarred". I was rather disappointed when the expected routine ironic re-banning didn't result. Maybe I was serving a fixed term ban. Or, maybe some of your accounts may have been unbanninated too.

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,17:06    Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 01 2009,16:23) Or, maybe some of your accounts may have been unbanninated too. Fly my pretties, fly!

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,17:56    Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 01 2009,17:23) Maybe I was serving a fixed term ban. Or, maybe some of your accounts may have been unbanninated too. Alas, Diffaxial, who was unflaggingly polite and substantial over dozens of posts spanning five months, and who was in turn repeatedly called a liar, a coward, irrational, lacking in intellectual honesty and courage, etc. etc. etc. by commenters who continue to post, remains banned. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,18:17    Bugger! It's between fixed-term bans and lightweights then.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,19:04    Quote (Maya @ Oct. 01 2009,17:06) Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 01 2009,16:23) Or, maybe some of your accounts may have been unbanninated too. Fly my pretties, fly! Thanks Maya! So, will there soon be more Jack Inhoffe at UD? Will Denyse still be liking some Hugh Jass? Stay tuned loyal ID fans! -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,19:11    Bad news... From the newest UD thread, the Dr. Dembski BUY MY BOOK POST: Quote 2 HughJass 10/01/2009 7:08 pm Your comment is awaiting moderation. Hugh Jass posted: Congratulations Dr. Dembski! I am looking forward to picking up a couple of copies ASAP at the next Church Book Sale! Hugh Jass -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:44    Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 30 2009,06:36) Denyse rambles   Quote (= “God will just LOVE you if you blow yourself up in order to murder and maim others”? Yeah really. And if your parents think that is okay, please find a new set of parents. In all believable theistic traditions, only God chooses martyrs; it is NOT a matter for private judgment. Private judgement [sic] is too easily corrupted by local or personal issues.) In unbelievable theistic traditions on the other hand... How does Denyse know that God did not choose suicide bombers? Is that her private judgment? We could pray that D'O become a martyr. Wait I get it she is the suicide bomber of literary.

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:58    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 30 2009,23:27) the rest of that UD thread is stellar.  what a concentration of stupid.  you get that much stupid in one place you should set it on fire. You'd need nanothermite to burn that hot.

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,01:47    Quote (tsig @ Oct. 01 2009,23:44) Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 30 2009,06:36) Denyse rambles   Quote (= “God will just LOVE you if you blow yourself up in order to murder and maim others”? Yeah really. And if your parents think that is okay, please find a new set of parents. In all believable theistic traditions, only God chooses martyrs; it is NOT a matter for private judgment. Private judgement [sic] is too easily corrupted by local or personal issues.) In unbelievable theistic traditions on the other hand... How does Denyse know that God did not choose suicide bombers? Is that her private judgment? We could pray that D'O become a martyr. Wait I get it she is the suicide bomber of literary. Do believable theistic traditions allow you to kill other people if you don't plan on killing yourself, like in the Crusades? -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

Turncoat Posts: 129 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,02:23    The inaugural post of Bounded Science: No Free Lunch for Intelligent Design, "Never Look a Gift Weasel in the Mouth," needs an infusion of wit. Come on over. -------------- I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,06:58    Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 02 2009,02:23) The inaugural post of Bounded Science: No Free Lunch for Intelligent Design, "Never Look a Gift Weasel in the Mouth," needs an infusion of wit. Come on over. I'd like to try, but comments don't seem to be enabled. I'm pretty sure Weasel 1 is not the program Dawkins used because IIRC he says in the book that he wrote it in Apple BASIC and then re-wrote it in Pascal. I think that's been mentioned on UD once or twice too, but trust Dembski and company to miss and/or ignore that.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,08:18    clive,baby has "difficulties" this sombitch has a big bag of the killer Quote So it appears that humans didn’t evolve from apes after all, so the correlation of modern genetic similarity between us seems a non-issue.  It’s interesting to me to note that genetic similarity is used in evidence for evolution, showing how closely related organisms are, but so is genetic dissimilarity, showing that evolution accounts for why they have grown apart. After all, evolution is supposed to exist in the differences, otherwise something isn’t evolving unless it is moving away from something else. And if something isn’t going away from something else, then there is no evolution. But in order to know the proximity of something to another thing, you have to know the basis for comparison, but the basis of comparison is assumed to be a result of evolution too. The measuring stick and the thing being measured are both evolving, and are indeed both the continuing result of evolution, so there cannot be a steady baseline for comparison because the measurement has evolved along with the variation it is supposed to be measuring in a continual process. Unless the measuring stick is separate from the thing being measured, you can do no measuring, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis. That is one difficulty. This is my second difficulty. What is outside the circle of evolution that is used to compare evolution to? If all living things evolved, what are we using to determine that against? Something has to exist to be used as a basis for comparison that isn’t itself the thing being compared. Similarity and dissimilarity are both used to support evolution, which is, quite honestly, circular and a tautology in the respect that no new information is being given and all possibilities have been exhausted. It is like saying that it is either raining or not raining outside. Conceptually, by wanting too much, evolutionists will get nothing. If it explains everything, it explains nothing in particular. The knot comes loose when you try to pull it tight. Aside from having it’s own measurement problem, what’s left to falsify it, since all comparisons are used to be evidence for evolution?  It seems to me you have to pick one or the other, and choosing the similarity of forms as your baseline, is based on an idea that “at bottom” forms should be fundamentally similar and evolve to different, which is really just smuggled in teleology. There is no conceptual nor evidential reason why anything should be similar with the assumption of evolution.  If we say that things that are similar survive better, then there is no reason to evolve. And if we say that things that are different survive better, then we have removed the basis for why things should be similar, ourselves and our ” reciprocal altruism” included. Or if we go the third route and claim both as true, then nothing stands to falsify it. hahahahahah -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,09:13    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,08:18) clive,baby has "difficulties" this sombitch has a big bag of the killer     Quote So it appears that humans didn’t evolve from apes after all Clive baby (yes, we know you're lurking), we are apes.  We and the other apes share a common ancestor. At least we now know why you let morons like Joseph post so prolifically on UD -- if you banned him, you'd be at the bottom of the IQ totem pole there.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,09:15    If non sequitur were poetry, Clive would be Shakespeare. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,10:11    Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 02 2009,10:15) If non sequitur were poetry, Clive would be Shakespeare. yeah he is a fount of it.  and fond of it.  frowns upon it too. i'll laugh about this last post for weeks. Quote What is outside the circle of evolution that is used to compare evolution to? If all living things evolved, what are we using to determine that against? Something has to exist to be used as a basis for comparison that isn’t itself the thing being compared. what the fuck is that -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,10:15    Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 02 2009,02:23) The inaugural post of Bounded Science: No Free Lunch for Intelligent Design, "Never Look a Gift Weasel in the Mouth," needs an infusion of wit. Come on over. Nice. Do you, Wes and DvK correspond? -------------- "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

RDK Posts: 229 Joined: Aug. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,10:42    Quote Unless the measuring stick is separate from the thing being measured, you can do no measuring, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis. That is one difficulty. Clivebaby attempts a refutation of biological evolution with.....C.S. Lewis and the metric system!  Brilliant! Or this could just be another case of Clive being butthurt at the thought of reality being relative.  His entire argument is just a TARDy re-wording of the moral dilemma.  If there's no objective morals, then blah blah blah, you can fill in the rest. At least I think that's what he's doing, it's fucking hard to tell.  For example, this:   Quote What is outside the circle of evolution that is used to compare evolution to? If all living things evolved, what are we using to determine that against? Something has to exist to be used as a basis for comparison that isn’t itself the thing being compared. The fuck does this even mean?  That's like saying "What is outside the circle of [insert any biological term ever.....metabolism / photosynthesis / fetal devlopment / etc.]  that is used to compare [same term] to?" HOLY SHIT!  How can we determine gravity if there's nothing outside of gravity to compare it to!  Gravity is a tautology!  LHJDO:NIGONQ{NA{F! He's the Grand Poo-Bah of WTF posts. -------------- If you are not: Leviathan please Logout under Meta in the sidebar. ‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,10:49    poor dumb bastard also thinks the babble points outside of itself, or some similar happy horseshit.  i can't parse the reeeeeealy stupid from the soooooorta stupid over there.   i would really like to go catfishing with clive,baby  i bet that sombitch could talk them in the boat kinda like that bert and ernie skit "HOW CAN YOU USE BAIT WHEN THERE IS NOTHING OUTSIDE OF THE BAIT TO COMPARE THE BAIT TO!!?!?!?!?!?  HERE FISHY FISHY FISHY FISHY FISHY FISHY" -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

someotherguy Posts: 398 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,10:59    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,10:11) Quote What is outside the circle of evolution that is used to compare evolution to? If all living things evolved, what are we using to determine that against? Something has to exist to be used as a basis for comparison that isn’t itself the thing being compared. what the fuck is that I think that was Clive proving the existence of the multiverse. -------------- Evolander in training

Pages: (501) < ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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