RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (666) < ... 379 380 381 382 383 [384] 385 386 387 388 389 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,05:08   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2009,14:55)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2009,05:46)
Daniel
I know you are ignoring oldman's messages because you can't address his questions; I feel honored to be included in his company.

But those questions aren't going away, and neither am I.

I am not ignoring oldman because I can't answer his questions, I'm ignoring him because it is futile to do so.

Theoretical conversation:

Me: "the sky is blue."

oldman:  "Which sky Daniel?" There are lots of "skies" in the universe - which one are you talking about?  Do you think that our sky is the only one that's out there?  That's very self-centered of you Daniel!  BTW, how old is the earth..."

Me: "I meant the sky on earth oldman."

oldman: "Blue to who?  To humans?  What about the other trillions of species that have occupied this earth?  Are you so self-centered that you can only consider your own perspective?"

Me: "forget it".

oldman: "I knew your views could not stand up to scrutiny Daniel.  Thanks for admitting defeat.  I am the victor.  Daniel cannot answer my questions..."

When I've stopped laughing I'll get back to you on this Daniel.

I will say that I think a certain somebody has been reading my posts after all.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,07:32   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 08 2009,06:08)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2009,14:55)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2009,05:46)
Daniel
I know you are ignoring oldman's messages because you can't address his questions; I feel honored to be included in his company.

But those questions aren't going away, and neither am I.

I am not ignoring oldman because I can't answer his questions, I'm ignoring him because it is futile to do so.

Theoretical conversation:

Me: "the sky is blue."

When I've stopped laughing I'll get back to you on this Daniel.

I will say that I think a certain somebody has been reading my posts after all.

Daniel meant to say, "My theory predicts that the sky is blue."

--------------
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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,10:05   

More like:

 
Quote


DS: Scientists will never come up with a detailed explanation for the sky being blue.

AtBC: What? Rayleigh scattering explains why the sky is blue.

DS: You say "Rayleigh scattering", but nobody has explained how that could work.

AtBC: You could read the papers in the literature.

DS: The intelligent designer wanted the sky blue, and your inability to explain in detail why the sky is blue means I'm right.

AtBC: What? Photons interacting with molecules in the atmosphere are sometimes scattered, and the likelihood of that scattering inversely depends on the fourth power of the wavelength of the photon.

DS: It's ridiculous to think that a random process like that could give a uniform blue color to the sky.

AtBC: The scattering is based on standard, well-known physics.

DS: See? No one can explain it, therefore my conjecture of "intelligent scattering" is right.


[repeat ad nauseum]

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,10:41   

Yes, Wes has encapsulated it.

Dealing with creationists reminds me of my experiences of being a cashier. :p
Quote
Customer: “So I got my discount on this?”

Me: “Yep, see there on each item it says ‘Member 10%’, and it shows what you saved.”

Customer: “Wait…is it 10% off each item, or 10% off the total?”

Me: “10% off the total. Well, it works out the same either way.”

Customer: “I thought it was supposed to be 10% off each item. I should be getting a bigger discount on the total.”

Me: “No, you got your discount! 10% off each item adds up to the same amount as 10% off the total.”

Customer: “No, I got 10% off the first item. Then 10% off the second item, so that’s 20%. And 10% off the third item; that’s 30%!”

Me: *pause* “No, that’s…that’s not how percentages work… I can show you on a calculator; it works out the same. You are getting the right discount.”

Customer: “No, it’s all right. But I know I won’t be getting this card again. I was told I was going to be getting a 10% discount on each item, and this really isn’t fair.”

repeat ad managerstepinism

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,12:17   

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 08 2009,10:41)
Yes, Wes has encapsulated it.

Dealing with creationists reminds me of my experiences of being a cashier. :p
   
Quote
Customer: “So I got my discount on this?”

Me: “Yep, see there on each item it says ‘Member 10%’, and it shows what you saved.”

Customer: “Wait…is it 10% off each item, or 10% off the total?”

Me: “10% off the total. Well, it works out the same either way.”

Customer: “I thought it was supposed to be 10% off each item. I should be getting a bigger discount on the total.”

Me: “No, you got your discount! 10% off each item adds up to the same amount as 10% off the total.”

Customer: “No, I got 10% off the first item. Then 10% off the second item, so that’s 20%. And 10% off the third item; that’s 30%!”

Me: *pause* “No, that’s…that’s not how percentages work… I can show you on a calculator; it works out the same. You are getting the right discount.”

Customer: “No, it’s all right. But I know I won’t be getting this card again. I was told I was going to be getting a 10% discount on each item, and this really isn’t fair.”

repeat ad managerstepinism

[Adopts managerial stance]

By that reasoning, buy 10 items and pay nothing.

Buy 11 items, etc., etc.

[/Adopts managerial stance]

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
huwp



Posts: 172
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,12:32   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 07 2009,20:59)
Does it show that I a) watched the opening matches of the 6 Nations today and b) was disappointed by England's dull and dismal (yet winning) performance versus Italy?

Louis

First a belated congratulations on impending parenthood - your life will change HUGELY but it's just loads of fun!!!

The England - Italy game was pretty dreadful, the Ireland - France match a cracker and today's Scotland - Wales a decent game.  Next week should be fun.

BTW I liked your expression of evolutionary fitness as being the immediately least bad.

Kristine's percentages tale made me smile too!

Hwyl am y tro.

Huw

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,12:35   

That stirred a memory:

Quote
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-table.html

`And how many hours a day did you do lessons?' said Alice, in a hurry to change the subject.

`Ten hours the first day,' said the Mock Turtle: `nine the next, and so on.'

`What a curious plan!' exclaimed Alice.

`That's the reason they're called lessons,' the Gryphon remarked: `because they lessen from day to day.'

This was quite a new idea to Alice, and she thought it over a little before she made her next remark. `Then the eleventh day must have been a holiday?'

`Of course it was,' said the Mock Turtle.

`And how did you manage on the twelfth?' Alice went on eagerly.

`That's enough about lessons,' the Gryphon interrupted in a very decided tone: `tell her something about the games now.'


--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,12:48   

Quote (huwp @ Feb. 08 2009,12:32)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 07 2009,20:59)
Does it show that I a) watched the opening matches of the 6 Nations today and b) was disappointed by England's dull and dismal (yet winning) performance versus Italy?

Louis

First a belated congratulations on impending parenthood - your life will change HUGELY but it's just loads of fun!!!

The England - Italy game was pretty dreadful, the Ireland - France match a cracker and today's Scotland - Wales a decent game.  Next week should be fun.

BTW I liked your expression of evolutionary fitness as being the immediately least bad.

Kristine's percentages tale made me smile too!

Hwyl am y tro.

Huw

The French team lost it. It's not what it used to be. They've turned manky, just like the French soccer team. Go ahead and make commercials for yogurt and cookies, don't practice, loose...

Bring me back Dominici and Chabal!!!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,16:57   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Evolution and the Origin of Life: Real Problems

The origin of life is one of the biggest problems for evolution, because of it's committment to naturalism.  That is, that all processes in the universe are explainable using only natural laws.  Virtually all other sciences can be explained by natural laws, but there are very real and ignored problems with  how the first life began.

We have all heard of the "primordial soup" model of life.  That at a point in early earth history, the molten earth cooled, and oceans formed.  As rain fell, chemicals in a hypothetical pool organized into proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates.  These molecules then organized into  cellular structures and more complex proteins, DNA, and cell membranes.  

The following are proven chemistry facts that are not shared with the average science illiterate population.  

Observable Chemistry Fact #1

Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis.  It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming  the chains that build proteins.  Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction.

Observable Chemistry Fact #2

Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment.  Why?  Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life.

Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer  to sheild the compounds from  the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists.  ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere?  

ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM

Amino acids in living things

1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things.  We're talking mathematics working against it now.

2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers."   Living things have only the left handed amino acids.  When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life.

So intelligent life tried to set up a random mixture of supposed ingredients and could not do it.  It proved that some random amino acids could be produced.

My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.  And in the sense of logic and common sense it is illogical to propose that an effect caused itself.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,17:35   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Repeating the standard religious antievolution ensemble does tend to net some less than complimentary responses.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB025.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030_1.html

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,17:56   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 08 2009,16:57)
Evolution and the Origin of Life: Real Problems

The origin of life is one of the biggest problems for evolution, because of it's committment to naturalism.  That is, that all processes in the universe are explainable using only natural laws.  Virtually all other sciences can be explained by natural laws, but there are very real and ignored problems with  how the first life began.



I think you do yourself a disservice: you have in fact pointed out the underlying flaw in all the other sciences as well. After all, if we can't explain how the first chemicals began, there's no point in trying to understand chemistry, is there? And if we don't know where fizz comes from, there's no point in physics either.

It is indeed a credit to your mighty - nay, olympian - intellect that you have seen what the puny white-coat brigade have so clearly missed - or just avoided. Just think of the waste: all that paper, equipment, time and money squandered in pursuit of the uncompromising diktat of the tyrant Darwin, as inscribed on every textbook and paper infected by his insidious thoughts: "The Foundation of My Evil Theory of Evolution is Abiogenesis!" True, you have to get the basement light to reflect off the foil on your head at just the right angle to see it properly, but it's* there. And whether by reason of ignorance or (more likely) a simple lack of commitment** to the truth, the so-called scientists have missed it all along.

Quote
My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist . . .


I give up. Why are you? This is your first post on this board, so you can't be referring to anyone here, can you?

This place does harbour a few shocking bullies who really, really hurt people's feelings by throwing rough, sharp-edged facts and some dangerously sharp logic. If any of them have been mean to you, just let me know and I'll be very very cross at them.


* Please note correct use of apostrophe.
** Not sure of the corect speling. Is this OK?


--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,18:13   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 08 2009,16:57)
Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, . . .

He did? First time I've heard of that. I always thought he was just wondering if he could get some organic chemicals.

If anyone had any doubts, this is where RFJE is
coming from
 
Quote
Eighteen years ago, I went to a 2 day seminar put on by the Institute for Creation Research. At that seminar I saw PHD's, Masters degrees, and medical doctors explain the research they were doing to show there was plenty of evidence of a young earth, among many other things. They all knew all the reasonings of evolution because they had been taught it for years.

What struck everyone who heard their presentations there was the question, why is this research not put in the textbooks at school? Why do we have to go to a church or auditorium to hear it. Why not in a school or university? Answer: Anything that would show evidence of design or anything that undermines evolution is religious and cannot be taught in public schools, even if it valid research done by qualified scientists.


--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,18:22   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 08 2009,23:56)
Just think of the waste: all that paper, equipment, time and money squandered in pursuit of the uncompromising diktat of the tyrant Darwin, as inscribed on every textbook and paper infected by his insidious thoughts: "The Foundation of My Evil Theory of Evolution is Abiogenesis!" True, you have to get the basement light to reflect off the foil on your head at just the right angle to see it properly, but it's* there.

You're lucky that the EAC* doesn't really exist. Otherwise the black helicopters would be arriving at your house any minute now to punish you, your family, your dogs, cats, and neighbours, and their dogs and cats, for your betrayal of EAC secrets.**


* Evil abiogenesist conspiracy
** <whispers> RUN!!!!

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,18:27   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

He gradually gets more loopy as you get further into the discussion.

Quote
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY-- How did two sexual organisms of the same species evolve AT THE SAME TIME out of an asexual organism?

Natural selection would have rooted out only males or only females or evolving HALF males or evolving HALF females. Fully developed male and female organisms would have had to be alive at the same time, and in the same proximity in order to mate.


Wouldn't the mathematical probability of this event taking place been too high?


--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,19:12   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote
My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.


Part of it is that you're accusing a rather large number of experts of ignoring basic principles of science, over a period of several decades. Plus this is also accusing their employers or clients of not noticing the alleged lack of accuracy. That type of accusation is extremely unlikely to have any validity.

Another part of it is that you're claiming that the presence of unanswered questions somehow invalidates the answers that scientists do have, and that is invalid logic.

Still another part is that you're complaining that one experiment doesn't somehow confirm the entire theory all at once. Single experiments don't establish entire theories; acceptance or not of a thoery depends on patterns formed over all the relevant observations (including both experiments and observations of nature).

Henry

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,19:14   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

I saw this from Richard's link:

Quote
At first you might think so. After all, nothing is more natural than a reaction between acids and bases. Perhaps you’ve used soda (a base) to clean acid from a battery. The fizz is an acid-base reaction. So is using “Tums” to neutralize stomach acid. Nothing is more common than reactions between acids and bases. If you just wait long enough, acid-base reactions will get DNA and protein working together, and life will appear—right? Wrong! Just the opposite.

The problem is that the properties of bases and acids produce the wrong relationship for living systems. Acid-base reactions would “scramble up” DNA and protein units in all sorts of “deadly” combinations. These reactions would prevent, not promote, the use of DNA to code protein production. Since use of DNA to code protein production is the basis of all life on earth, these acid-base reactions would prevent, not promote, the evolution of life by chemical processes based on the inherent properties of matter.


Soo, acid-base reactions are the only chemical reactions? Let me guess, all the other ones were invented by evil materialists who didn't want this truth to be known?

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,19:28   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Omigod, so we do know where fizz comes from!

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,19:34   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 08 2009,18:27)
He gradually gets more loopy as you get further into the discussion.

 
Quote
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY-- How did two sexual organisms of the same species evolve AT THE SAME TIME out of an asexual organism?

Natural selection would have rooted out only males or only females or evolving HALF males or evolving HALF females. Fully developed male and female organisms would have had to be alive at the same time, and in the same proximity in order to mate.


Wouldn't the mathematical probability of this event taking place been too high?

Is there something wrong with inquiry?  I thought this was one of the principles of science.  Okay let me ask from purely common sense, since THE unanswered question of evolution, which CAN never be answered, is just and old argument the religious.  

Since you are already relegating me to a stereotype, I guess I will let you I was  just a young country boy with a brain sitting on a bank of a creek, fishing (Issac Newton was under an apple tree at one time), watching on the periphery, the trees that had fallen in 1968 and other years afterward from tornadoes in central Illinois.  

I observed each time and sat on some of these trees, while fishing as a teenager, the decay, the parasites, the insects, the mushrooms, and the fungus that was consuming this wood--oak hardwood at that.

These days and nights of fishing were firmly ingrained in my mind, as I toured one of the caverns in northeastern Arkansas.  As we toured, we came upon some burnt wood
on display.  The guide told us that this wood had been carbon 14ed at 800 AD.  The wood had no signs of decay, and it was not fossilized. I made sure by INQUIRY to the guide, to make sure I had heard him correctly and that the wood was not fossilized.

My point is that here was a man that BELIEVED that this un-fossilized wood was 1200 years old--wood that appeared as is it could have been burnt a year ago--wood that was in a damp cave, with sounds of water flowing in it.  

And little ol' me, the independent thinker, asking myself if this man had ever read in one of his textbooks that water and humidity destroys wood.  

Okay what's up with this?  This is just scratching the surface of what I could ask.

Knowledge puffs up (makes arrogant).  But God's love builds up.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,19:41   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote
My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.


Solipsism is not logic.

Define "astronomically high."

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,19:50   

In many ways I couldn't agree more.

Especially about the cult of personality part. Don't get me wrong, Charlie is my Darwin (as the joke goes), but people! 150 years have been and gone and the SCIENCE is the important bit. I know the sensible among us know this, but the hammering of Darwin can occasionally confuse the rubes (not that they weren't already pretty confused).

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,20:00   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 08 2009,19:41)
Quote
My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.


Solipsism is not logic.

Define "astronomically high."

Kristine, I'm not a  philosopher.  Doesn't solipsism say that there is no external world and that only what is in my own mind that is reality.  I guess your saying my question is an evaluation in my own mind that my thoughts were logical.

You can evaluate my statements and the conclusion that I make.  Evolution is claiming itself to be "fact." SO you all are putting the burden of proof on yourselves.  The champion is always challenged.

I gave chemistry facts that would hinder or prevent spontaneous generation--not theories.  I never get answers--just usually names, or diversions by one means or another.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,20:03   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

You might start with reading those textbooks you speak so highly of. You seem to cite many things, but understand none of it. Your 'points' are so bad they aren't even wrong. You knowledge of chemistry, for example, is severely limited, and in no state to be making pronouncements.

And you challenged some barely-paid tour guide working his summer job who likely had no idea what he was talking about and may have just been bullshitting anyway. Good for you. Great job. That defiantly proves all scientists are wrong.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,20:11   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 08 2009,21:00)
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 08 2009,19:41)
Quote
My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.


Solipsism is not logic.

Define "astronomically high."

Kristine, I'm not a  philosopher.  Doesn't solipsism say that there is no external world and that only what is in my own mind that is reality.  I guess your saying my question is an evaluation in my own mind that my thoughts were logical.

You can evaluate my statements and the conclusion that I make.  Evolution is claiming itself to be "fact." SO you all are putting the burden of proof on yourselves.  The champion is always challenged.

I gave chemistry facts that would hinder or prevent spontaneous generation--not theories.  I never get answers--just usually names, or diversions by one means or another.

I think she may have meant sophism, which is the rhetorical art of speaking out of ones posterior.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,20:23   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 07 2009,15:05)
Clifford Geertz (Princeton) seem prescient to me:      
Quote
What we are seeing is not joy another redrawing of the cultural map...but an alternation of the principles of mapping. Something is happening to the way we think about the way we think.

I've read and enjoyed Geertz, particularly his 1983 collection of essays Local Knowledge. He was post-modernist and social constructivist to the core, but an insightful observer and ethnographer. He died in 2006.

--------------
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

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,20:27   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 08 2009,20:00)
I gave chemistry facts that would hinder or prevent spontaneous generation--not theories.  I never get answers--just usually names, or diversions by one means or another.

Wes gave you links that answers your questions. Didn't you read them?

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,21:19   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

(opens pocketknife, fingers blade)

Don't worry, this won't hurt ... much.

Mayberry RFD wrote:
Quote
Since you are already relegating me to a stereotype,


Negative-o, Brainiac, you're doing a fine job of that all by yourself.

(wipes blade)

Now, that wasn't so bad, was it?

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,21:44   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Nerull @ Feb. 08 2009,20:03)
You might start with reading those textbooks you speak so highly of. You seem to cite many things, but understand none of it. Your 'points' are so bad they aren't even wrong. You knowledge of chemistry, for example, is severely limited, and in no state to be making pronouncements.

And you challenged some barely-paid tour guide working his summer job who likely had no idea what he was talking about and may have just been bullshitting anyway. Good for you. Great job. That defiantly proves all scientists are wrong.

I am not a chemist, nor a philosopher, nor a scientist.
Can I be a "science student?"  Can I be a well read layman?  Is this a crime?  Do I have to be one of the first three to be able to reason? Is that not elitism? Is not your knowledge in some fields limited?  

I am one the "general population," who is interested in science and being told that evolution is fact, and that God is a fairy tale.  That something came from nothing by its own means.  That an unguided everything became something.  That the great result caused itself.

I have a field in which I am very knowledgeable, but something tells me you would have no interest .  If my points are so bad, why don't you stop attacking my knowledge of the field of chemistry and show me WHY I'm wrong.  I am not unwilling to learn.  Show me!

My point was not the social status of the tour guide, nor that scientists are wrong, but his willingness to accept carbon 14 dating as undeniable truth.  Look, the dude was telling us all about the cave and sounded like the discovery channel, okay?  Whether he had letters behind his name or he had a memorized script I don't know, but what he was saying didn't come out of his head. He got the knowledge somewhere, and you would have agreed with probably everything he said.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,21:58   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 08 2009,22:44)
I am not a chemist, nor a philosopher, nor a scientist.
Can I be a "science student?"  Can I be a well read layman?  Is this a crime?

No, but that's not what you are doing.

You are declaring that all of it is wrong, when you do not understand any of it.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,22:30   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 08 2009,20:00)
   
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 08 2009,19:41)
   
Quote
My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.


Solipsism is not logic.

Define "astronomically high."

Kristine, I'm not a  philosopher.  Doesn't solipsism say that there is no external world and that only what is in my own mind that is reality.  I guess your saying my question is an evaluation in my own mind that my thoughts were logical.

You can evaluate my statements and the conclusion that I make.  Evolution is claiming itself to be "fact." SO you all are putting the burden of proof on yourselves.  The champion is always challenged.

I gave chemistry facts that would hinder or prevent spontaneous generation--not theories.  I never get answers--just usually names, or diversions by one means or another.

Solipsism is also a preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, thoughts, and desires. I'm saying that, perhaps without knowing it, you are acting as if everything is in your own mind. Instead of learning what science teaches, you react to what you think it teaches. You may not believe that everything is in your mind, but that is exactly how you're behaving. You sit and think, and then refute not science, but your own thoughts about what you think science is - which is also a straw man argument and projection. Did you read the links Wesley supplied?

What is "astronomically high"?

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,22:53   

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote
What is "astronomically high"?


Somewhere around 146 to 152 million kilometers? (Depending on time of year.)

Henry

  
  19967 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (666) < ... 379 380 381 382 383 [384] 385 386 387 388 389 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]